panagiotis agapitou

End of discussion !! More sayings of both of you would be consider as a personal attack ... so end of discussion !!

I talked about his statment that the new stocks are not as good as the new ones ... And i said that as he finds alexa equal to film (which i totally disagree) then i do not pay much attention TO THIS STATEMENT !! I think i made myself pretty clear !!!

Deakins said that Alexa's is equal to film That's his personal taste/opinion which is complitelly different than mine !! On that base i do not pay much attention on a man that has a different view/taste than mine !! That's all !! I did not said anything abou his knowledge !!! Be carrefoul on reading posts

❤️ No pain .. no gain (and no grane) 😉

Deakins thinks alexa's footage is equal to film ... So i do not pay too much attention to his 'opinions

You are amazing !! Thanks for your writting time 🙂

That's exactly what i was thinking Dom about the custom made idea !! Thanks for making it clear to me !! So my first target is a big search for the ARRI N35 1.78 ground glass !! I'll hire a very experienced 35mm cinematographer for that (i'm director not D.o.P) .. but i like very much to have study my owns ... to know the technical details ... and you guys you've help me a lot !! Look i'm on a 3 years heavy study of Kubrick's breakdown cinematography via his technicians interviewes ... via daily continuity reports and via other material from his archieve ... and I've trained my eyes and my mind on this way I know that the difference between S35 and N35 is not huge ... but it's not enough for me I'll have the excact he hadon EWS 1. Zeiss super speeds mkiii T1.3 2. Zeiss Variable primes 3. Cook Varotal 20-100 T3.1 And also his famous Kinoptic 9.8 and the Ang 14.5 Of cource i'm not going to a blind copy-cat of the numbers ... i use them for breaking down the tech details of his shot to train my mind 😉 Thanks again Dom .. you were a great help !!!

May that be the ideal for me ?

I'll go by scanning and digital ... But i can not understand how will i make my own academy 1.78 groundglass .. can you explain please ?? Thanks

I was reffered only to his 35mm movies ..

Check this interview of Leon Vitalli : One of the areas of greatest debate in the DVD community is about aspect ratios. The two films that people talk about the most in terms of aspect ratio are Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, maybe because those are the ones that have been seen theatrical by the DVD buying audience. But people will go through kind of frame by frame and say "In the trailer of Eyes Wide Shut, you can see a sign on the street that you can't see on the full frame video. You can see an extra character…" So how do you address the differences between the theatrical releases of Eyes Wide Shut and of Full Metal Jacket in the DVD releases? The original video release of Full Metal Jacket was in the supervised hands and owned by Stanley. The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer. That's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. What he wanted the videos to reflect was how he shot the film through the camera, what was on the original neg and what his composition when he was shooting it was. That's why Full Metal Jacket is in full frame. If people looked, okay? What you get on the video that you didn't get in the theatrical because of the 185 masking, was what Stanley was invisioning. You assume these soldiers in the world that they're in. And he uses wide angle uses to shoot. I mean an 18 millimeter lens was the commonest one. He used 24 sometimes. Wide angle lenses. It was important to him the relationship between things. You can see in Full Metal Jacket how small the people were in relation to this huge landscape. The thing with Eyes Wide Shot, it was how he saw the thing through the camera and how he set it up. That's what he wanted to reflect in his videos. He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture on 1.85. Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested. If full frame was so important why didn't Kubrick release them theatrically that way? After Barry Lyndon, more and more theaters were showing films 1.85 or in Cinemascope even if it wasn't shot that way. He had no control. He couldn't go around every cinema and say "You show this film in 1.66" as you could with Clockwork Orange, because then the projectors had 1.66 mask. With multi-plexes things are different and so they only show a film in 1.85 or in 2.21, the Cinemascope. You know? You cannot put a mask in 1.66 as it should be for Clockwork Orange. You can't put a 1.77 in as it should be for Barry Lyndon and that's what Stanley understood with The Shining onwards. He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not. You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it. Stanley realized that masking for 1.85 would far outweigh having 1.66 projected at 1.85. We did a re-release of Clockwork in the U.K. and it's 1.66. It's composed for 1.66. It's shot in 1.66, and the whole shebang. Well, you know, they had to screen it in 1.85. I can't tell you how much it hurt that film. That must have been awful. It's horrible. It's horrible. It's heartbreaking. I mean, it's heartbreaking. You realize that when we got to The Shining, this was after the release of Barry Lyndon, this is how it was all being done. He realized that the best thing he could do is to at least do it so that he understood that beside the 1.85 frame line, they were going to have the composition that he would want you to see. From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85 lines. He composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it. So he did the reverse of what most directors do, who look at the 'TV Safe Area', Stanley looked at the '1.85 Safe Area'. Absolutely. Absolutely. (https://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html)

Personally i think that if Kubrick was alive he would compose for 1.78 .. to fit excactly the TVs and Laptops The home release is the important .. the one that most people will see .. The theatrical presentation is a so amazing experience that the crop or bar sacrifice is in fact very little But on a home release is the opposite

Kubrick shot on Standard 35mm Academy on many ratios ... The Killing 1.33 Paths of glory 1.33 Lolita 1.66 Dr strangelove 1.33/1.66 {VARIABLE) Clockwork orange 1.66 Barry Lyndon 1.66 The Shining 1.33 (with framelines to compose also for the 1.85 theatrical) Full metal Jacket 1.33 (with framelines to compose also for the 1.85 theatrical) Eyes Wide shut 1.33 (with framelines to compose also for the 1.85 theatrical) He used the same lenses for 1.33 or the 1.66 (and the 1.85 compromise)... but different framings so if i have the perspective he had i can frame on 1.78 .. it may sound silly .. but it works for me ...

I want my framing and compotition to be on 1.78 ... that's why i'm asking what equipment will i need tell me something more ... i have never experience with 35mm cameras ... when i see via the viewfinder .. the frame lines is just like the "safe margins" .. or they hard mate the frame so i see ONLY what is is inside the 1.78 area it's confusing for me to compose with lines and the outisde area be visible ..

Hello David .. thanks for answering !! 1.I want to use the Standard 35mm Academy becouse I'm studying Kubrick's focal lengths and i want to have it excactly like him .. 2. i think 1.78 on 3perf uses the super35 area 3. i prefer the 1.78 becouse is the standard for TVs .. Laptops .. cells etc .. there would be a theatrical presentation and i'll put black side bars on the 1.85 projection frame