Chris Fernando

So no 2D IMAX, huh? Seems kinda pointless to go through all that trouble and then only exhibit it in 3D. What gives? Any 2D IMAX (not Lie-Max, mind you) in LA, to speak of?

Shameless plug for my CP-16R package along with an Angenieux 9.5-57 for sale here: http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/pho/3378596205.html Willing to ship if necessary. E-mail me at cmfern@homtail.com to discuss. I'll send something cinematography.com's way if it sells, too :-)

Until you set your diopter it's anyone's guess as to what, if anything, is wrong. The diopter is in two parts, the eyepiece/ cup and the actual diopter adjustment and the adjustment dial has, I think, (not currently near the camera) about 6 or 8 click-stops to adjust. Do you have the owner's manual - I can check it when I get home, but I don't seem to remember it mentioning too much about the diopter other than how to adjust it.

Exactly! This was supposedly a full gate HD transfer on a (Moviestuff) Sniper DV8 HD. But I specifically asked for pillar-boxing; of course they had never heard the term pillar-boxing based on the silence over the phone when I asked why it wasn't done. They couldn't give me any camera/CCD info for their machine (this was the "colorist/tech" that couldn't tell me this either). They couldn't even answer whether this was a flat pass or not - scary stuff, but it seems, once again, you get what you pay for when it comes to transfers. By the way, they completely raked the negative as well - these guys give QC a whole new meaning! They've offered to refund the money for the transfer with very little resistance, so I'd prefer not to mention any names, but in keeping with their usual way of doing things they haven't followed through on that either.

So I recieved a Cineform HD S8 transfer I had done recently to quicktimes. The transfer house shall remain nameless, for the time being, as I'm hoping you all can help me with what I am looking at. First off despite asking for pillar-boxing they have somehow managed to do some sort of full frame transfer (leaving half a sprocket hole in frame?), the other (bigger) issue, however, is the color. This was a Fuji (Pro8) daylight load, metered with a calibrated hand-held meter. I've attached a transfer that Justin over at Frame Discreet did for me earlier this year with the same camera, (different stock though). I've never seen what negative film transferred on a machine set up for reversal looks like, but I don't know how to explain the odd colors. Anyone? I'd like to make sure this isn't operator error before I pass judgement, but the framing leaves me a bit leery and the colors; ohhh the colors...

Caps off, wide open with focus set (approximately), as well.

It's a shame that theatres don't do more to make sure print projection takes advantage of all the possibilities. To my eye, barring the scratches and dirt, there's something about the color depth and fidelity (maybe it's the "organic" black levels) that stil make film projection second to none. I caught up with 'Inception' at a Krikorian on a 2K projector and some of the jaggies around faces on close-ups (granted, I was looking for it) were a bit distracting. Which is another thing, I thought of that day: Why don't theatres tell you how a show is being projected anymore? I don't seem to remember "Digital Projection" being touted anywhere (or anymore, for that matter). What if you want a choice? There's something about watching a Wally Pfister show digitally that just doesn't seem right.

Sure it is...(channel radio advert pitchman voice here), on the new Samsung Galaxy S, with it's massive 4.3" widescreen display! Keep in mind; Lawrence of Arabia, conversely, will look like it was shot on 284.375mm, though :-(

He never seems to let composition, camera movement and, from what I've heard, proper exposure dictate story either.

If Dick Bush used the stock of his choosing how did it end up being "unusably dark"? Secondly, how in the world do you "notice(d) what (was) is going on after the first take" when shooting on film? Did 5247 sound different than 5294? This sounds alot like one of those conversations with someone who thinks anyone who has anything to do with the camera department is a "camera operator".

Thanks for the info, guys. I completely understand the "no-uprezz" school of thought. Forget Blu-Ray versus DVD deliverable for a second, what I am also hearing is that it is not as cut and dry as a SD vs HD decision when considering transfers. Which is what my original post was looking to uncover - ideally someone that has done a side-by-side comparison of Spectra's uncompressed SD out versus (say) Frame Discreet's HD/SI2K/Cineform output, who can offer what differences they noticed (all things other than transfer equipment and colorist being equal); but am I right in saying it is not as simple as saying, "Well it's in HD, its better."? Justin are all your HD scans done with the MovieStuff/SI2k combo? Is everything output as 2048x1556 and then dumbed down to 1920x1080 if that is what the customer wants? Hope my questions haven't led to complete handfuls of hair being pulled out - but this is all very fascinating and (obviously) quite new to me.

Thanks for the response Kent. This is a favor for a friend - shot 4 rolls of his wedding in Super 8 for him, so there isn't much room in the non-existent budget for comparison tests, but I understand the importance. Both places offer custom color and exposure correction. To put it bluntly I've narrowed the transfer down to Spectra's uncompressed (Rank) SD transfer and Justin Lovell and Frame Discreet's Frame-by-Frame HD/Cineform out. I know Justin is a regular contributor here - so perhaps he can jump in with tech specs on his frame-by-frame method and equipment (sorry to put you on the spot, Justin). From what I can get off their website, Spectra is outputing uncompressed; via Black Magic SDI, I would imagine? The need to finish on Blu-Ray might be the clincher, but I guess the question is based on Frame Discreet's equipment and whether their frame-by-frame HD out betters Spectra's Rank/V3 uncompressed SD out. What will give me the most information regardless of deliverable (Blu-Ray/DVD)? For discussion's sake is the HD route even necessary if I am ending up on DVD? I would imagine it would be beneficial if it gives me more info to start out with, right?

I'm trying to find a way to decide between going with a local transfer house that can do uncompressed 10 bit SD transfers via a Rank telecine for slightly less money than sending a drive and the footage out of the country to a transfer house that can output Cinefom HD files via a frame-by-frame machine. I'm not sure how much of a difference the transfer method would make, I'm thinking resolution (SD vs. HD) probably makes more of a difference than what the film is running through. I would eventually like to end up on Blu-Ray, but that seems like it would be a moot point if taking the uncompressed SD route - not sure but wouldn't that technically be uprezzing if you tried to end up on Blu-Ray from an uncompressed SD workflow; is that even possible? Editability is another concern as I'm running a Pentium PC that isn't exactly state-of-the-art, but I've been told the Cineform codec is pretty well-behaved. How does it compare to working with uncompressed SD files, though. As always your experience and generosity in sharing it are most appreciated.

Sent you an e-mail, as well, Bill.

The "William :P Friedkin Version" or the "Owen :angry: Roizman Version"?