Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Everything is Scope this summer (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Everything is Scope this summer
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 07-15-2007 10:50 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The anamorphic format forces the director to actually made decisions with the format rather than trying to make one size fit all.
Bobby pleeze! That is simply not true!! You need to look through a de-anamorph type Panavision viewfinder some time and you will see the TV and other safe area marks on the ground glass that also shows the scope markings [thumbsup] . Hence one should not look any "safer" than the other. They are after all the same aspect ratio when looking though the camera's view finder. Stupid 35 cameras ground glasses are marked for the 2.35 aspect ratio and you can see outside(above and below) those markings as well unless the ground glass has been customized. The Stupid 35 system might actually be of more benefit for the average jow blow camera operator to use since he is able to see more of whats going on outside his scribed scope shooting area while with anamorphic systems on the camera there is just a little bit of "extra ground glass available. They are in the end the same aspect ratio but completely different looking on screen from each other because of the originating format... not because one is safer than the other.

Still the best looking Stupid 35 film in my opinion is "True Lies" How they got it looking so good I have no idea....

Steve,
While anamorphic D-Cinema is a good idea to get more light through I also remember you complaining of the lack of sharpnes in many of the anamorphic lenses... That in fact in some installs the spherical lenses would end up doing better. While I too have seen this difference between several systems now I just thought I'd bring up a point you made about it some time ago. The main problem lies in the fact that the anamorphs are made in very small batches and that does not allow the normal quality control and reject rate that large production runs of lenses affords.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 07-15-2007 11:05 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Lyle Romer
As far as I can remember, Transformers is the only one of the "summer of scope" films to be shot in anamorphic.
"Brooklyn Rules" and "License To Wed," currently in release, were shot anamorphic. As was "Sunshine" which opens next week.

There will be a couple others (I think "Rush Hour 3"), but anamorphic origination is definitely in the minority these days.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 07-16-2007 01:25 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Bobby pleeze! That is simply not true!! You need to look through a de-anamorph type Panavision viewfinder some time and
Super35 is bullshit and you know it if you are not lying to yourself. Simple as that. Stop trying to be so much of a Dolby Digital Cinema pimp for video.
[Razz]

Super35 is the pussy-ass oh I want to play it safe and bullshit fuck all lets make everything spherically fit all formats no matter what grainy ass compromise occurs.

Anamorphic is the shit when it comes to 35mm widescreen. Period. All others are pretend bullshit. Want the best? Pick up a 65mm camera, shoot spherical in 65mm and stop being a bitch!
[Razz] [Razz] [Razz]

[ 07-16-2007, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 07-16-2007 06:46 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Now boys....

As to anamorphic DCinema lenses....yes I did note on the 1.3K projectors that the Anamorphics made you take a "hit" in the sharpness department....they tended to smear the image a bit. Note too, they were 1.5 and 1.9X anamorphics...not the 1.25X of the current batch.

I also noted that one isn't getting any more resolution but one is not zooming out the pixels (making them larger) to fill the screen, only streatching them one way. That the anamorphic lens for 2K is bringing more light to the table, not greater resolution...it isn't on the tape/HD.

As to Anamorphic 35mm...it brings with it some serious shortcomings...lens flare topping the list. Have you ever seen an anamorphically shot movie that didn't have some light somewhere cause a streak across the screen? What it may be artistic in some films, it is the mechanics of the process showing itself to the audience. Transformers had multiple flares going at once...to the point it was distracting to me even. Since even the EK prints were lacking in detail (I believe it was a 2K DI), the anamorphic shoot didn't seem to bring much to the table except what they felt it artistically added. An anamorphic negative has about twice the potential resolution 4K digital has to offer so unless Hollywood starts doing their DIs at 8K and above, you aren't going to get everything off of an anamorphic shoot.

The best way to do spherical widescreen remains 65mm...there is no dancing around it...and yes, that would put yet more demands on the intermediate phase...but so what...65/70 quality isn't exactly cutting edge...with 50-years of availability and use, you'd think that today's crop of people could deal with it properly rather than running away and saying "that is too good for me."

I always wondered how this industry settled for 1.85 flat...it was the worst cinema had to offer and it became the most prevelent...now I'm seeing the same thing for Digital...2K...something 1/2 as good as 1.85 flat being again settled for and even being proclaimed as good. People that think Digital is nice and sharp are missing that what they are seeing are sharp pixels but with a detailess image...the depth of the image is being thrown away and it looks very 2D. It gives the illusion of sharp but it throws away too much for me.

 |  IP: Logged
Dennis Benjamin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1445
From: Denton, MD
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 07-16-2007 08:11 AM      Profile for Dennis Benjamin   Author's Homepage   Email Dennis Benjamin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Stop trying to be so much of a Dolby Digital Cinema pimp for video.
I was wondering if anyone else was noticing this about Mark.

[Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 07-16-2007 08:49 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Super35 is bullshit and you know it if you are not lying to yourself.
Bobby,

You need to stay making your signs,... perhaps start a web site called Sign-Tech. I don't think that any of is here on Film-Tech are going to speculate to tell you how to make your signs. I think many here are getting sick and tired of your second guessing most of what you post. Now go find a Panavision viewfinder to look though... Its obvious you have NO clue [Eek!] [Big Grin] [Confused] . Also Digital Cinema is NOT video... just another WRONG point that you bring up!

I agree with Steve's post for the most part though.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 07-16-2007 09:07 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I think many here are getting sick and tired of your second guessing most of what you post.
You might feel that way, but do you really think you have the authority to speak for everyone else?

quote:
Also Digital Cinema is NOT video... just another WRONG point that you bring up!
It sure as hell is not film.

And using an electronic video camera is VIDEO!!! I don't give one damn whether the end result is recorded on tape or hard disc. It is video. NOT FILM.

And I think I am well justified in criticizing Super35 as being a real bullshit faux widescreen format. Most movies shot in Super35 merely look like a freaking 1.85:1 movie that has been severely cropped on the top and bottom. Simple as that.

It is very rare that any director or director of photography composed the image worth a damn when shooting in Super35. James Cameron and David Fincher are on a short list of directors who do a credible job with the format. Almost everyone else uses it like they're making a made for TV movie.

At least when it comes to anamorphic 35mm, it forces the filmmakers to compose for the frame. If you think I'm wrong about those points then you must be blind.

Also, Mark, if you're going to beat up on me for what I do in my day job, then I'll call you on it every time you want to pitch a Dolby Digital Cinema hardware sale.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 07-16-2007 09:55 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
And I think I am well justified in criticizing Super35 as being a real bullshit faux widescreen format. Most movies shot in Super35 merely look like a freaking 1.85:1 movie that has been severely cropped on the top and bottom. Simple as that.
How the director and DP frame the shots is not the fault of the format. They can frame the exact same way in Anamorphic if they want to. I've seen it done on anamorphic film shoots purposely! You'd be surprised to learn that most films shot regardless of the format are composed for safe tv areas. What you are seeing are inexperienced Directors and Directors Of Photography. While I don't agree that Super 35 IS a good overall format it has its advantages... some important for some shoots, and in the hands of skilled people can look dam good.

quote: Bobby Henderson
It sure as hell is not film.
Its sure as hell obvious that you don't understand anything about it.

quote:
And using an electronic video camera is VIDEO!!!
True, but Digital Cinematography cameras are not electronic VIDEO cameras! First its obvious that you don't know the definition of either format.

Digital Cimema Cameras are pure digital from the output of the CCD sensors all the way to the D.Cinema projector moving mirrors unless originated on film. There is no actual video signal involved any step of the way in Digital cinematography or projection. I suppose at your home you also call Digital television "video" when it is not.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Also, Mark, if you're going to beat up on me for what I do in my day job, then I'll call you on it every time you want to pitch a Dolby Digital Cinema hardware sale.
Actually you need to settle down and go back and read again. I made it a point here that NONE of the F-T members here have ever speculated about how you should do your job. But if you want to bash my pimping I will welcome it. Just keep in mind that you will find most of my statements to be true based on experience.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 07-16-2007 10:26 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
How the director and DP frame the shots is not the fault of the format. They can frame the exact same way in Anamorphic if they want to.
The vast majority don't do that. They frame everything like they're shooting a standard 1.85:1 movie and just make sure nothing critical is lost in the severe crop. Bland, safe composition.

I am right in saying very few directors who shoot in Super35 actually compose in a 2.35:1 frame. Although it's clear you have no respect for what I do for a living (and you can go fuck yourself frankly if you really feel that way) I am a degreed graphic designer and experienced videographer who knows more than a little about graphic image composition and photographic shot composition.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Its sure as hell obvious that you don't understand anything about it.
Instead of throwing out stupid insults, try proving your point. So far you're doing a very miserable job at it. I know what film is. I also know that true anamorphic 'scope movies typically look a lot better than Super35 movies. I don't have to have "ASC" after my name to be able to say that either.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
True, but Digital Cinematography cameras are not electronic VIDEO cameras! First its obvious that you don't know the definition of either format.
No matter how hard you wish for it to be, those cameras cannot be called "film" cameras because they don't use film.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Actually you need to settle down and go back and read again. I made it a point here that NONE of the F-T members here have ever speculated about how you should do your job.
You brought up what I do in my day job with the motive of discrediting my opinion and also insulting what I do for a living. The tone is pretty clear.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
But if you want to bash my pimping I will welcome it. Just keep in mind that you will find most of my statements to be true based on experience.
The sales pitches on Dolby Digital Cinema seemed to come out of nowhere. At one time you ridiculed digital cinema. Then all of a sudden out of nowhere you became a staunch advocate of digital cinema -for a specific product line from Dolby.

Frankly, when it comes to that, at least the credibility of my opinions are a little more clear. I don't have them biased by someone who is signing a pay check. I have nothing to lose or gain over what I say about film, video, digital cinema and all that other stuff. That also goes as well for other participants in this forum not directly employed by the movie industry or theater industry. Us outsiders have a little more latitude to speak freely.

 |  IP: Logged
Alan Gouger
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 501
From: Bradenton, FL, USA
Registered: Jul 2000

- posted 07-16-2007 10:41 AM      Profile for Alan Gouger   Author's Homepage   Email Alan Gouger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What is unique about these cameras whether you classify them as video is they shoot in film format. 2k or 4k 24fps where video is 60fps. Most of these cameras can shoot ether format. This one uses 35mm lens and mounts.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Red-Announces-High-End-HD-Camcorder-for-$17500.htm

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 07-16-2007 11:02 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Alan,

FWIW... Video is 30 fps and 60 fields per second interlaced. That was originally selected back in the B&W days because the persistance of the P-4 phosphor in use is such that you'd be seeing alot of flicker at 24 fps.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

- posted 07-16-2007 12:34 PM      Profile for James Westbrook   Email James Westbrook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
uhhh...guys? uhhh...
It is my understanding that "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" may be a flat ratio film...
I'll leave now...bye!
(slowly backs out of the room...) [uhoh]

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 07-16-2007 02:24 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The vast majority don't do that. They frame everything like they're shooting a standard 1.85:1 movie and just make sure nothing critical is lost in the severe crop. Bland, safe composition.

I am right in saying very few directors who shoot in Super35 actually compose in a 2.35:1 frame. Although it's clear you have no respect for what I do for a living (and you can go fuck yourself frankly if you really feel that way) I am a degreed graphic designer and experienced videographer who knows more than a little about graphic image composition and photographic shot composition.
Perhaps sopme other Film-Techers can fill me in on how that answer above relates to the Super 35 format itself being at fault???

quote: Bobby Henderson
Instead of throwing out stupid insults, try proving your point. So far you're doing a very miserable job at it. I know what film is. I also know that true anamorphic 'scope movies typically look a lot better than Super35 movies. I don't have to have "ASC" after my name to be able to say that either.
Where did I ever argue that point? Seems to me that if you read I said that anamorphic DOES look better.

quote: Bobby Henderson
No matter how hard you wish for it to be, those cameras cannot be called "film" cameras because they don't use film.
Pleeze point out where I ever refered to a Digital Cimematography Camera as a film camera? They don't even look like a film camera... except possibly for the follow focus attachment and or matte box.

quote: Bobby Henderson
You brought up what I do in my day job with the motive of discrediting my opinion and also insulting what I do for a living. The tone is pretty clear.
Please point out where I did that and was that tone a B flat or F major?

quote: Bobby Henderson
The sales pitches on Dolby Digital Cinema seemed to come out of nowhere. At one time you ridiculed digital cinema. Then all of a sudden out of nowhere you became a staunch advocate of digital cinema -for a specific product line from Dolby.
Absolutely! I came out of nowhere after I attended a seminar on the product at Dolby. Having seen and worked with most of the other servers out there I can state first hand that it is the best thing going in servers.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Instead of throwing out stupid insults, try proving your point. So far you're doing a very miserable job at it. I know what film is. I also know that true anamorphic 'scope movies typically look a lot better than Super35 movies. I don't have to have "ASC" after my name to be able to say that either.
Please point out the stupid insults. Thank You!

quote: Bobby Henderson
Frankly, when it comes to that, at least the credibility of my opinions are a little more clear. I don't have them biased by someone who is signing a pay check. I have nothing to lose or gain over what I say about film, video, digital cinema and all that other stuff. That also goes as well for other participants in this forum not directly employed by the movie industry or theater industry. Us outsiders have a little more latitude to speak freely.
Actually I am the ONE F-T working member that does speak freely... or hadn't you noticed that? All the other F-T members and many manufacturers have noticed it.

The biggest problem with outsiders comments is that they carry no weight. If you don't work in this field or film fields then what one posts has little to no meaning... they're just an opinion... not a statement by experience!

Thanks Bobby for this opportunity to reply. Now back to my PB&J [thumbsup] .

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

- posted 07-16-2007 04:10 PM      Profile for Mike Heenan   Email Mike Heenan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
[sleep]

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 07-16-2007 06:02 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Pleeze point out where I ever refered to a Digital Cimematography Camera as a film camera? They don't even look like a film camera... except possibly for the follow focus attachment and or matte box.
You're trying to insist those cameras are not "video cameras." I contend that they are. They capture imagery in a very similar manner as electronic cameras that record to tape. Their native imagery looks exactly the same too: like video. It doesn't matter whether the image is recorded to tape, an optical disc or a series of hard drives. Fundamentally it is video. What else is it going to be called?

quote:
The biggest problem with outsiders comments is that they carry no weight. If you don't work in this field or film fields then what one posts has little to no meaning... they're just an opinion... not a statement by experience!
That logic is also like a filmmaker saying no one has the right to say his movie sucks unless they make films too. Or like saying someone has to be a movie theater employee to justify having an opinion about whether the sound or image quality in the theater is any good.

Whether I currently work in the business or not is irrelevant (although I have worked in broadcast television previously). When someone knows what they're talking about regarding a certain topic the points they make are going to have meaning regardless of their background.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.