Gravity - did you notice the "overhead flies" sequence? Wow - stunning sound engineering and a worthy test of our "ultra" systems! - Page 18 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 26Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #511 of 705 Old 07-20-2014, 07:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,672
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post
Getting there...

Note Columns rewrapped with new fabric and solid metal corners to reduce diffraction from surrounds. excellent

Note brackets for mounting for Surround Sides and Surround Heights (Side and Rear).

I chose the LT-24s (narrow speaker) as they will tuck up nicely in my tray ceiling yet will still achieve ~100 db at main listening position.

Equipment room is complete (sound proofed)... time to add amplifiers and equipment and re-wire. Looks very professional!

Still unsure of where to place REAR Surround Heights?? -In rear corners toe'd in towards main listening position or directly above rear surrounds. Side Surround Heights will be directly in line with second row seating (main listening position).

In line with front heights if you can(is that above rear surrounds? (Im saying based on discussions with datasat about dual format speaker placement -for prometheus the fronts will line up with the rear heights that are in place).





Im excited-don't forget to break in the amt's, is it possible for you to take a picture of the old lt8-s surround next to the new shallower one you got? Thanks!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #512 of 705 Old 07-22-2014, 11:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
[QUOTE=CINERAMAX;25882114]I am a maximum immersion type of guy and coming from the torus screen Showscan 60fps school, I welcome anything that enhances realism.

CASE IN POINT OF IMAGE NIRVANA:

The hobbit 2 hfr at 13 foot lamberts 3d 6p at the Christie booth, aint nothing better than that.

As much as i am a Christie fan, IMAX holds the record for that movie, 19fl's. When IMAX does a 3D film in post there guy wears two pair of 3D glasses and adjusts the image brightness accordingly. Why two pairs of glasses? One to simulate the glasses worn by the viewer, the second pair to simulate the passive filter because he is looking at a monitor not a projected image. So they figure in the total brightness drop from the actual glasses and the filter, and make it up. They also carried this thinking over to the Blu-Ray 3D documentary titles they released. Much brighter and sharper 3D picture than any Blu-Ray out there.

I wish Christie, Barco, NEC, and Sony pro, would also do the same. Maybe 6P is the answer, maybe dual projectors, maybe both. My biggest complaint is always 3D brightness. I think the 3D DCI spec is very conservative. It is a big difference.

What do you think is best for Blu-Ray to CP850? Datasat AP20 or Christie SKA-3D? I like the AP20's 4 HDMI inputs, not the 1.3 though. I have installed many Datasat XD20's for preshow features.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #513 of 705 Old 07-23-2014, 02:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
As much as i am a Christie fan, IMAX holds the record for that movie, 19fl's. When IMAX does a 3D film in post there guy wears two pair of 3D glasses and adjusts the image brightness accordingly. Why two pairs of glasses? One to simulate the glasses worn by the viewer, the second pair to simulate the passive filter because he is looking at a monitor not a projected image.
I've never heard this before. As far as I know, when Imax masters their titles, they just have the colorist watch on an Imax-sized screen in their own facility. Two sets of glasses is a very dodgy way of predicting real-world brightness. At least this is what they have out there on Exposition Blvd. in Santa Monica: a small (60-seat) Imax mastering room that translates well to a full-size 600-seat Imax theater.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #514 of 705 Old 07-23-2014, 10:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,672
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 67
6p is the answer....

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Christie-6p-table.jpg
Views:	323
Size:	69.7 KB
ID:	176282  


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #515 of 705 Old 07-23-2014, 11:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
I've never heard this before. As far as I know, when Imax masters their titles, they just have the colorist watch on an Imax-sized screen in their own facility. Two sets of glasses is a very dodgy way of predicting real-world brightness. At least this is what they have out there on Exposition Blvd. in Santa Monica: a small (60-seat) Imax mastering room that translates well to a full-size 600-seat Imax theater.
Yeah that's the way they have been doing it for awhile now. It's part of there DRM and conversion process. Somewhere on YouTube they released a behind the screen type doc on IMAX and it goes into great detail about the process, it actually shows them doing it. That was about 4 or 6 years ago, i'm sure it's still the same as IMAX always has the brightest screens and it's not all just dual projectors. I do know IMAX keeps all there film stock in a warehouse that is kept at 55 degrees f all yearlong.
Marc Wielage likes this.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #516 of 705 Old 07-23-2014, 11:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
6p is the answer....

I don't argue with that none. I saw Christie's 72,000 lumen 6P display at there place. It took three lamp 4k's match 1 6P 4K. That showing sold me.

That 72,000 lumen 6P is now installed in China, Guinness book of records for most light output. And then they ask why the U.S. market is in decline. Maybe because you sell it every one else than us.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #517 of 705 Old 07-23-2014, 05:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
I do know IMAX keeps all there film stock in a warehouse that is kept at 55 degrees f all yearlong.
Sadly, I think they did keep the film stock there, but since Technicolor closed the last 65mm processing lab in North America about six months ago, I think Imax has given up on film for production. Their new 3D 4K Imax camera is pretty spectacular, so they're aware they have to keep the image quality flag flying.

Gravity is an example of a film I point to when people don't believe that a film can be shot in 2K and dimensionalized and still wind up looking great. In this case, it won Chivo Lubezki the Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #518 of 705 Old 07-23-2014, 07:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
Sadly, I think they did keep the film stock there, but since Technicolor closed the last 65mm processing lab in North America about six months ago, I think Imax has given up on film for production. Their new 3D 4K Imax camera is pretty spectacular, so they're aware they have to keep the image quality flag flying.

Gravity is an example of a film I point to when people don't believe that a film can be shot in 2K and dimensionalized and still wind up looking great. In this case, it won Chivo Lubezki the Oscar for Best Cinematography.
I didn't know if they were still maintaining there film warehouse or not. I don't think i have seen any of the newer cameras in use now, up close. Last i remember seeing in use at Universal, and about the time i left, was Sony's CineAlta 24P HD. Can't remember what they were shooting with it though. I know now you have Panavison back in, RED, can't think of the other one i read about.

They did a lot of good, off the beaten path, work with Gravity. I loved the audio threw it, first time i saw it, was in IMAX.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #519 of 705 Old 07-23-2014, 08:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
I didn't know if they were still maintaining there film warehouse or not. I don't think i have seen any of the newer cameras in use now, up close. Last i remember seeing in use at Universal, and about the time i left, was Sony's CineAlta 24P HD. Can't remember what they were shooting with it though. I know now you have Panavison back in, RED, can't think of the other one i read about.
All the old sony CineAlta's (HDW-F900, F950, F35, etc.) are all old school and pretty much defunct. You can find them selling for a few thousand dollars on eBay now. I literally saw an F900 for $995 just a few months ago... but it figures, since those cameras are 15 years old now, and made to shoot on tape. Everything is digital files now, for the most part.

Quote:
They did a lot of good, off the beaten path, work with Gravity. I loved the audio threw it, first time i saw it, was in IMAX.
Gravity was all shot on Arri Alexa in 2K, and quite a bit was dimensionalized since it was just humans in front of green screen. A lot of the spaceship interiors were real sets, but often it was a combination of sets and green screen. The "making of" doc goes into this in great detail.

There was a lot of hue and cry at the time Lubezki won the Oscar because so much of his lighting was "virtual cinematography" created in post by VFX artists. The ASC and the other DPs on the Academy committee realized that Lubezki still spent over a year, working tirelessly with the artists to come up with the look, literally placing "virtual lights" in different parts of the scene to create the scene. So in effect, he still lit the picture... it was just done on a monitor by guys twisting knobs and moving mice, rather than guys on a set adjusting lights and setting filters.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #520 of 705 Old 07-23-2014, 09:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
All the old sony CineAlta's (HDW-F900, F950, F35, etc.) are all old school and pretty much defunct. You can find them selling for a few thousand dollars on eBay now. I literally saw an F900 for $995 just a few months ago... but it figures, since those cameras are 15 years old now, and made to shoot on tape. Everything is digital files now, for the most part.


Gravity was all shot on Arri Alexa in 2K, and quite a bit was dimensionalized since it was just humans in front of green screen. A lot of the spaceship interiors were real sets, but often it was a combination of sets and green screen. The "making of" doc goes into this in great detail.

There was a lot of hue and cry at the time Lubezki won the Oscar because so much of his lighting was "virtual cinematography" created in post by VFX artists. The ASC and the other DPs on the Academy committee realized that Lubezki still spent over a year, working tirelessly with the artists to come up with the look, literally placing "virtual lights" in different parts of the scene to create the scene. So in effect, he still lit the picture... it was just done on a monitor by guys twisting knobs and moving mice, rather than guys on a set adjusting lights and setting filters.
Wasn't the F900 like $15,000 or something new?, just the case no lens or anything? Isn't teh what George decided on for SW EP2? Wow that is crazy. But, like you said, it's defunct now, and like it or not 15 years has passed.

It's still funny to me, that the studios say one thing and then you got that hand full of directors who does another and no one says anything. You know, you got Abrams, Nolan, even Clint Eastwood shooting with 35MM stock. It makes no sense with all the digital hype to still have producers/directors using film, and still talk about how dead film is.

Another thing that always got me was the size of digital cameras. When all the digital camera talk was coming out, i was thinking tape or hard drives like in a PC. The first one of the Sony's i saw was as huge as a film camera. I remember thinking, how is this going to be cheaper?, with digital you added another camera man, lens and tech guy, for each camera! Just to get rid of film.

I read a lot on what Chris Parks did during the making of Gravity. But, even Gravity used Film, it's final shots in Lake Powell, AZ were made with a Arri 765 shooting 65MM film. So here again, is another so called 100% digital production, with film in it!
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #521 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 12:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Wasn't the F900 like $15,000 or something new?,
You missed a decimal point! Close to $200K for the F900 in 1998/1999. I think the F35 was also around $150K. Everything changed with the $40,000 Red camera (initially $17,000), and prices have come down quite a bit... though the Arri Alexa is still between $50K and $80K, depending on what options you get.

Quote:
You know, you got Abrams, Nolan, even Clint Eastwood shooting with 35MM stock. It makes no sense with all the digital hype to still have producers/directors using film, and still talk about how dead film is.
I think above a certain budget, it is possible to shoot on film, but the truth is once the film is shot, it's digital from that moment on. Even guys like Abrams and Clint Eastwood do 100% of their post in digital. (Nolan tries to do as much as possible in the lab, but he's a rare holdout.)

Quote:
The first one of the Sony's i saw was as huge as a film camera. I remember thinking, how is this going to be cheaper?, with digital you added another camera man, lens and tech guy, for each camera! Just to get rid of film.
I think a lot of the exodus from film to digital was largely because of speed and turnaround. I'm not 100% unbiased, since I worked for Technicolor in Hollywood for about 20 years, but my observation is that shooting digitally didn't wind up really saving any money. In many cases, the producers wound up taking the $20K per day in film costs and just giving themselves raises, or applying the money to other facets of the production. (Strictly my opinion.) Shooting digitally was much faster, since instead of a film lab and dailies operation, you merely had a DIT on the set copying files and setting looks, which can be very fast and efficient.

Quote:
But, even Gravity used Film, it's final shots in Lake Powell, AZ were made with a Arri 765 shooting 65MM film. So here again, is another so called 100% digital production, with film in it!
It's a standard deal that some high-speed shots still look better in film, especially when you have explosions or crashes or any kind of one-shot scenes. The problem with high-speed digital cameras like the Phantom Flex is that a) they require massive data storage, and b) they can't run fast enough and also shoot at high res. You can have high res and slow speed (up to maybe 120fps) or you can have low res and high speed (over 1000fps), but not both. With film... you get both. But: how long can you process the film?

Heck, I'm curious how J.J. Abrams is getting the Star Wars footage processed. Technicolor closed its London lab about six months ago, so I'm hard pressed to know where there's another big lab that could handle this level of work.

Given that films can look as beautiful as Gravity and still be shot on a digital camera, I'm not concerned that great images are never gonna happen again. I've often said, the final image quality is more a combination of the cinematographer, the lenses, and the lighting, rather than the choice of camera per se. The camera might be the single least important thing about it.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #522 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 12:51 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 32
^^^Marc & Andy, thanks for the very interesting discussion; I did not realize usage of analog film vs. digital is not so clear cut, and that there is mixed usage even within any given movie.


I am heavily into photography as a hobby, at quite a nutty level; all digital now but my most favorite viewing is still with my slide projector of old film slides. There is something "alive" about those slides, although they are not as sharp.


Of course on the audio side, there's my Linn & Koetsu Rosewood sitting next to the Theta. I am surrounded by analog vs. digital "controversies." :-)

Regards, Can
Theta: Stunning 3D soundstage, sublime details, unlimited dynamics and low end response - THE processor for audiophiles!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Give vinyl and tube gears a try - the sound from heaven :-).
cannga is online now  
post #523 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 12:54 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
Sadly, I think they did keep the film stock there, but since Technicolor closed the last 65mm processing lab in North America about six months ago, I think Imax has given up on film for production. Their new 3D 4K Imax camera is pretty spectacular, so they're aware they have to keep the image quality flag flying.

Gravity is an example of a film I point to when people don't believe that a film can be shot in 2K and dimensionalized and still wind up looking great. In this case, it won Chivo Lubezki the Oscar for Best Cinematography.

Marc, what does "dimensionalize" mean please? Fill in the blue screen background, or, conversion to 3D?

Regards, Can
Theta: Stunning 3D soundstage, sublime details, unlimited dynamics and low end response - THE processor for audiophiles!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Give vinyl and tube gears a try - the sound from heaven :-).
cannga is online now  
post #524 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 01:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
^^^Marc & Andy, thanks for the very interesting discussion; I did not realize usage of analog film vs. digital is not so clear cut, and that there is mixed usage even within any given movie.


I am heavily into photography as a hobby, at quite a nutty level; all digital now but my most favorite viewing is still with my slide projector of old film slides. There is something "alive" about those slides, although they are not as sharp.


Of course on the audio side, there's my Linn & Koetsu Rosewood sitting next to the Theta. I am surrounded by analog vs. digital "controversies." :-)
Marc is a little more tech involved then i am/was. My time at Universal was in supply. And in supply there is always demand. Marc on the other hand, is one of those people at Technicolor that makes the film pop.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #525 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 02:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
You missed a decimal point! Close to $200K for the F900 in 1998/1999. I think the F35 was also around $150K. Everything changed with the $40,000 Red camera (initially $17,000), and prices have come down quite a bit... though the Arri Alexa is still between $50K and $80K, depending on what options you get.


I think above a certain budget, it is possible to shoot on film, but the truth is once the film is shot, it's digital from that moment on. Even guys like Abrams and Clint Eastwood do 100% of their post in digital. (Nolan tries to do as much as possible in the lab, but he's a rare holdout.)


I think a lot of the exodus from film to digital was largely because of speed and turnaround. I'm not 100% unbiased, since I worked for Technicolor in Hollywood for about 20 years, but my observation is that shooting digitally didn't wind up really saving any money. In many cases, the producers wound up taking the $20K per day in film costs and just giving themselves raises, or applying the money to other facets of the production. (Strictly my opinion.) Shooting digitally was much faster, since instead of a film lab and dailies operation, you merely had a DIT on the set copying files and setting looks, which can be very fast and efficient.


It's a standard deal that some high-speed shots still look better in film, especially when you have explosions or crashes or any kind of one-shot scenes. The problem with high-speed digital cameras like the Phantom Flex is that a) they require massive data storage, and b) they can't run fast enough and also shoot at high res. You can have high res and slow speed (up to maybe 120fps) or you can have low res and high speed (over 1000fps), but not both. With film... you get both. But: how long can you process the film?

Heck, I'm curious how J.J. Abrams is getting the Star Wars footage processed. Technicolor closed its London lab about six months ago, so I'm hard pressed to know where there's another big lab that could handle this level of work.

Given that films can look as beautiful as Gravity and still be shot on a digital camera, I'm not concerned that great images are never gonna happen again. I've often said, the final image quality is more a combination of the cinematographer, the lenses, and the lighting, rather than the choice of camera per se. The camera might be the single least important thing about it.
If i had not read the article in the Film Journal, i would have called someone a liar to there face for saying SW 7 was being filmed, not recorded. I'm like you, all the film processing studios have shut down or moved on. I know ILM has no more film department attached to it. George shut it all down was his "were all digital" speech back in 2007-08. I to am trying to figure were JJ got the film for one, were talking a whole 2 plus hour movie here, with all the outtakes, the cuts, on and on. Were probably talking a mile of film or more. Last i looked, maybe he is using left over Fuji stock, i really don't know. And, and on top of all of that, they are shooting in IMAX, with film! It's like were did they have this film hidden at? Under the mattress? The last data i personally looked at, for film showed cinema like 40% and TV like 8% or something lower. That was 4-5 years ago. I know those numbers have to much lower, probably 1 on the TV side. All the new LOTR are being shot on RED cameras, no film use there. Peter is happy about it, i attended a seminar he was at after the release of Hobbits last year in LA, and he plainly stated "Film has a certain look, feel, and presence, almost unimaginable depth rendering, but digital is so much faster in every aspect." I figured with him, George Lucas, Cameron and Spielberg saying film was good, but old school, i though for sure that was the end of film in any commercial Hollywood productions. The i read SW 7 is being actually filmed.

When i was at Universal, i made it a priority to learn what i could about digital capture. From tape or hard drive. They were having all these digital handling workshops and i think i went to all of them. And you also had these "old-school" camera man, lighting directors, directors, producers, you name it. Everybody was trying to figure how to use it and make the most of it, most importantly to stay on top and not get pushed aside. As you know, Hollywood is brutal when it comes to weeding out unneeded people. As far as me in the distribution department, digital was actually more work than film. It was a slow transfer process. Then DCI hit the scene full force, that slowed it down even more. It was like none of the major studios were ready for what they had been preaching for the last 5 years. I know Lions-gate was blinded sided by not being able to keep a supply of 35MM film and used 65MM until they got some digital equipment and camera rentals. And there were similar stories form the other smaller studios. WB and Paramount, like us, made sure they warehoused what was need for 4 years. When i was leaving Universal in late 2002, we had shipped over 2/3 of our film stock out. The film warehouse was being used as a back up sound stage, they were filming 24/7 in there, i think it played those warehouse looking parts in every Law&Order SVU ep's from 1999 up. And i can't even name all the other movies filming there. But you know, 2 years later it became NBCUniversal in i think march of 2004, and the same today.

Here is a funny for you,
https://imax-openhire.silkroad.com/e...on=1&jobid=235

IMAX job posting for a projectionist in Boston. HaHa. I laughed hard when Eric sent me the link. I thought for sure all the IMAX theaters were 100% digital projection, except for the dome locations, like zoos and stuff.

I know that Film and digital has it's negative and positives, it is still an ongoing debate over what is better, i'm old-school i like film, but digital content is so much more forgiving and easy for the novice to use. Like Ron Howard told me, "It's so easy you can do it."

When i first saw Gravity i saw it in IMAX. I was already at the theater doing bulb changes and other nick knacks in between showing on the other screens. I came into it after about the first 20 minutes, so yeah i missed a lot the first time, but man, it sounded sweet on those Quested speakers and amps on IMAX, not to mention looked very good. The second time i saw it was at a Atmos theater with a AVX(almost IMAX quality, almost) screen and it blew me away. So much i stayed for the next showing. Gravity was just made for Atmos, as well as IMAX. That picture just rocked. I know $100 million budget sounds extreme to most people, but that's a drop in the bucket, for what they were saying they were going to do with this movie. I think they actually came in under budget, and recouped it the first week at the box office. Even i was like, what 100 million? It's a space flick, CGI and models, and sets is going to consume that up, are they getting the cameras and crews for free? They did a very good job all the way around. The one were they built a rig for 1.8 million individually controlled LED lights for a pure light score, was what i found interesting and a new lighting approach.

They hit the mark.

Last edited by CinemaAndy; 07-24-2014 at 02:32 AM.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #526 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 10:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
I think a lot of the exodus from film to digital was largely because of speed and turnaround.
And the 2008 writers guild strike basically killed film for TV. It was in part due to the SAG and AFTRA contracts and film versus video (digital) shooting. Companies like Laser Pacific went form 9 busy telecine rooms to a ghost town in a few short months as far as film TV dailies goes.

Looking back though I was depressed with the demise of telecine but it just doesn;t make sense anymore for TV.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is online now  
post #527 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 07:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
And the 2008 writers guild strike basically killed film for TV. It was in part due to the SAG and AFTRA contracts and film versus video (digital) shooting. Companies like Laser Pacific went form 9 busy telecine rooms to a ghost town in a few short months as far as film TV dailies goes.
Yes, sadly, I was part of that experience at Technicolor. I believe we went from 22 staff colorists to 9.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #528 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 08:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
I know ILM has no more film department attached to it. George shut it all down was his "were all digital" speech back in 2007-08.
Lucas told me in 2004 his anti-digital tirade stemmed from his belief that Kodak misled and lied to him over the longterm stability of film, particularly in the emulsions he used from 1976-1980. All that stuff is deteriorating and turning magenta as the yellow and cyan dye layers go away. But ILM will cheerfully do VFX for any project shot on any format, as long as you're willing to pay their fees. And 100% of their work is done in digital, generally using EXR files (invented by ILM), using extremely fast computers and very robust software. Once the image is shot, it doesn't matter because it all winds up in digital for post.

Quote:
I to am trying to figure were JJ got the film for one, were talking a whole 2 plus hour movie here, with all the outtakes, the cuts, on and on. Were probably talking a mile of film or more.
No, I think they're using Kodak 5219, which is still available in vast quantities and is being produced in Rochester. I can't figure out where they're getting it developed, but clearly they are. But they're screening all digital dailies (scans from the film).

Quote:
Gravity was just made for Atmos, as well as IMAX. That picture just rocked. I know $100 million budget sounds extreme to most people, but that's a drop in the bucket, for what they were saying they were going to do with this movie. I think they actually came in under budget, and recouped it the first week at the box office. Even i was like, what 100 million?
I think it went over budget and way over schedule, as Lubezki explained at an ASC seminar, but mainly that was because it took them about 6 months to figure out if the VFX were even possible. If you look at the "Making of" documentary slates, they shot the movie 2 years before it came out, so it was a huge, long, arduous post process.

I was surprised by the handful of critics who slammed Gravity for having a thin plot and very thin characters. To me, it was just supposed to be 90 minutes in the lives of these two astronauts, with an extremely simple plot: "Two astronauts are on a space station orbiting the earth and have to fight to survive after a terrible disaster destroys their ability to get back to Earth." Very simple story told in an extremely complicated way.

That 15-minute opening shot just blew me away. What's also amazing is that it's a beautiful, beautiful film with great color and totally convincing images. I can count on the fingers of one hand the movies that convinced me I was actually in outer space; 2001 was one of them, and Gravity was another. Not too many others.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #529 of 705 Old 07-24-2014, 10:46 PM
Member
 
Rob Hahn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Marc, fancy meeting you here (like our old Compuserve days)! I agree 1000% about Gravity. Unbelievable.
Rob Hahn is offline  
post #530 of 705 Old 07-25-2014, 02:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
Lucas told me in 2004 his anti-digital tirade stemmed from his belief that Kodak misled and lied to him over the longterm stability of film, particularly in the emulsions he used from 1976-1980. All that stuff is deteriorating and turning magenta as the yellow and cyan dye layers go away. But ILM will cheerfully do VFX for any project shot on any format, as long as you're willing to pay their fees. And 100% of their work is done in digital, generally using EXR files (invented by ILM), using extremely fast computers and very robust software. Once the image is shot, it doesn't matter because it all winds up in digital for post.


No, I think they're using Kodak 5219, which is still available in vast quantities and is being produced in Rochester. I can't figure out where they're getting it developed, but clearly they are. But they're screening all digital dailies (scans from the film).


I think it went over budget and way over schedule, as Lubezki explained at an ASC seminar, but mainly that was because it took them about 6 months to figure out if the VFX were even possible. If you look at the "Making of" documentary slates, they shot the movie 2 years before it came out, so it was a huge, long, arduous post process.

I was surprised by the handful of critics who slammed Gravity for having a thin plot and very thin characters. To me, it was just supposed to be 90 minutes in the lives of these two astronauts, with an extremely simple plot: "Two astronauts are on a space station orbiting the earth and have to fight to survive after a terrible disaster destroys their ability to get back to Earth." Very simple story told in an extremely complicated way.

That 15-minute opening shot just blew me away. What's also amazing is that it's a beautiful, beautiful film with great color and totally convincing images. I can count on the fingers of one hand the movies that convinced me I was actually in outer space; 2001 was one of them, and Gravity was another. Not too many others.
I don't question that comment about Kodak any. We tossed plenty of film stock at Universal over that very same issue. I remember guys almost crying going thru the storage vaults finding whole movies lost forever, some of them spend years trying to track them down in private collections or finding broadcast versions of the movie. And a lot of this was happening in the early 90's when Tim Burton's 1989 Batman proved that home sales were a cash cow for WB, and all the other studios was releasing everything they had to, at the time, VHS/Laserdisk. I don't think there was a unused Telecine machine in all of LA in those days.

All the Technicolor prints were still spot on perfect. Load them in the projector, enjoy the movie. B&W, color, all good.

The last interview i saw with George Lucas, you could just tell he was fed up with it. I mean he had that i'm done look expression and his words matched it. That was the same interview were he described Steven Spielberg as the kid who came over to play video games and never went home, and described that one day someone was going to turn the game off and say, hey go home. Of course the next news was when it was announced that he had sold it all to Disney. As far as i'm concerned, he sold it to the right studio. And i am sure 20th century was his first choice, but what they did to him over Red Tails changed his mind, since the one and only George Lucas had to finance his own movie production and distribution, to get it into theaters. I even got angry over that. And i think George selling it all to Disney was his last laugh.

My favorite space movie is both 2001 and Apollo 13. Gravity was cool for what it done, and it was something different. All is lost reminded me of Gravity, just on the ocean and not is space.

Last edited by CinemaAndy; 07-25-2014 at 02:37 AM.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #531 of 705 Old 07-25-2014, 06:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
And i am sure 20th century was his first choice, but what they did to him over Red Tails changed his mind, since the one and only George Lucas had to finance his own movie production and distribution, to get it into theaters. I even got angry over that. And i think George selling it all to Disney was his last laugh.
Lucas only gave one interview right before he retired about two years ago, the NY Times piece where he hinted at how angry and frustrated he was at the lack of success on Red Tails:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/ma...anted=all&_r=0

After financing the whole movie at about $60M, he was very upset that no studio wanted to distribute it. And Fox only very reluctantly came in at the end to distribute it, but Lucas himself had to pay for all the P&A costs (marketing), which I think added another $25M. And the movie still tanked.

Red Tails is not a terrible movie, but my take after seeing it was that it should've been done as a $10M HBO movie. There's no market for an expensive specialized WWII movie like this in modern times, not for theaters. In truth, I think it was kinda boring and predictable, but unquestionably a well-made film.

I'm very curious to see if Lucas will ever follow through with his oft-stated plan to make "little indie artistic/political thrillers," even films with nonlinear stories, which he's been talking about making for almost 40 years.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #532 of 705 Old 07-27-2014, 04:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
Lucas only gave one interview right before he retired about two years ago, the NY Times piece where he hinted at how angry and frustrated he was at the lack of success on Red Tails:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/ma...anted=all&_r=0

After financing the whole movie at about $60M, he was very upset that no studio wanted to distribute it. And Fox only very reluctantly came in at the end to distribute it, but Lucas himself had to pay for all the P&A costs (marketing), which I think added another $25M. And the movie still tanked.

Red Tails is not a terrible movie, but my take after seeing it was that it should've been done as a $10M HBO movie. There's no market for an expensive specialized WWII movie like this in modern times, not for theaters. In truth, I think it was kinda boring and predictable, but unquestionably a well-made film.

I'm very curious to see if Lucas will ever follow through with his oft-stated plan to make "little indie artistic/political thrillers," even films with nonlinear stories, which he's been talking about making for almost 40 years.
That was the interview George gave that i remember. I liked Red Tails. The only thing i thought should have been done different, was the script. There was a lot of actual history that could have been used, and less fiction. kind of what Ron Howard did with Apollo 13. As far as the audio and picture, ILM and Skywalker sound did there normal greatness. For one, that movie, red Tails, would make a good Atmos remix.

Yeah, George having to spend his own coin to get his product to market, is what i think really upset him. Then if you look at the box office and home receipts, it didn't do bad, but not great. But, with the ever changing studio bank account, it might have been a risk they couldn't afford. There's that to.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #533 of 705 Old 07-27-2014, 10:13 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
...
I was surprised by the handful of critics who slammed Gravity for having a thin plot and very thin characters. To me, it was just supposed to be 90 minutes in the lives of these two astronauts, with an extremely simple plot: "Two astronauts are on a space station orbiting the earth and have to fight to survive after a terrible disaster destroys their ability to get back to Earth." Very simple story told in an extremely complicated way.

That 15-minute opening shot just blew me away. What's also amazing is that it's a beautiful, beautiful film with great color and totally convincing images. I can count on the fingers of one hand the movies that convinced me I was actually in outer space; 2001 was one of them, and Gravity was another. Not too many others.

Agreed. Compared to so many junk American action movies, Gravity is a blessing.

For example there's that 2013 Atmos Marvel release about a guy running around with a hammer to hit people . Tremendous sound, but it's such a lousy movie that I have no interest in mentioning or recommending it.
Marc Wielage likes this.

Regards, Can
Theta: Stunning 3D soundstage, sublime details, unlimited dynamics and low end response - THE processor for audiophiles!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Give vinyl and tube gears a try - the sound from heaven :-).

Last edited by cannga; 07-27-2014 at 11:13 AM.
cannga is online now  
post #534 of 705 Old 07-29-2014, 06:23 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Some pictures from the July LA Audio Society meeting, at a store in Torrance, called "The Source Audio Video Design Group." Some words about the store: This is the first time I've heard of it, even though I live in the area. Imagine my surprise, no, SHOCK, when I walked into the unassuming store front and found multiple rooms LOADED with some of the most expensive gears on the market: Focal, New Krell (D'Agostino), MBL, Revel. I really don't know how an audiophile store like this could survive in this internet age, but I suspect it comes from hometheater work, and of course I wish them much success http://thesourceav.com/.

I was able to hear the Revel Ultima Salon 2 again, and again fell in love. Kevin Voecks, the speakers' (ahem) project manager or whatever it is, was there and as always, was patient, pleasant, and put on a memorable demo. His collection of music is top notch stuffs that sound good and taste good, not the sometimes boring audiophile materials that people have to endure at shows. I could again confirm the quality of Revel: fantastic midrange, clarity that brings voice and instrument to the room with you, tight tuneful bass. While the 130,000 Focal Grand Utopia is overwhelmingly more "powerful" sounding, and possesses a bigger scale that the Revel can't match, the Revel brings musicians to the room ("presence") that Focal does not do as well.

In my opinion the only thing I would like to improve on the Revel is maybe somewhat a little more/deeper bass. Revel has tuneful, tight, fantastic bass, but it is clearly not deep. That said, how would that additional bass affect the enthralling midrange quality of the Revel? Will it then become the more boring sounding Focal? Does it sound this good because it is not affected by the subjective slower, deeper bass? I don't know.

Sorry about the pic quality - I am a shutterbug of the highest degree but I didn't want to look too much like a groupie carrying my camera to an audio meeting :-). Only my Samsung S3 this time:








Regards, Can
Theta: Stunning 3D soundstage, sublime details, unlimited dynamics and low end response - THE processor for audiophiles!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Give vinyl and tube gears a try - the sound from heaven :-).

Last edited by cannga; 07-29-2014 at 07:20 PM.
cannga is online now  
post #535 of 705 Old 07-29-2014, 06:25 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 32
If you are the audiophile type that goes to shows often, I very highly recommend that you shazam the music at shows that you like and buy the cd later. This way, you have the same material that could be used to compare your system against the best out there. Very educational.

Yep, I have shazamed demo materials of Magico, Wilson, Revel, MBL, Apogee, etc., etc., and bought a bunch of cd's this way. The latest is this gem from Voecks' collection; I GUARANTEE it will knock your socks off. I would encourage all Revel owners to get a copy. La Bamba The Ozone Percussion Group, track 10, Jazz Variants: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	La Bamba O-Zone Percussion Group.jpg
Views:	8
Size:	28.7 KB
ID:	186682  

Regards, Can
Theta: Stunning 3D soundstage, sublime details, unlimited dynamics and low end response - THE processor for audiophiles!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Give vinyl and tube gears a try - the sound from heaven :-).

Last edited by cannga; 07-31-2014 at 03:29 PM.
cannga is online now  
post #536 of 705 Old 07-30-2014, 05:34 AM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
Yep, I have shazamed demo materials of Magico, Wilson, Revel, MBL, Apogee, etc., etc., and bought a bunch of cd's this way. The latest is this gem from Voecks' collection; I GUARANTEE it will knock your socks off. I would encourage all Revel owners to get a copy. La Bamba The Ozone Percussion Group, track 10, Jazz Variants: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Yes, a disc with fantastic transients and dynamic range, although it's musically not my cuppa. I've used it occasionally to demo my own speakers for others.
RUR is offline  
post #537 of 705 Old 07-30-2014, 06:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,672
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
New Krell (D'Agostino),
Is this the bestest amp ever or what?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #538 of 705 Old 07-31-2014, 02:50 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post
Yes, a disc with fantastic transients and dynamic range, although it's musically not my cuppa. I've used it occasionally to demo my own speakers for others.
Yeah this one came as a surprise to me. I am surprised I have never heard it used by anyone else at shows before; it is so spectacular sonically.

The drum whacks in that track helped confirming my suspicion that the Salon does not go that deep. Very punchy, but not deep.

Regards, Can
Theta: Stunning 3D soundstage, sublime details, unlimited dynamics and low end response - THE processor for audiophiles!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Give vinyl and tube gears a try - the sound from heaven :-).
cannga is online now  
post #539 of 705 Old 07-31-2014, 03:00 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Southern Cal
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
Is this the bestest amp ever or what?
Agreed, it's like a piece of jewel, but the funny thing is I really don't like the design that much, as much a Krell fan that I am. To my eyes it looks a touch, maybe a lot even :-), "overwrought." I much prefer the heavy machinary/menacing look of the FBP series.

His concept for this amp (IMHO) also seems like a problem was created so that he could find a solution. By packaging the very small form factor, heroic efforts were spent dissipating the heat.
No argument about the sound though. "Muscular" in the typical Krell fashion, as always.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	krell amp.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	175.3 KB
ID:	190442  

Regards, Can
Theta: Stunning 3D soundstage, sublime details, unlimited dynamics and low end response - THE processor for audiophiles!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Give vinyl and tube gears a try - the sound from heaven :-).

Last edited by cannga; 07-31-2014 at 03:26 PM.
cannga is online now  
post #540 of 705 Old 07-31-2014, 03:20 PM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
Yeah this one came as a surprise to me. I am surprised I have never heard it used by anyone else at shows before; it is so spectacular sonically.

The drum whacks in that track helped confirming my suspicion that the Salon does not go that deep. Very punchy, but not deep.
My mains have 2x15" drivers each in a dipole config. Even so, when played pretty loud, those drum whacks sent the speakers into distress and I had to cut if off PDQ. When I add a competent sub crossed @ 70Hz, it's no problem even at considerable volume.

I picked up the album when a recording engineer claimed it had the highest dynamic range he'd ever seen in a commercial recording @ ~30dB.
RUR is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off