Sara Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1899353/?licb=0.9907206244158986]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1899353/?licb=0.9907206244158986[/url] Anyone have a chance to see this yet? It opens is select theaters in the USA today (23rd) and my husband and I can't wait to see it - the choreography looks incredible. [url=http://youtu.be/PkULMOFpuCo]http://youtu.be/PkULMOFpuCo[/url] [url=http://youtu.be/ffm5S_JWIKQ]http://youtu.be/ffm5S_JWIKQ[/url] We all know hacked GH2's have better picture quality than an AF100 - so if these guys can pull off a decent movie for a measly (considering) $1.1 mill - there really are no excuses these days. Fun stuff !!! Mutmencistmic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 [quote author=Sara link=topic=452.msg2839#msg2839 date=1332479761]We all know hacked GH2's have better picture quality than an AF100 - so if these guys can pull off a decent movie for a measly (considering) $1.1 mill - there really are no excuses these days.[/quote] Yes, the acid test for every motion cam: ACTION. The heart of it all is in the middle between one frame (a still camera for landscapes and flowers) and 50 fps (the sunday filmers speed control): 24 fps. Can we handle speed? But you are wrong: We always find excuses ... PannySVHS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Sorry for kicking this old topic up again... but in between dreaming about Speed Boosters, fullframe, 35mm f/1.0 and raw video, I just watched this movie. It is awesome on many levels! Not only the action, setting, story (although its tin), but it looks very good too. I wondered with camera it was filmed on. I did notice a little bit of rolling shutter in a few shots (it didn't bother me, but I just noticed it). The camera is moving at high speed all the time, but rolling shutter really is a non issue. Apparently they did use PL lenses, I wonder which. I'm curious because move of the scenes are filmed pretty close and wide. I really liked the style. Watch it if you haven't yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmMan Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Watched it the other day. Supposedly there could be an "American Version" which may get produced. Camera Panasonic AG-AF100 Film negative format (mm/video inches) XDCAM Cinematographic process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) XDCAM (source format) Printed film format 35 mm (spherical) (Kodak Vision 2383) D-Cinema Aspect ratio 1.85 : 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXX Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Saw it projected in a multiplex cinema, but forgot to ask, if it was a digital projection. Anyways, I would be interested, if the DVD/Bluray Version will be straight from XDCAM or a scan of the 35mm copy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cunningham Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Saw it projected in a multiplex cinema, but forgot to ask, if it was a digital projection. Anyways, I would be interested, if the DVD/Bluray Version will be straight from XDCAM or a scan of the 35mm copy... If they use digital source material for the the DVD/BD it will be from the 2K IP (see: Master Format) but it's surprising how many films that originate digitally have still gone through the process of getting to home video via a film source. Believe it or not it was standard operating procedure over at Disney Home Video that they scan a print of the early Pixar movies. A staff of folks would then "dust bust" and enhance the resulting scan before then mastering to dvid just like they'd been doing with their own films, even though Disney had switched to a digital ink-n-paint system at least going back to Rescuers Down Under. They had to be told by an external consultant that this methodology was fucking stupid *. * - this was during the bad period for Disney where Eisner was running the company into the ground, almost to the point of being bankrupt and went so far as to mothball Feature Animation, fire Roy Disney and sell off most of the animation equipment that had been at the company for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leang Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 scanning to a film print is nice. the smoothing of noise in the shadows or in general gives it a more organic look because of a scan. projection in theaters with general dust observed from the beam also helps any source. better than a display of course. however you can't do much about horrid digital banding from skies unless you have a specialist fixing it in post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cunningham Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 ... however you can't do much about horrid digital banding from skies unless you have a specialist fixing it in post. They did a 2K IP. They had said specialist. I do agree that scanning a print or dup-negative would lend the film an extra level of organic credibility though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I do agree that scanning a print or dup-negative would lend the film an extra level of organic credibility though. She felt like a real woman finallly, after having the sex change to a man undone. The experience added organic credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.