Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Everything is Scope this summer

This is topic Everything is Scope this summer in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005169

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-14-2007, 10:02 PM:

I don't know about anybody else but I can't remember there ever being so many scope movies out. There are complexes out there playing all scope. It's kind of ironic after the wall to wall screen craze with common width "optimized" for flat and all the D-cinema installs with lower resolution for scope than flat.

It's like the directors are thumbing their noses at all the people that complain about letterbox on their tv's. Now that widescreen TVs are so common it's like the directors are all saying "you think you won't have letterbox, we'll show you!"

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-14-2007, 11:28 PM:

It's great that The Simpsons Movie is scope after years of seeing the TV show in 1.33. [beer]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2007, 11:49 PM:

I think this is a good development. Scope is awesome.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-15-2007, 03:08 AM:

..for it's a good incentive to buy 66",1080i, 16:9 plasma TV sets in the future...since digital home TV, and home theatre systems (either DigTV, or DigProjection) are the way of the future now.

.AND with the increase of home systems will and have caused the public to enjoy movies more since they want to see the film in a different prospective than from seeing it at home so thus, it's a win-win situation for studios and TV manufacturers.....and say "goodbye" to FM analog broadcasting..

I look at it as the attempt to return to the grandeur of the motion picture..or should I dare to say "to bring back the MAGIC in the movies?" I know, we've kicked it, slapped it silly, dragged it around until almost dead, stepped on it, and still be in love it to death in the end: the love of 70mm presentations.

Yet with this incease in widescreen presentations, could a few prints be made for 70mm venues?

Besides, film loves shooting through full open SCOPE apertures - gets more light and definition on the screen.

You shoot through a restricted 1.85/1 FLAT aperture and your light output is a bit dimmer (unless, you refocus the bulb for flat presentations, but then, that can be a hassle to constantly refocus per each lens change..).

Also, cinematographers are finding out how easy it is to use Super35 and tell labs to make Scope movies from this format...

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 07-15-2007, 07:46 AM:

Indeed, Scope is very awesome.

[ 07-15-2007, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Jennifer Pan ]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-15-2007, 07:52 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
AND with the increase of home systems will and have caused the public to enjoy movies more since they want to see the film in a different prospective than from seeing it at home so thus, it's a win-win situation for studios and TV manufacturers.....and say "goodbye" to FM analog broadcasting..

There's a debate raging here about the analogue switch-off for radio, which was going to be inevitable once the analogue switch-off for TV was underway (the first region of Britain to have its UHF PAL service switched off, leaving DVB-T only, will be Cumbria in October). Apparently FM radio licences have been issued until 2019, but there is already an industry campaign underway to stop issuing any new ones. A lot of the country still doesn't have DAB broadcasting coverage, though. A bigger issue to my mind is that the majority of new cars are still being fitted with analogue radios only: given that around 70% of radio listening is done in cars, and given an average car lifespan of 10 years, that's going to cause a big problem if there is any serious proposal to switch off analogue broadcasting at any time before the late teens.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-15-2007, 10:04 AM:

I, for one, applaud the idea of releasing in scope. As Monte stated: It's brighter and sharper than flat even under the best of conditions for flat.

Common width screens are for people with no class.

Off topic:

FM? What's that? (Speaking as a former chief engineer of a 50,000 watt FM station) I've switched to XM: satellite. Others are CD & I-pod.

Unless Clear Channel & others get a new idea (localism & personality) FM is as over as AM. Louis

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-15-2007, 10:19 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Unless Clear Channel & others get a new idea (localism & personality) FM is as over as AM. Louis

One local FM station run by Cumulus Media (KZEL) had gradually scaled back their local talent and programmed a lot of canned syndicated shows. They stuck with this formula and their ratings went in the toilet. They let it deteriorate to the point where they were filling more airtime with PSAs than with actual commercials.

About 6 months ago they pulled the plug on all the syndicated shows (except on Sunday morning) and put their best remaining talent back on the air. They also changed their music programming from dinosaur rock to a mix of classic rock and newer contemporary music. Their new slogan is "Live and Local". I don't know how they're doing in the ratings but they've signed up a LOT of new advertisers.

This seems like the only way for FM to survive - Live and Local.

And scope is awesome. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-15-2007, 10:23 AM:

There was once a big push by the ASC to make the new HDTV standard scope aspect instead of the consortium's actual 16X9, I can remember the articles about them griping about how they'd loose some of the scope image or that it would end up still being letter boxed . Some say its the DP and Directors way to strike back at the HDTV consortium for not making HDTV aspect ratio what the artistic folks (DP's) wanted. The consortium's reasoning back then was that they couldn't make CRT's with scope aspect ratio and that transmission if a scope image would be difficult because of the higher data rates that would be needed were not possible to broadcast over air back then... I guess they didn't have the foresight to think plasma, LCD and that most transmissions were going to come over cable your homes. The standard went with 16X9 which translates closer to 1.85 than it does scope.

Wouldn't it be great if all films were actually in scope... I wonder how many of the summer releases were shot true anamophic and not Super 35...

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-15-2007, 10:46 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Common width screens are for people with no class.

I read that line and just had to laugh. Over half of our screens are that way. Don't blame me, though... I didn't design the place, and I complained about it when "they" did design it. I just run the movies.

I love Scope. Especially on a screen wide enough to fit the entire picture. At our theater, we only have one such screen unfortunately. And I second the "Horray!" for Simpsons being in Scope. I've been wondering why they haven't started doing the Simpsons TV show in 16x9 yet.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-15-2007, 06:44 PM:

I hate common width screens in movie theaters. They really do suck.

I also think its unfortunate that 2K digital projector systems have only one lens and utilize fewer native pixels for the 'scope format than the flat format (2048 X 852 versus 1998 X 1080).

It would also suck if everything was released in 'scope as well. There's a lot of comedies, dramas and other types of movies that really do work better in 1.66 and 1.85 formats.

If everything was released in 'scope then there would be nothing special about that format anymore either.

quote:
It's like the directors are thumbing their noses at all the people that complain about letterbox on their tv's. Now that widescreen TVs are so common it's like the directors are all saying "you think you won't have letterbox, we'll show you!"

Not so fast.

Most of those "scope" movies were really only shot in Super35. Not very many features are shot in true anamorphic 'scope. Consequently, the composition in many of those Super35 movies is just bland and safe looking -like the DP is trying to compose for both the theater and home at the same time.

When a movie is shot in anamorphic 35mm the DP and production designer both have to set everything for that format. The anamorphic format forces the director to actually made decisions with the format rather than trying to make one size fit all.

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Unless Clear Channel & others get a new idea (localism & personality) FM is as over as AM.

Right now radio just sucks in general. While XM and Sirius offer much greater variety and uncensored content, I hate the audio quality. I also hate the audio quality of "HD Digital Radio" as well. The marketing guys who adorned the 64kbs and 96kbs audio of that format "HD" need a slap across the face. Who do they think they're kidding?

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 07-15-2007, 06:55 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
(the first region of Britain to have its UHF PAL service switched off, leaving DVB-T only, will be Cumbria in October)

Just to clarify, It's the Border TV region, which also includes the Scottish Borders, which is where I live. The ironic thing is that we can't actually receive DAB signals.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-15-2007, 07:25 PM:

yea, got into a bit of a tissle with a small theatre owner's so-called "operations director" that decided that the new 6 screen that they built a bunch of years ago, have 3 houses with common width screens ( <all of 2.00/1> sizes and the other 3 screens are more closer to true scope), where one house runs a 2.00/1 FLAT aperture. I told him that he needs to get a smaller flat lens so the flat image doesn't look so cropped on that 9x18 ft screen with using a better 1.85/1 aperture.

(He just looked at me as if I didn't know what I was talking about ,...)

Then, they had the gall to build another small complex and have two screens with 1.85/1 - common width - screens..and Scope really takes a beating on these screens in as well as defeating the purpose of a widescreen presenation..then have Dolby Digital for sound.. [Eek!]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-15-2007, 08:43 PM:

Hey the stupidity of this industry shows now bound! Come on...CinemaScope...a format developed to try an improve the movie going experience to keep em in the theatres has been SO dumbed down.

Most are shot Super(Bad)-35 with less resolution than ever (unless you shoot normally on 16mm)...it is then crammed through 1/2-resolution 2K DI...what is left? It only makes sense to make the Scope picture smaller than flat to hide the low-quality Hollywood is putting into Scope features.

Yeah, I know there are some really highly awarded DPs and Directors out there that might take offense at my critques but I've seen the best in Super-35 and while SOME of it is decent...that isn't the rule, it is the exception. This whole Super-35 and 2K DI business is just dumming down the quality of the business.

BTW...there ARE anamorphic lenses for 2K projectors (Christie, Barco, NEC) so you are not forced to not use them. However, remember, with the current status of DCinema...there isn't more resolution in the digital file...it is a 2K file with a lot of black in there. All it really brings is more light for those with constant height masking than merely zooming the lens (the projector pixels also won't get larger, just wider). The anamorphic expansion is much less mild than with film at only 1.25X

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-15-2007, 10:05 PM:

As far as I can remember, Transformers is the only one of the "summer of scope" films to be shot in anamorphic. Of course then it went through digital intermediate which I assume was 2k.

Spiderman used some Vistavision for special effects shots according to IMDB.

If they want to shoot scope with spherical lenses they really should (as Bobby suggests a lot) shoot in 65mm with the frame cropped to 2.4:1. They would have a negative that would be usable for any display system that is introduced for probably the next 50 years. I wonder how good a 4k scan of that would look on a 4k d-cinema system. Probably pretty darn impressive (although not as impressive as a 70mm release print).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-15-2007, 10:50 PM:

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

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-15-2007, 11:05 PM:

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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-16-2007, 01:25 AM:

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]

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

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-16-2007, 06:46 AM:

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.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-16-2007, 08:11 AM:

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]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 08:49 AM:

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!]

. 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

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-16-2007, 09:07 AM:

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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 09:55 AM:

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

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-16-2007, 10:26 AM:

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.

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 07-16-2007, 10:41 AM:

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

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 11:02 AM:

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

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-16-2007, 12:34 PM:

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]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 02:24 PM:

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

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-16-2007, 04:10 PM:

[sleep]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-16-2007, 06:02 PM:

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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-16-2007, 06:48 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
You're trying to insist those cameras are not "video cameras." I contend that they are.

I think you should call Panavision and ask them what they call it. I am quite sure they will not call it a video camera. In fact for proof here's what they call it on their web site.

"Genesis® Super 35 Digital Cinematography Camera System"

Now where does that name refer to the word video? And show me on this page where the system is refered to as a video camera.... pleeze????
Also this camera does not use a Bayer type image sensor as all video cameras use... It uses a true RGB sensor! So it is very definately unlike a video camera right from the beginning at the image sensor.

So Bobby, We're also still waiting for you to answer the rest of the questions above... the ones that really matter.

Thanks,
Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-16-2007, 10:07 PM:

How about calling it an "Automatic Picture Saving Machine" like they would have in the 1800s?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-16-2007, 11:00 PM:

I'm going to give Bobby two things....it IS a video camera and anamorphic photography can not be composed with spherical lenses. The focal lengths in the vertical and horizontal planes are not the same with anamorphic and that will affect the forground/background look and do so differently than a spherical lens would. As a result the DP must use a single focal length and adjust his camera location to the subject differently. This has nothing to do with digital vs film.

I think Mark is trying to make a distinction between digital and video rather than film and DCinema. I look at digital as the evolution of video, not film. How digital captures the image vs traditional video systems is different but it is an evolution...one can see the steps that lead up to it from video. But seriously...you are arguing over semantics on this one.

And Mike with that sort of terminology...you'll start calling Projectionists "Moving Picture Machine Operators" or some such nonsense [Wink]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-16-2007, 11:45 PM:

If there isn't a strip of film running through the camera during production or the projector during exhibition, it shouldn't be called a fil.... ahh who gives shit. [Big Grin]

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 07-17-2007, 08:23 AM:

quote: Mike Heenan
Anyone see the last Sopranos episode? Pretty cool!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-17-2007, 09:56 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
The focal lengths in the vertical and horizontal planes are not the same with anamorphic and that will affect the forground/background look and do so differently than a spherical lens would.

And thats exactly why Stupid 35 exists Steve. There is a desire for different looks, sometimes for good reasons.. a third look is available if you count digital cinamatography. Also, todays high end anamorphs are much more capable than the ones from even the 80's. They have much better depth of field in both planes and almost non-existant lens flare because of better light baffling and todays superb coatings but they are still no where near the constant afforded by spherical optics.... spherical in all fairness suffers from the same degrees of flare as well. You just don't see the flare stretched into an oval.

I will give the fact that the every day CCD imager is a shift regester based analog outputing device however the imagers in the Genesis and other digital cinematography cameras are not exactly the same as the run of the mill stuff we are all thinking about. But... even run of the mill CCD's do not put out a video signal. They output a voltage representing the brightness falling on each pixel via a clock. The resulting waveform as scanned by the clock doesn't look anything like a video signal until it is processed many stages later down the line until aperature corrected and standard sync pulses and such are added to the stripped CCD signal. Digital Cinematography Cameras and a home digital camcorders for that matter run the output of the scanned CCD's though digital processing circuitry to create a standard recordable digital pulse train similar to what is done in Digital Audio recording.. So in simple terms Digital bits representing the scanned output of the CCD are recorded directly onto the tape, hard drive or other type of memory device.

quote: Steve Guttag
And Mike with that sort of terminology...you'll start calling Projectionists "Moving Picture Machine Operators" or some such nonsense

We used to refer to Local 110 as the "Moving Picture Machine Sleepers Union". Just about every booth had a cot, microwave, refregerator and many missed changovers. Hopefully that attitude has changed today...

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-17-2007, 10:18 AM:

Hey, I never disputed why a DP would want to not shoot in Scope...it has a look that normally shows the mechanics of the technology in addition to what was intended to go on the frame. However, Super-35 is a very poor way of getting away from those technicalities...65mm is a much better way. Sure the arguement will be made that with 65mm you need more light and much shorter lenses when doing close ups...yadda, yadda...yadda...but there is no getting around the fact that Super-35 looks so bad with very large gains and so forth. 65mm should be the predominate spherical wide-screen origination process. Super-35 should be the exception for some shots. Kinda like matte paintings...only used long enough to convey the image but not long enough to see that you are being fooled.

On a related issue...I just recently saw Scarface (1980) and noted that it has a mix of spherical and anamorphic photography...the spherical stuff looked REALLY bad...very lacking in detail.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-17-2007, 11:02 AM:

No arguemant on any of that except...

quote: Steve Guttag
65mm is a much better way

Just because its 65mm does not mean that there are less limitations. I know in fact that most 1st assistants will tell you there are alot more limitations shooting 65mm. For instance, take the 65mm format equivelent lens to say an 18mm for Super 35 format The 65mm format lens has much less depth of field that the 18mm does because its a longer focal length lens.... and this is at any aperature setting. So the depth of field thing can come into play for 65mm just as it does for anamorphic scope... although certainly not to the same degree. Also take a lens that would equal that 18mm Stupid 35 lens for the large 65mm format and it will tend to exhibit more distortion... barrel and pincushion than the 18mm will.

Put 65mm or any of the other shooting formats for that matter in the hands of an inexperienced director, DP, and lab and you'll end up back at about a fair quality anamorphic scope image at best.

Again, You can't blame any individual format for looking bad when its in the hands of the inexperienced. Now even I remember you saying how exceptionally good the 70mm prints of True Lies looked at the Uptown.... In the right hands the Stupid format can still be dam good.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-17-2007, 12:53 PM:

I think you will find that I commented on True Lies' sound as being one of the hottest/best sounding SR magnetic tracks I've ever heard...and that remains true...it could be very loud without any pain. As to it looking very good...it was not exceptional as 70mm goes. Cameron and crew do get as much out of Super-35 as anyone does. Titanic had it moments...both good and bad. 65mm would have just looked that much better. I wonder how many tests Cameron and crew have done with 65mm to see what they can get out of the format...and then look at the results on a decent sized screen...Super-35 will have a hard time competing with that.

If FA Young could do it with 65mm (or scope)...why can't these guys?

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-17-2007, 09:50 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I will give the fact that the every day CCD imager is a shift regester based analog outputing device however the imagers in the Genesis and other digital cinematography cameras are not exactly the same as the run of the mill stuff we are all thinking about. But... even run of the mill CCD's do not put out a video signal.

The native image from those cameras still looks like video. It doesn't look like a film image at all until it has undergone a lot of processing in post production.

This even goes for that new Panavision Genesis camera or Arri's D20. Their unaltered imagery from the sensors looks like video.

I watched Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto which was shot with that Panavision Genesis camera and there were plenty of points in that movie that looked video-ish despite efforts in post production to mask the look. There was even some serious image smear happening in some of the action scenes (like when the melanistic Jaguar was chasing "Jaguar Paw" through the jungle).

Sin City was one of the more successful attempts at making video look like film. But if you look at the green screen version of the movie on the 2nd disc of the SE DVD you'll see that the original footage looks every bit as much like video as you see on the 6 o'clock news or some afternoon soap opera.

With that said, I'm going to keep calling it video. It makes little difference to me whether the video was sourced in analog via tubes or digital through a CCD, CMOS or other type of chip. The native footage still has the same appearance.

Honestly, many of these movie-makers using "digital cinematography equipment" are kind of screwing themselves by trying to make that video image look like film. I still believe that Michael Mann's Collateral would have probably been more visually interesting if he had the stones to leave the video looking like video.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-17-2007, 11:54 PM:

Y'know, if a movie is any good, I find myself forgetting (and not caring) whether it's in scope or flat, b&w or color, video or film, or whatever. This is partly because, as a non-technical person, I don't understand all of the differences you guys are discussing; but mostly because it makes no difference to the average viewer. As long as it's in focus and in frame, if you can get lost in the story and leave your world behind, the movie or "file" or whatever you want to call it, has served its purpose.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-18-2007, 05:07 AM:

Only film that really was a letdown was the disasterous "Waterworld" ("Road Warrior on the Ocean") when we had scope trailers figuring that the feature is in Scope since they did look good on the widescreen..

BUT, film comes in and the dang movie was in flat.

You'd think such a movie as that would take advantage of the widescreen format...so who goofed up on that one..?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-18-2007, 11:19 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
This even goes for that new Panavision Genesis camera or Arri's D20. Their unaltered imagery from the sensors looks like video.

quote: Bobby Henderson
It doesn't look like a film image at all until it has undergone a lot of processing in post production.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The native footage still has the same appearance.

So Bobby,

I never realized that you worked in post production. Exactly how much NATIVE footage have you seen from the Panavision and Arri Digital cameras? Its highly unlikely that you've ever even seen native footage printed from a 35mm film production? Unless you're privy to dailies on these shoots then in reality you've seen none! Ok... insert foot in mouth and begin to chew [Big Grin]

. We'll let you know when to remove whats left of the foot.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-18-2007, 12:47 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Y'know, if a movie is any good, I find myself forgetting (and not caring) whether it's in scope or flat, b&w or color, video or film, or whatever. This is partly because, as a non-technical person, I don't understand all of the differences you guys are discussing; but mostly because it makes no difference to the average viewer.

It must make enough of a difference for just about any video-sourced movie to be put through digital post processing or even a crude film transfer step to try to mimic the film look.

Many people associate the appearance of video with TV programs most often shot on video, such as talk shows, the evening news, soap operas, etc. The appearance of film is very different. People associate it with movies. It carries a certain level of prestige.

The problem is that it is very rare that attempts to make video look like film succeed very well at all. More often than not, the attempts actually harm the image quality. You get a lot of "crush" in the shadow and highlight areas. And overall the image just ends up looking dingy. I think movies like Collateral and Apocalypto would have looked a lot better without the film look processing tricks that just killed a lot of the dynamic range in the color signal. But they're not going to do that because too many people, particularly those watching it in D-cinema or on DVD will just think it looks too much like TV.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I never realized that you worked in post production. Exactly how much NATIVE footage have you seen from the Panavision and Arri Digital cameras?

Mark, stick your comment up your butt. Watch Apocalypto carefully. There's a lot of points in there that very much look like they were video sourced. Same goes for the stuff from Michael Mann's last 2 movies. You can try as hard as you like to discredit me for commenting on what IS PLAINLY VISIBLE TO ANYONE WATCHING THOSE MOVIES. You're blind as a bat (or just lying your ass off) if you claim you don't see the problems either.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 07-18-2007, 12:58 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
but mostly because it makes no difference to the average viewer. As long as it's in focus and in frame, if you can get lost in the story and leave your world behind, the movie or "file" or whatever you want to call it, has served its purpose.

Exactly. Joe six pack has thought it is all video for years now. "you use a vcr in there right?"

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-18-2007, 01:15 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Mark, stick your comment up your butt. Watch Apocalypto carefully. There's a lot of points in there that very much look like they were video sourced. Same goes for the stuff from Michael Mann's last 2 movies. You can try as hard as you like to discredit me for commenting on what IS PLAINLY VISIBLE TO ANYONE WATCHING THOSE MOVIES. You're blind as a bat (or just lying your ass off) if you claim you don't see the problems either.

Bobby, You need to stop assuming things, thats the problem with 85% of your postings... its all speculation. In fact you'd get he F-T Award for amount of pure speculation per content. First off you need to see native Digital Cinema footage or dailies... as well as film dailies and then you might post something that some of us will believe. I have no interest in seeing Apocolypto myself but did you consider that some of it actually might have come from from HD video. The two are very different! That is very possible!! Also many times digital to film transfers greatly affect the image quality of the resulting film release sometimes it literally sucks. Take a look at any Pixar and compare the digtal and film print and the digital blows the film print away. So when you take all the other factors into play AND after you've see a variety of both native digital stuff and film then you'll have to swallow your foot as well. Its already badly damaged!

quote: Brad Allen
Exactly. Joe six pack has thought it is all video for years now. "you use a vcr in there right?"

You're right Brad!! can't count how many people have thought that only to be lown away by a trip up to the booth. They are totally blown away by the time by that huge "camera" up there.

Mark

[ 07-18-2007, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-18-2007, 03:14 PM:

One thing we can count on with discussions like these is that Mark G. can be counted on for an emotional input and Steve G. will give pretty much spot on information.

One thing though, when visitors come to the booth, they enjoy seeing the film projectors running while the the Barco DP 100 gets a glance at most and a big So What!

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 07-18-2007, 03:33 PM:

Not everything is scope these days... I went to see Shrek the Third a couple of days ago, and that was a flat format print.

Also, even if a movie is in scope, most (if not all) of the ads and trailers beforehand are in the flat format - requiring a lens and masking changeover just before the movie starts. I'm not sure if this is the case elsewhere, but in the UK it is.

This can introduce problems, however. Most projectionists will just press the start button, check if the first advert (or trailer) is in frame and focus and adjust if necessary. Then they just leave it for the rest of the movie.
All sorts of things can go wrong though - the lens, masking and aperture gate may not change over properly, the image may require refocusing etc.

Regarding anamorphic lenses on digital projectors; I think this is unnecessary. Simply align the projector to the screen in flat ratio. When you have a 'scope' aspect ratio digital showing, change the masking for scope and feed a letterboxed image to the projector. No lens changeovers required.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-18-2007, 03:51 PM:

In the US scope versions of advertisements and movie previews are commonly available. Running the pre-show in flat and the feature in scope is a very rare thing, though some do it, either out of necessity (they are sub-run or running very old films and any trailers they might run are long out of circulation) or because they think its good showmanship (which hey, probably is).

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-18-2007, 04:34 PM:

I never saw a scope preview until 1981. They were always flat (1.85), regardless of origination (and the previews for scope films weren't letterbxed within the flat image, either). When Bakersfield's first plattered 6-plex opened in 1974, previews were only shown before flat features. Scope films went without any previews at all. Only when that AMC switched from true scope to cropped scope (around 2.0) Only in 1976 did they start performing a lens change between the flat previews and scope feature. When the UA opened in 1979, they also only ran previews only before flat films (you rarely saw more than two previews back in those days anyway. As a matter of fact, I saw many features of both ratios with no previews shown).

Interestingly, scope previews must have existed at some point, because there are plenty of DVDs containing them for older movies.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-18-2007, 05:48 PM:

quote: Dustin Mitchell
In the US scope versions of advertisements and movie previews are commonly available. Running the pre-show in flat and the feature in scope is a very rare thing, though some do it, either out of necessity

When I first got in the biz, all trailers were flat, so there was always a lens change after the trailers if the feature was scope.

The first time I ran an entire program in scope was Titanic (early 1998). Up till then and for several years after, we might run the first one or two trailers in one format and switch to the other for the rest of the trailers and the feature, depending on what trailers we had on hand. I always hated to switch from scope trailers to a flat feature, but sometimes you do what you gotta do.

Nowadays, lens changes mid-show are pretty rare, but I'll still do it if we have a movie that we REALLY need to promote but only have the trailer in one format.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-18-2007, 06:51 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
One thing we can count on with discussions like these is that Mark G. can be counted on for an emotional input

Sorry Bill,

I'm a very laid back person... those that know me know that very well, I rarely get emotional, ok, perhaps once or twice a year.

quote: Bobby Henderson
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.

Have you ever read a post from me containing stuff as is in the above quote? I just don't do that but there's no doubt that person is getting emotional, perhaps out of control! Sad that people resort to stuff like that any place in life. What I really dislike are false comments by people that haven't been there and done that. What you see on the screen in one theater is going to be different at the next theater... perhaps better... perhaps worse. My statements posted here are 95% from experience and 5% speculation or guess work.

If my experience and findings don't jive with Mr. Guttags findings all the time then thats life but thats also what makes this buisness interesting. Besides I love sparring with him... its alot of fun even though I loose most of the time!! We work in two completely different parts of the country under completely different conditions so different findings,opinions and experiences are very definately going to be the case much of the time. As for Bobby... well he has no experience in any of the film/digital fields he claims to be an expert in. But thats not my fault... thats his own.

RE: Scope Previews..... Yes they used to make them back in the 80's when I started in this biz but they were hard to come by especially for 2nd run houses. There were even scope trailers of some of the flat films but not all of them. They had to be spoken for well in advance in many cases. Today thankfully they are common. Even National Screen Service usually had scope previews of scope films if you ordered in advance.

Mark

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-18-2007, 07:11 PM:

One thing to add about flat and scope trailers from the 1980's was almost all the flat trailers had mono soundtracks and 99% of the scope trailers had stereo soundtracks.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-18-2007, 09:15 PM:

I once had a scope trailer for a Dudley Moore film from the early 80s that had the worst cropping I've ever seen... it's strange they didn't do the windowbox thing to preserve the aspect ratio. I recently found a Rocky 2 scope trailer that was windowboxed, and apparently it was attached to Moonraker.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-19-2007, 04:04 AM:

I did see a full track mag (no optical track) 35mm SCOPE trailer of the 1954's FOX CinemaScope film "How to marry a Millionaire" rolled up in a SLC theatre booth's storage room many moons ago..in IB Technicolor. Wish I could have snitched it now, but never even though of it then ....

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 07-19-2007, 05:19 AM:

quote: David Stambaugh
It's great that The Simpsons Movie is scope after years of seeing the TV show in 1.33.

The Simpsons Movie would be fantastic in 35mm & in the 1.37 ratio. Imagine the picture so bright and sharp [Cool]

. Forget scope. Quality over size any day.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 07-19-2007, 06:11 AM:

Jeebus, why does everyone have to argue on here? Film-Tech has already banned religion and politics, is any sort of opinion next?

I am personally offended by Mark G's apparent assumption that because Bobby H doesn't work in a theater or on an active film set that he has no idea what he's talking about. I have always found Mark G. and Bobby H. to be knowledgable and respectful. I wish you both would talk this off-line and settle this, for the sake of everyone else on this site.

We don't always have to agree, but a little bit of respect for one another is appreciated.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-19-2007, 06:33 AM:

John. I love films shot well in 1.33 too. Its a great frame for composition, and the extra resolution on a smaller screen.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The native image from those cameras still looks like video. It doesn't look like a film image at all until it has undergone a lot of processing in post production.

Unfortunatly a one light digital transfer of film can look pretty video as well! Grading of film is the most expensive but fun bit of the whole film post production chain, but it is fair to say that for decades now, The colorist and film grading have been a big part of the film look. Before and during the 80's it was common to pick different brands and types of film for a look, ie fuji for its greens, kodak for its warm skin tones, for different scenes in the same movie.

Bobby I agree with you on the examples of crappy digital productions, I too can spot the difference, but its been getting harder and taking longer for me to pick! Personally Zodiac is the first digital film that I actually love the look and didn't realise nor care it was digital.

quote: Anslem Rayburn
Jeebus, why does everyone have to argue on here?

um it is so we can all learn. we do all have different and valid points of view and by uniting in one place people can see and make there own minds up! agreeing and being yes men does no one any good!

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 07-19-2007, 07:55 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
John. I love films shot well in 1.33 too. Its a great frame for composition, and the extra resolution on a smaller screen.

Just today I did a test screen for the Melbourne International Film Festival of reel 1 of the 1925 silent version of "The Phantom of the Opera". In this restoration they have re-printed it so it can be shown in 1.37 as you would a sound film as opposed to full gate..

Our screening room has carbon arc lamphouses and the film just came up a real treat. It was something really special. Visually enthralling and several scenes to my eyes had deep focus (when do you see that in films today?). This 82 year old film looked better than most scope films of today [Cool]

.

The film will screen at The Regent Theatre here in Melbourne as part of this years MIFF with David Johnson accompanying on a Wurlitzer 36 rank organ.

Recently films such as "The Illusionist", "Pan's Labyrinth", "Amazing Grace" and "Children of Men", show that one could make a film look dazzling (for the type of story the film tells) in the 1.85 format without having to resort to shooting in scope or super-35 2.39.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 07-19-2007, 07:35 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
Also, even if a movie is in scope, most (if not all) of the ads and trailers beforehand are in the flat format - requiring a lens and masking changeover just before the movie starts.

Actually, here in the US, trailers for flat movies playing in front of scope movies are usually either...

...pillar-boxed within the scope frame
...enlarged to fill the scope frame a la Super35

...flat trailers projected in scope by the sort of idiots who you can stand with in front of a 16x9 tv in the electronics store where you both work and say, "Look at how stretched out that image is?" and after taking a moment to process this bit of information, they respond with something earth-shattering like, "Oh, it is? Gee, I hadn't noticed." (This type of presentation seems to be more prevalent the larger multiplex chains.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-19-2007, 09:39 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Bobby, You need to stop assuming things, thats the problem with 85% of your postings...

Meaningless and dismissive exaggeration.

Feel free go go back through my previous 4500 posts and find 3800 of them where I've been wrong or just assuming things.
[Roll Eyes]

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
First off you need to see native Digital Cinema footage or dailies... as well as film dailies and then you might post something that some of us will believe.

Why the hell do I even need to see the dailies when the finished product -presented in freaking 3-chip DLP no less- still looks a lot like video?

Apocalypto had lots of areas in it that looked video sourced. Same for Collateral and Miami Vice. Lots of other video sourced movies have looked quite a bit worse.

I also repeat again how the original green screen studio footage of Sin City looked 100% like video. And that's one of the movies where the finished product (post processed with huge amounts of digital trickery) looked a great deal like film. That production used the same camera system George Lucas used on the last two Star Wars prequels.

Mark, exactly where the hell am I speculating on any of this? I'm giving you specifics. Specifics you or anyone else can even check. It's all right there in the damned finished product.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I have no interest in seeing Apocolypto myself but did you consider that some of it actually might have come from from HD video.

Well, a whole lot of hype was given about how it was shot entirely using Panavision's Genesis camera. It's even right there prominently displayed in the end credits.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-19-2007, 10:17 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Why the hell do I even need to see the dailies when the finished product -presented in freaking 3-chip DLP no less- still looks a lot like video?

Because you have no clue of the capabilities of either film or Digital until you've seen some.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Feel free go go back through my previous 4500 posts and find 3800 of them where I've been wrong or just assuming things.

OK... Here's a couple for starters...

quote: Bobby Henderson
Also, Mark, if you're going to beat up on me for what I do in my day job

Where on earth have I ever done that?

quote: Bobby Henderson
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.

How do you know I have no respect for what you do for a living? Where have I ever discussed what you do for a living?

Here's another...

quote: Bobby Henderson
It is very rare that any director or director of photography composed the image worth a damn when shooting in Super35.

Oh, So you HAVE spoken with all those directors and DP's that have shot Stupid 35? So then I guess you really do know for sure. Perhaps even you were standing there with them.... [Roll Eyes]

quote: Bobby Henderson
Mark, exactly where the hell am I speculating on any of this? I'm giving you specifics. Specifics you or anyone else can even check. It's all right there in the damned finished product.

I never noticed on the finished product's credits where it says "Image Composition Ignored by Director and Cameraman"....

No one here knows for sure how much the Genesis was used on Apocolypto. On a production thats using just a single Panavision Camera for a few scenes it has to be stated in the credits. Many films I've been on used at least two brands of cameras... usually Arri and Panavision... Sometimes a Moviecam was brought in for a backup or in case of the need for extra shot angles.

Try again Bobby... you still want us to believe you're an authority.... I personally don't claim to be one but I can claim to have been around and working dailies on ALOT of shoots on alot of big films(check IMDB) and I have seen ALOT of camera original and I have a good handle on what different formats can and can't do and how they look. You just don't have that been there done that stuff quite yet thing to back yourself up.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2007, 01:00 PM:

Okay, here we go with the dailies thing again:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Because you have no clue of the capabilities of either film or Digital until you've seen some.

I understand the issues of generational loss with analog mediums and know film dailies can look much better than a release print. But we're talking about digital video.

Isn't one of the miracles of "digital cinematography" and "digital cinema" supposed to be that there is little if any generational loss from the original camera footage?

Why should the "digital dailies" be much different than the final product that gets shown on the screen, especially if it's projected digitally? Why is it that after all the digital photography and digital intermediate tasks are completed that there is still a video sourced look to at least some of that content?

Are you trying to claim that the original footage from those digital video cameras looks exactly like film, but some flunky in the digital intermediate post production chain made it look like video?

Here's what is ridiculous: you're trying to defend the output of a camera system (the Panavision Genesis) on a movie you admit you haven't even seen (Apocalypto). Look who is really making the assumptions.
[Roll Eyes]

I've repeatedly given you specific examples you can check for yourself if you want to bother doing so. Look at that green screen version of Sin City and see the all video look of it for yourself.

Then comes the subject of condescending personal attacks.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Where on earth have I ever done that?

You stated, "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. Also Digital Cinema is NOT video... just another WRONG point that you bring up!"

That's pretty inflammatory. And bullshit as well. The tone definitely sounds condescending in regards to what I do in my day job, along with dismissing anything I've ever posted here.

In the flying thread, I complained that babies don't have any business on airplanes or movie theaters. You pipe in with your comment, "Just like a sign designer has no buisness here....."

There's a very obvious "Film-Tech is for movie industry employees only" snarkiness evident.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Oh, So you HAVE spoken with all those directors and DP's that have shot Stupid 35? So then I guess you really do know for sure. Perhaps even you were standing there with them

The difference is very obvious in the finished product. I'm also not the only one who complains about how Super35 movies look either. Movies shot in true anamorphic 'scope are typically better composed and usually look better all around.

You conveniently forget that I am a professional graphic artist and illustrator. I have a lot of experience in still photography and a decent amount of experience in videography. Given that background I do know a lot about image composition.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I never noticed on the finished product's credits where it says "Image Composition Ignored by Director and Cameraman"....

Mark, watch the movies and extras I gave as examples.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
No one here knows for sure how much the Genesis was used on Apocolypto.

This is from the January 2007 article of American Cinematographer

quote: American Cinematographer January 2007
Apocalypto was actually the second of three consecutive features Semler has shot with the Genesis, a digital camera that uses film lenses and accessories. The first was Click, and the most recent is I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, which he was shooting at press time. “I can’t say I won’t go back to film,” he remarks, “but I’m still exploring the Genesis at the moment.” Apocalypto was his first feature collaboration with director Mel Gibson, although the two had worked together previously, when Gibson was not in the director’s chair, on We Were Soldiers (see AC Feb. ’02), Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, and The Road Warrior.

Apocalypto is set in the 16th century during the decay of the Mayan empire in Central America. The movie opens with the camera slowly moving into the jungle; the shot lasts almost a minute and ends as a tapir bursts out of the undergrowth and past the camera. This shot was made on film with an Arri 435 at 48 fps. “I was going to use the upgraded Genesis, which can shoot up to 50 fps,” says Semler, “but there was a good chance the animal would hit the camera, and that body was one of only three in the world at the time — sorry, Arri!”

That text from ASC magazine at least suggests that nearly all of Apocalypto was shot using the Genesis camera from Panvision. They noted one logical exception.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You just don't have that been there done that stuff quite yet thing to back yourself up.

You're so full of yourself you can't bother to look at the completed product in the movie theater or on DVD and see that look of video bleeding out there for anyone with eyes to see.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-20-2007, 05:28 PM:

Bobby,

You're picking at "hens teeth" in the above post. I hope that foot is still in your mouth... It should be!

This whole debate goes back to one statement that started it all....

quote: Bobby Henderson
The native image from those cameras still looks like video.

You made this statement but you have also said that you've never seen any native footage.

So I'm still asking how do you expect us to believe anything you post?

Thanks,
Mark

P.S. Humm... Sign-Tech... That might be an available domain name.... [thumbsup]

. Not a bad idea.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2007, 05:42 PM:

quote:
You're picking at "hens teeth" in the above post. I hope that foot is still in your mouth... It should be!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-20-2007, 06:56 PM:

You're right! You didn't post anything worthwhile in that last post so lets go back to the original speculation you made....

This whole debate goes back to one statement that started it all....

quote: Bobby Henderson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The native image from those cameras still looks like video.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You made this statement but you have also said that you've never seen any native footage.

So I'm still asking how do you expect us to believe anything you post?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-20-2007, 07:40 PM:

Wow. I always thought I shot video! Ever since, oh, 1997 or so I have been shooting my, ummm... "stuff" digitally. Lately I've been using a camera that shoots the image digitally at either 24, 30 or 60fps. Sometimes I shoot at 60 and run it at 24 for slow motion shots. But my point is that it's always digital, from the CCD, though editing all the way to the TV. In fact, a lot of people do it this way, even just shooting stuff like the family Christmas get-together or something.

Am I shooting video? Or am I as cutting-edge as the real moviemakers?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-20-2007, 09:18 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Am I shooting video? Or am I as cutting-edge as the real moviemakers?

quote: Joe Redifer
from the CCD, though editing all the way to the TV.

Your camera sounds pretty cutting edge to me. and yes... digital all the way certainly qualifies that. You just have to prove that to the other Bozo's on here that think they know otherwise...

Mark

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 07-21-2007, 01:23 AM:

DOPs and directors have different ideas, some of them based on talent and experience, a few based on mythology.

There is a clan that prefers to match and a clan that likes to mix. The former strives for a consistency while the latter likes to use different textures and looks. Babel used a mix of Super35, Panavision anamorphic and Super 16. Some recent films have included Super 8 or 65mm footage.

As to aspect ratio, 1.37 was great when most theatres had fireplace prosceniums. Quo Vadis, Citizen Kane and The Red Shoes had spectacular composition in that format and I could not imagine them any other way.

Today’s theatres are designed for wide screens, so today’s productions should be planned for the medium. You can book a full page space and create a half page ad but there had better be a good reason. I find it difficult to justify the waste involved in 1.85 on 4 perf 35. Super 16 capture and digital projection is probably servicable for that format.

We have all seen many anamorphic and 70mm films that are practically flawless. DOPs work damned hard to get the best out of their tools. They treat limitations as challenges or exploitable characteristics. I don’t think any film maker would say “I won’t shoot anamorphic coz I’ll get lens flare in scene 14. and I won’t shoot 65mm coz it doesn’t do close-ups well.”

Mike is right about the story being king but he, like myself must have observed the pleasure of the audience when the masking opens out to Scope. (and the dismay if the masking drops to letterbox).

Even Super 35 can look good. As has been said in another post, the exposed area could be increased significantly by shooting with a slight sqeeze without introducing the “horrors” of 2x squeeze. There are people making 1.25 and 1.5 anamorphics for other applications; a market could exist for improved Super 35 quality.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-21-2007, 09:30 AM:

Ron,
Its nice to know there's someone else around here with an open mind.... I think Bobby swallowed his foot!

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-21-2007, 08:14 PM:

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-21-2007, 08:17 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Wow. I always thought I shot video! Ever since, oh, 1997 or so I have been shooting my, ummm... "stuff" digitally. Lately I've been using a camera that shoots the image digitally at either 24, 30 or 60fps.

Im about to shoot a short film, a limited budget of $15,000 and I have been tring to decide between either super 16 where I have access to a free camera but pay for the stock, or the new Panasonic P2 varicam handycam.

Ultimatly after wondering around smpte trade show last week, I've decided to go HD digital, as the difference once graded, (Final Cut pros new grading options are amazing!) is hard for me to pick, and lets face the obvious, the punters wont notice!

The Reds Camera demo film by Peter Jackson was a let down, All filmed in day exterior, where all cameras look there best, where were the moody interior shots?, how does the camera look in low light? what happens if you use a flame in shot? Who actually shot it?, all we hear is peter jacksons name but hes a director.

Well Joe whats your advice shoot it DIGITAL or Super 16? Afterall you have obviously much more experience with the panasonic.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-21-2007, 09:37 PM:

Well being that my budget has always been $0, I'm not really one to ask. Sure, I get paid to shoot the stuff for work, but my budget is still $0. I don't consider the camera or the tools (Final Cut Pro, etc) as part of my budget since I can use those again and again any time I want. Actually I may have spent up to $6 once or twice on a prop. Not sure. I'd kill for a $15,000 budget.

PS - The Canon XL2 absolutely destroys the Panasonic DVX series (unless you want to use a Steadicam JR, then you'll need the Panasonic).

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-22-2007, 08:47 PM:

Joe its the HVX 200 that I'm thinking about, yes there will be quite a bit of movement. I have in the garage, pipe dolly, micro jib, lights and a cheap home made stedycam rip off which I will need to use for the script.

The difference to a $0 budget and this project is very little! Most of the money will disapear for locations, quality sound recordist, experienced special effect make up artists. child actors, food, music and post production/ grading. Its fair to say that this will be a beg , borrow and steal enviroment. Non of my cameras nor editing equipment would be up for HD.

Budgets can sound impressive, but usually they are not. I worked on an cinema ad campain that had a $100,000 budget. After airline tickets, rental gear, basic wages, accomadation and a 35mm blow up! left aproxamatly $6 for on location costs!

Personally the reason I ask you this question is that I'm still not positive that its the right decision, For so long in my mind Film has been King, its hard for me to except that times are changing.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-22-2007, 09:46 PM:

Yes, the world is going video because it is cheaper and easier. You don't need to hire a dude just to record sound, though. Buy a good set of mics, learn how to use them, press record and there ya go. If for some reason a particular line doesn't record well, ADR it. It's easy and everyone loves looping their lines, especially when they get free candy. Foley the rest of your sounds. Do most of the work yourself. There is no reason to believe that each person can only excel at one type of task. You don't need a "specialist" to record sound or edit your video. People are only specialists so they can charge more. And when something outside of their "expertise" happens, they refuse to deal with it because they try to give you the illusion that they only know what they specialize in. It minimizes their responsibilities and maximizes the ease of their jobs.