Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

4K 2:1...

M Most said:
That is incorrect. Green Lantern was shot on film. The 3D release was done via conversion.
Click to expand...

Weren't all of the reshoots done on Red?
 
IMDB says Green Lantern was all anamorphic 35mm film (for what that's worth). I don't think shooting in 4K, in 2K, in HD, or on film would have changed how much money it made or how the reviews went. I worked with the director for a week on Vertical Limit, and my impression is that he's pretty much a traditional film guy.
 
M Most said:
That is incorrect. Green Lantern was shot on film. The 3D release was done via conversion.
Click to expand...

Yikes!
You're absolutely right!
HTF did that that happen?!
I swear I copied that out of IMDB a few days back to put in an email, and it definitely said "Genesis".
It must have been some glitch in the IMDB database.
And not only did they not use such an antiquated 1080p camera, but they even used fine grain film stock for some scenes.
Sincere apologies to Warner Bros, Green Lantern, Hal Jordan DC comics and any other concerned parties I may have inadvertantly offended with such an outrageous suggestion!
I can hardly wait for next Tuesday, when the tickets are half price!
 
Marc Wielage said:
IMDB says Green Lantern was (for what that's worth). I don't think shooting in 4K, in 2K, in HD, or on film would have changed how much money it made or how the reviews went. I worked with the director for a week on Vertical Limit, and my impression is that he's pretty much a traditional film guy.
Click to expand...

all anamorphic 35mm film!

I sure now how to pick 'em.
Looks like maybe WB did actually learn their lesson.
Anybody know what Superman the Man of Steel is being shot with?

Green Lantern is apparently shaping up into another of those films that the critics all panned, but are popular with the general public. Anyway, this is another one of those movies I've been waiting hafl a lifetime to see.
 
Marc Wielage said:
IMDB says Green Lantern was all anamorphic 35mm film (for what that's worth).
Click to expand...

What ever happened to the rumour of RED making anamorphic lenses? I will be first in the Que to order them. Make them square front also as my old Lomo's flare like hell!
 
Just an FYI my distributors want 2.35 as the delivery on the answer print on my feature we're prepping right now...no film print -it will be a digital master. And I hope I can deliver that on Red Ray Pro!

For their TV masters it's 16:9 letterbox on HDSR.
 
Keith Walters said:
Anybody know what Superman the Man of Steel is being shot with?
Click to expand...
The DP is Amil Mokri, who just shot Transformers on both 35mm anamorphic film and the Arri Alexa. Actually, checking IMDB, it looks like Transformers 3 used about every digital camera available, including Red, the Sony F35, and the SI-2K.

My guess at this point is a big tentpole 3D blockbuster like this will almost have to be shot on digital, but it's up to both the director (Zack Snyder) and the studio. Sucker Punch was shot in 35mm, so it's a tough call.
 
Semantics 101

Semantics 101

Why not just compromise....and call it 16:8 ? :cheers2:

Cheers.
 
Jannard said:
We believe this should be the future standard.

Jim
Click to expand...

Revisiting this, because of a current discussion for an upcoming HUGE project, in Still Photography, Medium Format Photography that is, were the point was
that a Square Medium format sensor, while giving what is a standard MF look, in most of our applications it always needs cropping, so why not just go
with a more Rectangular type sensor, and leave more pixels in the end product form the original sensor, and avoid cropping...

Some photographers of course prefer the room given by the Square sensor, I don't!!

Some prefer the even view a Square sensor offers, I don't!!

Especially because most of what I will be doing is High Fashion and even so it will always include exteriors locations, I always prefer the 2:1 look, so elegant, so sleek,
both in Wide, and especially so in Portrait mode, offering such a slim tall image that gives the eye a restricted yes, but beautifully tall image, that in full bode Fashion is just mesmerizing... ;)

So I was thinking... You love 2:1 we love 2:1, I would sure look forward the possibility of making the EPIC 645 a wider rather then square sensor size, similar to what LEAF has done in some sensors,
and LEICA with their S2, vs. Hasselblad and Mamiya... ;)
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
So I was thinking... You love 2:1 we love 2:1, I would sure look forward the possibility of making the EPIC 645 a wider rather then square sensor size, similar to what LEAF has done in some sensors,
and LEICA with their S2, vs. Hasselblad and Mamiya... ;)
Click to expand...

Ketch is already planning the future! lol

+1
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
So I was thinking... You love 2:1 we love 2:1, I would sure look forward the possibility of making the EPIC 645 a wider rather then square sensor size, similar to what LEAF has done in some sensors,
and LEICA with their S2, vs. Hasselblad and Mamiya... ;)
Click to expand...
Could not agree with this more.
 
So I was thinking... You love 2:1 we love 2:1, I would sure look forward the possibility of making the EPIC 645 a wider rather then square sensor size, similar to what LEAF has done in some sensors,
and LEICA with their S2, vs. Hasselblad and Mamiya... ;)
Click to expand...

But then it would not be Imax screen ratio...

I'm reading the 645 as being targeted squarely at Imax shooters and medium format fashion, etc. photographers.
 
Randall Weatherington said:
But then it would not be Imax screen ratio...

I'm reading the 645 as being targeted squarely at Imax shooters and medium format fashion, etc. photographers.
Click to expand...

I sure follow you on the IMAX format, however, I don't like the IMAX square format either, but love showcase a Movie on an IMAX in 2:1... ;)
 
Somebody should have a look at the Phillips 21:9 displays and what the sales and marketing results are. From a marketing point of view I would rather bet on a 21:9 aspect ratio. 2:1 would probably be the best choice, it is a wonderful format, but this time I think its not the industry to define the standard, but the consumer acceptance. Consumers are used to watch DVD's and Bluray's in 2.4:1 so it would be logical to propose them 21:9 - and consumers need the "wowww effect" so the industry can sell. Movies in 4K will be soon watched at home, there is the real big future market. 21:9 in 4K and the movie industry follows the consumer market... that's my personal bet.
 
Frederick von Sulle said:
Somebody should have a look at the Phillips 21:9 displays and what the sales and marketing results are. From a marketing point of view I would rather bet on a 21:9 aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
21:9 is kind of a bogus standard, but it's very close to 2.33, which is pretty much Panavision anamorphic (technically 2.40 projected). I don't think the Philips sets have been popular, and there are compromises with them in watching other kinds of material.

Again, the advantage of shooting 16x9 is that you have the ability to reframe the picture later on in post. I can't over-emphasize how important this is in final color and in editing, to give the director and cinematographer the ability to fix visual problems and give them some options.

--Marc W.
 
Keith Walters said:
... was shot with the 7-year-old Panavision Genesis! If they really HAD to shoot in 1920 x 800, you’d think they would have used something a bit more up to date, such as the F35, which, while it may not have the same resolution as RED cameras, it still produces damn fine images. ...
Click to expand...

Um, Keith, I think you're totally losing it. The Genesis and the F35 are essentially the same camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top