Ctrl+f'd for cinema/cinematography, found nothing so I gotta

File: The-Hateful-Eight-Trailer-2-6.jpg (371KB, 3360x1236px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 3360x1236px

Also
>all screenshots floating on the web are either obscene dogshit quality or high res but cropped so they're nearly square

travesty

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	3360
Image Height	1236

>>2757494

did they had that kind of yellow and that kind of rubbery texture back then?

it was cool, my neck hurt after the movie though

>>2757487
they're showing it in the 70mm version on an old projector in a local cinema, so I might go see it sometimes next week or so

Is it really WIDE?

>>2757504
I guess it seems rubbery just because the screenshot is of terrible quality...

>>2757522
I made the good choice and bought a ticket for a quite far back seat. Perfect viewing... but my neck still hurt because I had to move my neck quite often as I had a taller guy in front of me, ffs.

>>2757528
It has a 2.76 aspect ratio
Got to the theatre late and had to sit close to the screen, I ended up having to fully turn my head to see people walk into frame.

[spoiler]Gen Smithers literally did nothing wrong[/spoiler]

>>2757564
Can someone please explain the concept of 70mm to those of us that do not know?

Is it the lens that is at 70mm focal length or the film it is being captured on?

>>2757566
>Film not lens
It's filmed at 65mm then printed at 70mm.
What is the point of shooting in a larger format? Lower grain at higher speed, more/better bokeh™ and a whole list of other benefits that fullfams keep pointing out.

>>2757487
It was very /p/. Incredibly detailed amazing rendition of the inside of a room for three hours. And yes, as you say, very "Tarantino" which is to say a weirdo being a weirdo on camera.

>>2757504
cotton?

File: revenant1.png (328KB, 1275x517px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1275x517px

the revenant man... Best photograhpy I have seen in years

>>2757487

>Shoot in 70mm
>Must be amazing cinematography

Protip: the cinematography wasnt even that good

The Revenant shat all over it.

70mm was great, the cinematography was not.

>>2757672

Pleb detected.

File: the-wolf-of-wall-street-scene-leonardo-laughing-on-the-yacht.jpg (24KB, 704x528px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 704x528px

>>2757685

>typical /p/haggot thinks film automatically = quality
>Calls some criticizing a QT film a pleb

topkek

>>2757487
Is there a way to see if there is a theater near me? I'm in CT if anyone else knows.

>>2757700
I'm a retard, it's on the website. Sorry.

>>2757672
The cinematography was pretty good for what it was (cabin), but I can't say that it made for an interesting movie.

However, the final scene in which SPOILERS AHEAD they lynch her made me with that Tarentino directed horror.

>>2757652
The Revenant was beautiful, but I still don't know if the film was deserving of that beauty.

>>2757581
full retard

File: truedetective.jpg (163KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1366x768px

thtrue detective s1 had top tier cinematography. the shots were pretty as fuck and the grading was awesome.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:30 11:36:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1366
Image Height	768

>>2757652

u must not watch many movies

File: 1452349119217.gif (495KB, 194x172px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 194x172px

the movie was great, i enjoyed the whole experience with the intermission and all.

my friends who were more hyped to see the movie than me said it was a good movie but too long, all of it could be compressed to a 2hr movie. which i do agree but it takes away from the old cinema experience.

Wait, it was shot in 70mm? Or was it digital or other small format and then reproduced on 70mm

Either way thats cool

>>2757794
Read
>>2757575
I think mostly fujifilm
Why 65mm and not 70mm? Because of audio track.

>>2757487
>filmed in glorious ultra panavision 70
I-it... actually says that.

I was wondering, could I get some anamorphic-ish looking portrait shots by taking small horizontal "panoramas" of each picture? Like pseudo-brenizer? Or would that be just wasted time?

>>2757794
It was shot in Ultra Panavision 70. A format that had not been used since 1966. Pretty much super uber wide anamorphic.

Looks like shit if you don't have a screen suited for it, I live in Rome and Tarantino was in Cinecittà for the "roadshow" showing, so I saw it there and it was a wonderful experience. Was smart enough to get some seats further back.

I honestly want to go back again. People saying the cinematography wasn't good didn't appreciate the film, really. Of course Revenant will be more impressive, as its not just a single cabin for 60% of the film, but I honestly felt almost emotional at the beauty of the film. They really used the super wide format well.

File: anamorphic.jpg (227KB, 620x660px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 620x660px

>>2758017
>Is anamorphic a waste of time and money?
Yes and no. If you like the distortion of the anamorphic lens, I can see a niche market for it if you can work it into your workflow.

For those of you who can't already see what it does. More background fov for the same subject proportions.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:02 01:16:31
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	620
Image Height	660

>>2758021

well the sides look compressed as fuck. people will look squished too, is this used only for centered subjects?

>>2758021
I didnt ask that... I asked if taking small brenizer-like horizontal panoramas would let me get close-ish to an anamorphic effect, or would that be just a waste of time. I think I'll just experiment and see for myself, I guess.

>>2758036
Not really. The compression and its correction are what give the true effect. It's not just a wider frame.

>>2758036

answer is no.

>>2758038
>>2758039
Alright, but the idea still kinda makes me want to try something. I'd buy an anamorphic adapter but honestly I don't have so many money to spare for what would be an experiment that might turn out useless.

Maybe I could try taking a wider panorama, compressing the sides... argh.