Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

You don't need a full frame (LF) cinema camera

No, you don't, except if you want both high resolution and low light sensitivity at the same time. Just one example: the GH5S does both very well, but it's not quite as good as the A7SIII. But, there are other factors to consider than just spec sheets.

Mind you I would have loved to see Mad Men (and Jurassic Park etc.) filmed in VistaVision. But film is a different medium and you can't really use the same metrics or expectations.

FWIW the new Sony 70-200/2.8 II is parfocal, AFAIK.
 
First film i shot on 35mm was on BL2 and 2C that was older then me at that time and six mounts ago (25 years later) i also shot with 2C! aside form the Motor and PL hard front is still the same 2C cameramade in 1961. I will probably eat my own words for what i am about to say, but i can shoot on Amexa Mini for next 10 years and couldn't care less. If Helium had less rolling Shutter i would not look for a new camera till i retire... but realty is that Directors want new stuff and that clients dictate the trends. i can play a long or carnage industry :(
 
IMAX was Nolan films, 65mm by Tarantino, both are much larger than Full Frame

I think Full Frame Cameras and larger Lenses are the new standard

8K presentation... could be significant for Theaters and maybe it'll be the new standard and get butts in seats
 
I don't know if technology is the way to get people going back to cinemas. The quality of viewing at home can be so good now. I love the cinema experience, I loved it watching film projection the most - again as it was completely different to the experience at home... but at that time I think I had a 68cm CRT lol. There's a lot of just okay movies that get made that people go and see and think, that wasn't worth the price of a movie ticket but I'd maybe watch it on streaming. I don't think there's a quick fix.

I would think the best hope is studios really competing to make the absolute best films they can (of all genres) and holding off on allowing them to go to streaming, for a minimum of 9 months or something like that.
 
I agree that no one really needs a full frame cinema camera to make state of the art images. Large format does make certain things easier to achieve, though there's always a cost somewhere else. Because resolution isn't strictly related to sensor size, I don't think the relationship between super 35 sensors and full frame sensors is like that between super 35 film and 70 mm film, where there's a much more obvious quality jump. (With film, a given emulsion will always be much higher resolution in 70mm than in super 35mm.)

The question of cinema viewing is an interesting one to me. I did a double feature yesterday of SPENSER and LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-- both in movie theaters. SPENSER was shot on 16 and 35, and really leans into the imperfections of vintage lenses to boot. SOHO was shot on a (pretty seamless) mix of super 35mm film and Alexa. (And there's plenty of noise in certain night scenes, especially in low key interiors lit mostly with highly saturated colored lights-- I imagine these were shot on Alexa Mini.) While I think that films that have a visually spectacular quality due to scale (huge sets or landscapes) or presentation (e.g. IMAX) CAN be more attractive to audiences considering spending the extra money to go to a theater, I think a lot of what creates urgency to see something in a theater is word that a movie delivers on its promise. However well SPENSER does (or doesn't) do, I don't people came because of an interest in Princess Di and Kristen Stewart, and no amount of soft, grainy imagery with veiling flare would have kept them away! If anything, those qualities seemed to support its authenticity. And with SOHO, I think people wanted to experience a fun and stylish movie with twists and turns and a great soundtrack alongside an audience-- thrillers and comedies can be so much better when seen with an audience. I doubt large format would have much altered the experience of either in achieving those goals. That said, DUNE really did need that kind of large scale, cutting edge treatment to deliver on its promise.

Otherwise, I think that the improvements in the services offered alongside the movies show the most promise for combatting the "I'll just see it on streaming" mindset-- higher quality food and drink (delivered to one's seat in some theaters), assigned seating, cleaner and more comfortable seating, enforcement of no texting/no talking rules. That cuts both ways, though, in perhaps making the experience too expensive for the teens who drive box office on the big superhero movies...
 
M Harvey said:
I think that the improvements in the services offered alongside the movies show the most promise for combatting the "I'll just see it on streaming" mindset-- higher quality food and drink (delivered to one's seat in some theaters), assigned seating, cleaner and more comfortable seating, enforcement of no texting/no talking rules. That cuts both ways, though, in perhaps making the experience too expensive for the teens who drive box office on the big superhero movies...
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with this. No phones would be awesome :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top