Roger Deakins personal takes on DI and formats

[Eric Ulbrich]

I thought people would like to read this.
http://www.deakinsonline.com/articles/di.php
quite interesting.

 

[Martin Weiss]

Great read.

With all our modern inventions and innovations, there are few films that manage to achieve the “quality” of Citizen Kane, though there are many that have far less grain and considerably higher resolution.

Every shot I have ever made has been a compromise in some way. That’s a sweeping statement, but true nonetheless. No image has ever been as good as the one I envisioned in my mind’s eye. Maybe that’s what keeps me going: just once, I want to see that image onscreen!

There has always been a disregard for preservation, whether it’s preservation of a historic site, the Dodo, the polar bear, or a film like Sid and Nancy.

The animators who “photographed” [Wall-E] worked in a three-dimensional world and covered the action in much the same way as a live-action film, but the directors of photography, Danielle Feinberg (lighting) and Jeremy Lasky (camera) - separate positions you might note - used no emulsion, no Fresnel lamps or diffusion, no Steadicam, no geared head, nor any other live-action tool. Nevertheless, theirs was a stunning cinematographic achievement. It’s true they had an advantage — they never had to battle fading daylight, conceal a light’s source or hide dolly tracks — but I would not hesitate to recommend them for ASC membership.

 

[Thomas Dobbie]

I thought people would like to read this.
http://www.deakinsonline.com/articles/di.php
quite interesting.

Great article,well worth a read. Thanks for drawing attention to it.
Tom

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

"Lighting Diagrams" are great read and look.

 

[Michel Hafner]

From the link:
I would not for a moment suggest a Super 35mm image scanned at 4K or even 6K would approach the resolution of an anamorphic image produced photochemically today.

I wonder why he would not suggest that and based on what evidence. What resolution?
He probably means 4k scanning and not 4K master (derived from a > 4K scan).

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

From the link:
I would not for a moment suggest a Super 35mm image scanned at 4K or even 6K would approach the resolution of an anamorphic image produced photochemically today.

I wonder why he would not suggest that and based on what evidence. What resolution?

Ask this question directly to Mr.Deakins.

He has his own forum>>>

 

[Michel Hafner]

Ask this question directly to Mr.Deakins.

He has his own forum>>>

Funny, right after I wrote it I found his forum and read the relevant posts. He must be talking about 4K scanning, not a full res 4K master (which requires > 4K scanning). I see no way a normal print from the negative can have more resolution than a full res 4K master digitally projected in 4K. And such a print is the best print he can use for comparison.