Jump to content

Josh Bloomer

Basic Member
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Josh Bloomer

  1. This is more of a historical question that a practical one, so I hope this is okay. I'm curious, though, about the evolution of the workflow that computer animated features use from the time each individual shot is rendered to final release in theaters. I'm somewhat familiar with the post-production process on live action features, but not so much on animated ones. I believe that Disney's earliest CAPS features, as well as Pixar's first films - which would have been the first completely "digital films" in history - were still filmed out shot-by-shot, and then spliced, color timed, and mastered on film - from which prints for theatrical release and initial home video transfers would have been struck. However, does anyone know what the first computer-animated film to be completely mastered digitally was? Meaning final color timing and conforming took place entirely in the digital realm before being output onto film. I read that Tarzan and Toy Story 2 were among the first films to be digitally projected in 1999 - so I'm assuming that they would have been the first animated features to use DI's (and by this I mean a fully realized digital master)? Unless an earlier CAPS or Pixar film beat them to it... To add to my confusion, though, I noticed that ALL of Pixar's features until as late as 2016 - from Toy Story to Finding Dory - each list a "negative cutter" in the credits. What's the need for a negative cutter if the film is digital from start to finish? And what major transition could have occurred between Finding Dory (2016) and Coco (2017) to have negated the need for a negative cutter on the latter? Info on this particular aspect of the production phase is pretty scarce regarding animated features, I've found - and I'm aware that I'm asking some very specific questions - so just hoping some of you who have a better understanding of the cinematographic process might be able to shed light on this. Thanks!
  2. I've noticed a few cases of trailers - all from the late '90s - that feature much different color grading than what's been seen in their eventual release. Two examples are "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Sleepy Hollow" - two films that have very distinct and stylized looks due to (I think) some kind of photochemical image processing, like ENR or CCE. However if you look at their trailers, they seem not to feature this special look at all, looking far more "natural" by comparison. What causes this mismatch? Would the ENR or CCE (or whatever specialized processing they were using) only have been applied to theatrical prints, and not the trailers? If that's the case, it just seems surprising that the trailers wouldn't try to replicate such a substantial and deliberate artistic quality of the film - why not just apply the same special processing techniques to the trailer prints as well? Or might this indicate some kind of revisionist color grading done in telecine for the subsequent home video transfers, in which case the trailer would represent more accurate colors regarding what was seen theatrically? (I've never seen the films mentioned above in 35mm - all I have as reference are their home video releases as well as the trailers that are the subject of this post) Here are some comparison frames from the films mentioned above: Sleepy Hollow - https://youtu.be/6RsKwn_Je1k Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - https://youtu.be/Y8MXn5No1Jc I also notice this is the case with The Matrix (1999), but this I know is already quite an infamous case for all its color tampering in home video releases... Trailer link: https://youtu.be/vKQi3bBA1y8
  3. I recently received a Bolex H16 Reflex along with a Vario Switar 100 POE lens and Cine-Velostigmat 2” f1.5 C-mount lens. It used to belong to my grandfather and until now has been boxed up and untouched for probably decades. The main mechanisms still run and appear to be working fine. I flipped out the prism on the camera and noticed a few small specks, but nothing I would have thought would be significant enough to produce the spots seen in the image. There are also some particles seen from the viewfinder, but what I see in the viewfinder I don’t see any signs of to that extent on the prism itself, and don't show up at the same locations they do on the processed film. So I went in thinking it wouldn’t have any affect on the final image itself. Viewfinder - Dust Particles I shot a roll of film to test the Bolex out, but noticed several dark spots on the image when it was processed, especially in shots using the Cine-Velostigmat lens. The spots became sharper and more prominent as the f was increased. I looked at the lens itself, but didn’t see any obvious signs that I thought would have produced anything this bad. Final Image from Cine-Velostigmat Lens Cine-Velostigmat Lens I also shot with the Switar lens. What’s interesting is that the image is much cleaner. I can detect very slight dark spots but they are much more out of focus compared to what I see from the other lens. I also noticed, though, that the Switar has all these spots on the back of it. However, since the image it produced wasn't nearly as affected, this makes me think this isn't the root of the issue. Final Image from Vario-Switar Lens Vario-Switar Lens This was my first time shooting any kind of film whatsoever, let alone operating the Bolex. Does anyone have any insight/educated guesses as to what might be causing these dark spots, or how I might be able to further troubleshoot? Aside from what I did, I don’t really know what else to look out for. I’d be happy to give out more details or take more pictures of the equipment. Any help would be appreciated - thanks in advance!
×
×
  • Create New...