| 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 |