Joe Taylor

Even though there are just a few 70mm theatres out there, the quality 35mm reductions from 70mm still surpasses mateial originated on 35mm. A film could be shot in 65mm, market as such, have premiers and road shows in 70mm, and all the megaplexes could benefit with by showing superior 35mm prints of their epic that was created from a pristine 70mm negatives. HighDef versions would be created from scanned 70mm sources, marketed as such and the studios would not be lying about the superior picture. I think it is an awesome idea-- and I still elect that "Blood Meridian" be given this treatment-- sans Ridley Scott. A picture like this needs a fresh vision. Coen would be a superb choice.

I'll do that. In addition to the 4x5.6s, I have some series 9s, 3x3s, 4 1/2 and 4x4s.

There are still theatres that own 70mm projectors. I just found out that Billy Joe's Pitcher Show in Des Moines, IA has a 70mm projector that they used regularly as late as the early 90's-- and it still works. IF weight is a big problem, all that really means is that filmmaker's today are just lazier from their counterparts of the 60's and 70's. I really don't think that is the reason.

Does anybody know where one could find some good detailed information about the 765? Such as how many have been made, what they are worth, movies that have been shot with them and so on? If you've had personal experience with this camera, I'd like to hear about that too. With the all the hype surrounding the IMAX footage shot in "Dark Knight," it would really great to see a revolution of sorts with more and more filmmakers shooting 70mm. It seems the excuse for not shooting feature length 70mm anymore is that nobody hs the projectors. That is not neccesarily true. They're still out there. A decade ago, Kenneth Branagh shot Hamlet and Ron Howard shot "Far and Away." I elect that "Blood Meridian" be the next 70mm epic. It can be done

Anybody have any experience with some of the lower cost ($200) range thermal printers? I usually have another company print up 50 or so blanks but now I see that are really inexpensive printers out there that will do the job. Any suggestions would be helpful.

Having three release prints made from the original 35mm negatives for my short film, "Dead Lonesome." By directly printing from the original 35mm negative, how much more resolution is there when compared to your typical feature print at the local mega-plex which often go through so many for generations from the negative? Is there a noticeable difference? Also, do some films ever have special, higher quality prints made for big premiers or road show events? If so, how would they differ from the mass print jobs?

Hello I'm in the process of selling off some of my Tiffen/B+W filters and wonder where the best place might be to do so. IF selling on Ebay, how might I get the best exposure in listing? Thanks

Has anybody seen "Made?" Credits say "Christopher Doyle." Same guy? Whoever shot that was well-oiled.

Thanks Stephan. I truly could not find that info. at RedUser. I knew if I asked that question that the responses I would get would, no matter what, be far from helpful. They never are. But those extremely hard-pressed go-getters-- too damned busy to be bothered with such nonsense, still had to go way out their ways to respond, not with friendly answers or advice, but insults. I would love to post the PM's that I got from two jerks who knew lashing out at me in public would be unacceptable-- not even at RedUser. That's why they instead insulted me with private messages. One prominant member actually accused me "trolling." So depressing and pathetic. If I wasn't spending $25,000 of my hard earned money with them I would probably laugh. I can assure you I will not be laughing later. If only there was another company out there who I knew would soon be offering a comparable camera, I'd drop RED like a bad habit. Again, thank you for being helpful.

***Posted this same Topic at Reduser.net and have already received some outright nasty PM's. I have a RED ONE reserved and am only looking options. How can these legitimate questions be construed as "trolling" is sort of troublesome. RED actually endorses that forum*** Can/Will 3rd Party CF Cards work as well as RED's brand of CF Card with the RED ONE? I have done a search and do understand that some will work, but since RED's cards are significantly more expensive I am wondering if RED's CF Cards are somehow different from say, Sandisk. How are RED's 8 GB CF Cards different from a 8 GB Kingston or Sandisk? As newer and higher capacity off-brand disks are released in the future, can we be assured that RED will update their cameras to be compatible? And ill the RED FLASH (CF) MODULE work with off brand CF Cards> With the newer 32GB CF Cards coming out, it seems like a so much more attractive filming solution to purchase these cards over the very expensive and heavier RED Raid and Flash drives.

IMO, "Saving Private Ryan" is aimed more at the NASCAR/Budweiser/flag-waving crowd, while "The Thin Red Line" is aimed at the literary/artistic/intellectual crowd. I used to work for a bunch of these types. Forklift driving gun loving hicks. The war movie the actually put at the top is "We were Soldiers." One guy proudly admitted that he teared up during the montage with the photographer bravely taking his great battle shots. That movie was so stupid that I gave my copy of the DVD to my dad.

Hey Tom! God luck with your project. I've been working on a similar film shot on 35mm for the past seven years. That beauty of it-- it's so addictive you can never get enough and the only you're hurting is your pocket book. I suffered Death Valley in 125 degree heat that made my camera hot to the touch and it cooked my film. Nearly froze in Animas Forks-- and it was worth it. I'm leaving for Yuma and then Mexico in a week and I expect to cook and can't wait.

There is a pretty decent making of vid that comes with the DVD of Baraka. Considering that Ron Fricke designed and even built his own 70mm for this film, I would not be surprised if he is not using that same camera to his follow up that is also being photographed in 70mm. Since he is using such specialized, industrial strength equipment, his equipment may not be a much different from his Baraka days back in the early 90's. I imagine this time, however, his crew will be outfitted with every electronic communication and GPS device available. Their hardware will be likely be much the same. I shot my film, "Dead Lonesome," with a 30 year old Arri IIC with a Norris Intervelometer that I bought back in 1998 and still use it to this day.

I get the gist of what anamorphic video for 16.9, but how does one go about transfering their 35mm or 16mm film for anamorphic full screen release? For instance the footage I shot for my film "Dead Lonesome" exposed full 4-perf with the intention to crop it 1.85 both video and film release. The footage thus far has been transfered for letter-box. To have that same 1.85 composition transfered as 1.85 anamorphic, how would that be done. On the same note, I'm shooting some time-lapse with a Canon 20D. When I download my images for sequence in Final Cut Pro, how could I convert those still shots for anamorphic playback?

The first batch of RED ONES had a big problem with overloading the sensor causing the highlights to go black. Don't know if that has been fixed. Several of the stills that David Mullen posted are a mixture of Nikon shots and actual frames form the RED. Several shots of the very bright "suns" are indicated as being taken with a digital Nikon, but I did not see anything about the RED. Have you had any problem with the RED cranking out "black hole suns?"

Not all of it. I'm just curious what David feels after the images are cropped. I am also interested in what you can achieve by shooting with anamorphic lenses on the RED and how the anamorphic would compare to the image after it's been cropped to 2.35. The stills that David has posted look amazing. I really hope the movie itself is as dream-like as the photography and set design. Especially the late afternoon shots with the sun blazing the clouds. It really looks like an alternate universe. This is really amazing work. Can't wait to see it.

Hello Been looking at the stills for "Manure." I understand that it is being filmed with the RED ONE. Much of David Mullen's past work has been 35mm anamorphic, and the stills show 2.35 compositions. Is David Mullen shooting with spherical lens (if so, what kinds)? I also assume that the film is being cropped. How does the images hold up to being cropped down from 16:9? If David Mullen reads this, can you tell us if you are using any filtration on the lens? If you are shooting with spherical lenses, I am also wondering if you tested filming with anamorphic lenses.

Just checked out the tech specs on Tree of Life at imdb.com Is this film really being shot in Super 35 as it states?

Haven't read all of the post but I'm sure it's been said again and again. The photography and set design simply looks amazing. It's obvious that shooting exteriors on set was a stylized decision. Every frame looks like a wonderful dream. Never seen anything quite like it. This could finally bring you your Oscar, David. Way to go.

There is one beautiful flare that seemed to reflect the euphoria of falling in love. It happens as Adam and Emily are running hand in hand down a hallway and big powerful light outside the window swings out of the sky and a blue orb leads them down the hall. Whoever's idea idea that one knew exactly what it is like to be finally in love. That is the sappiest thing I have ever and will ever say-- but what they did works.

I've used the 435, 35-3-- but my workhorse is my personal Arri 2c with a Norris motor. Problem with the 435 is that the intervelometer controller always exposes a dark frame if you make an adjustment on the fly. 35-3, most have a variable shutter which often forces the shooter to use a capping shutter, or light will spill around the shutter and fog your frame. Check out my links below to my film "Dead Lonesome." That film was shot 100% with an Arri 2c. Video compression make it choppy online. I've talked to Otto Nemenz several times about the 235 and it does use the same setup as the 435.

Excellent choice! The old version, not the new. The way I always see the ending of the Exorcist, is that off in the distance, you can see much of the city going about the normal existence, totally detached and oblivious to the supernatural hell that occurred in that old brownstone. That ending has stuck with me. The new version kind of sucks. Excellent.

There. See how helpful this Jack Barker was? He proves we American's are much more than a bunch of haughty, narrow-minded, self-centered xxxxxxx (removed by TT). As for the interval recorder, just go into your menu till you find "Interval" and change it from the default. I've found that some XL2's made before they removed the "grain" feature have a different setup menu from the newer models. Just takes a little searching through your menu. However, it is not a true time-lapse function since it records in burst frames, probably not the smooth single-frame look you desire. It will look more like surveillance video. If you have a digital SLR, you can get much better results.

The "Chief" escaping the Cuckoo's Nest Lecter following the Chilton through the Bahamas in Silence of the Lambs. Linda and her best friend walking the rails from "Days of Heaven."

Hello I have an XL2 that's in excellent shape that I am going to sell. Has the original 20X along with the optional 5x wide angle lens and extra battery. I also have a Cinebags Case that I might sell along with the package if the new RED doesn't fit. I'm asking $3700. IF you're interested, give me a shout.