Current Server Time: 06:53 (Central Europe)

#apertus IRC Channel Logs

2016/01/02

Timezone: UTC


23:01
Topic
apertus° - open source cinema | www.apertus.org | join the apertus° Lab: http://lab.apertus.org/ | IRC Logs available at: http://irc.apertus.org
23:01
se6astian
has set the topic
23:01
se6astian|away
changed nick to: se6astian
23:02
mot
joined the channel
23:05
_florent_
joined the channel
03:34
jucar
joined the channel
03:35
jucar
left the channel
03:38
jucar
joined the channel
04:29
jucar
left the channel
04:56
davidak
left the channel
06:41
pozitrono
joined the channel
08:10
pozitrono
left the channel
08:48
Bertl_oO
off to bed now ... have a good one everyone!
08:48
Bertl_oO
changed nick to: Bertl_zZ
09:52
se6astian
good day
11:40
se6astian
can someone explain to me what the magic of 65mm/70mm film is?
11:41
se6astian
I just watched the quentin explain it to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGg2N32Z-co
11:41
se6astian
and I am still confused
11:41
se6astian
"the shots are so wide"... well choose a wide lens...?
11:44
se6astian
or the aspect ratio?
12:08
arpu
joined the channel
12:18
jucar
joined the channel
13:25
jucar
left the channel
14:20
davidak
joined the channel
14:49
atagunov
joined the channel
14:50
atagunov
Hi, my understanding is that the rave of 65mm is about having a ratio of 2.76 with superb image quality
14:50
atagunov
65mm film must be capable of reproducing plenty of fine detail
14:51
atagunov
plus the grain should be much less of an issue than on 35mm meaning effectively more dynamic range in dark scenes
14:51
atagunov
plus it's about the old glass - these guys are talking about pulling out some lenses which haven't seen light for 50 years
14:52
atagunov
sure one can be excused for go crazy about good old lenses!
14:54
atagunov
2.76 : 1 might be possible with today's digital - but you need anamorphic lenses for that probably.. do they really exist? in comparable quality to what Quentin's team used?
15:03
se6astian
thanks, I see
15:12
atagunov
also, can we really project 2.76 : 1 in today's digital? well you could make top and bottom of the screen in a cinema black, okay.. but to appreciate it properly you need a gigantic wide screen; I just googled up, it looks like there ONE cinema in the UK which can do that - Leicester Square Odean - and if I'm not mistaken that's the one they are going to demolish soon
15:16
se6astian
interesting
15:37
Bertl_zZ
changed nick to: Bertl
15:37
Bertl
morning folks!
15:38
alexML
!morning
15:38
Bertl
se6astian: if I remember correctly, Quentin was visiting the Theater at Panavision where they show "old" movies
15:39
Bertl
and he was fascinated from the "wide" projection where you can turn your head to each side and still see something in great detail :)
15:40
troy_s
Pretty sure that cinemas have had a wide selection of lenses for a long while. You can buy anamorphic lenses for home theater now forever.
15:43
intracube
aren't the anamorphic lenses used for 65/70mm much more mild than the standard 2:1 compression used in 35mm?
15:44
intracube
so suffer far less from the poor quality of a lot of standard anamorphics
15:45
intracube
checks - yep. ultra panavision 70 uses 1.25:1 compression
15:47
intracube
also potentially even shallower depth of field over equiv 35mm
15:53
se6astian
surely the depth of field is much more shallow on 65mm but I dont think that really helps in any way, 35mm already gives more than enough shallowness if you use fast lenses
15:53
se6astian
and about the projection I am not sure if the limiting factor will not be the screens of the cinemas all over the world
15:54
se6astian
the room wont get wider just because of quentin :)
15:58
intracube
yep, the video is mixing up different things
15:59
intracube
as you say, you could choose wide lenses and mask to 2.76 with a lot of camera systems
15:59
intracube
and aspect ratios don't have any inherent height/width
16:00
intracube
there's just a convention of having common height, so 2.39 is 'wider' than 1.85
16:01
intracube
could just as easily compare with common projection width. then 2.39, 2.76 would be shorter
16:01
troy_s
intracube: that depth of field is exactly why folks shoot with the anamorphics for the camera side. It works out to roughly a 50% increase in blur.
16:01
troy_s
intracube: Much more challenging for a focus yanker.
16:01
intracube
troy_s: doesn't that assume similar f-stop?
16:01
troy_s
intracube: So when you move to large format, you actually gain back depth of field.
16:02
troy_s
intracube: Precisely the same fstops.
16:02
intracube
but you often have to stop down anamorphics a fair bit more than spherical
16:02
troy_s
intracube: The issue is that you are cramming more blur onto the gate
16:02
troy_s
intracube: Not any more. That was a quality lens thing.
16:02
intracube
still is
16:02
intracube
look at Spectre
16:02
troy_s
intracube: Just worked a full thing with those 1.9 Master Anamorphics; they are incredible.
16:03
troy_s
intracube: You can't assume they used a consistent series of lenses across a whole show. It is impossible.
16:03
intracube
isn't :)
16:03
troy_s
intracube: For example, the MAs don't have a zoom, sometimes you have weight issues on heads and cranes, sometimes you have visual effects needs, etc.
16:03
intracube
nor is suggesting that all anamorphic lenses are ba
16:03
intracube
*bad
16:04
intracube
just that there's a lot of variation there
16:04
troy_s
intracube: But it would be a 'per shot' evaluation.
16:04
troy_s
yep.
16:04
troy_s
absolutely
16:04
troy_s
the Hawks are pretty notoriously not super (the earlier ones)
16:04
intracube
http://i.imgur.com/OdSlRQi.png
16:05
troy_s
Lord knows. Could be a grading vignette too.
16:06
intracube
the main point of interest's head is blurred...
16:06
troy_s
Not terribly rectilinear either.
16:10
intracube
and it looks like the blur is largely astigmatic
16:12
intracube
lenses used: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/technical?ref_=tt_ql_dt_7
16:35
Bertl
off for now ... bbl
16:35
Bertl
changed nick to: Bertl_oO
17:49
jucar
joined the channel
18:08
atagunov
left the channel
18:41
pozitron
joined the channel
18:58
pozitron
left the channel
20:11
jucar
left the channel
20:17
slikdigit_
joined the channel
20:39
tyrone
left the channel
20:47
slikdigit
left the channel
20:48
slikdigit_
changed nick to: slikdigit
20:48
slikdigit
left the channel
20:48
slikdigit
joined the channel
21:22
se6astian
changed nick to: se6astian|away
22:48
pozitron
joined the channel