|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
RE: Halide emulsion vs digital. Was RE: Warning of major NHS IT overspend |  |
- To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Subject: RE: Halide emulsion vs digital. Was RE: Warning of major NHS IT overspend
- From: "Owen Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:25:33 -0000
- In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |
| |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ian G Batten
> Sent: 04 November 2004 10:30
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Halide emulsion vs digital. Was RE: Warning of major NHS IT
> overspend
>
>
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004, Brian Beesley wrote:
>
> > AFAIK feature films are usually shot on _70mm_ stock! They're
> then compressed
> > horizontally for release on 35mm, there's a special "anamorphic" lens
> > required to do the compression and decompression.
>
> No. Larger budget films shoot on 35mm. Smaller budget films were shot
> on things like super 16, but now are increasingly video.
Well, according to No1 So....
- HD DV is the wave of the future.
- 35mm emulsion stock is more limited in terms of 'single take' than HD
DV. 35mm magazines are only made to hold up to 5000 ft of film and that
equates to a single take of maybe 25 mins max. The longest single take ever,
was the film 'Russian Ark' with an 80+ min take. Couldn't have been done
other than with HD DV.
> Some release
> prints are 70mm, although that obviously requires appropriate
> projection, but films shot on 70mm throughout are vanishingly rare, and
> I think only two or three were shot on 70mm throughout the 90s.
Wasn't this ToddAo and SuperCinemascope? ISTR 'Anthony and Cleopatra' was
the first. Like you I can't remember one being that way for *ages*.
Owen
You can
> get an idea of the sort of things that were shot that sort of stock by
> looking at:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?for=super+panavision
> http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?for=ultra+panavision
> http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?for=panavision+super
>
> See also
>
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_1/manufac.html
>
> The problem, of course, is that the cost of the film is frightening and
> the size and cost of the lenses and cameras are massively increased.
>
> Anamorphic lenses aren't about compression between formats, they're
> about getting a wider image onto the standard frame.
>
> There's a summary at
>
> http://www.dvdaust.com/anamorphic.htm
>
>
>
>
| |