Cinerama was the peak of cinema.

File: 04-b (1).png (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

Perfection.

>>84916805
This looks incredible. Does it work on a curved TV?

>>84916805
Saw LaLaLand in LA at the Cinedome, being in that theater and seeing the curved screen was the best part of the entire film

>>84916805
Three 35mm frames aren't equivalent of one 105mm frame you fucking moron

>>84917313
Give or take a couple millimeter of overlap. What's your point faggot?

>>84916805
>Also digital cameras were a mistake.

This guy is fucking Einstein

>>84916805
>>84916954
these unironically look great.
why are (((they))) pushing the 3D meme rather than this?

File: How_The_West_Was_Won_1962_USA_2_K_Scan_Smile_Box_B (2).png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>84917370
Indeed.

>>84916805
>>84916954
This looks fucking amazing as hell. Just imagine Pure aesthetic Cyberpunk kino on one of these babies. Fuck.

>>84916805
Doesn't look comfortable to watch.

>>84916805
>>84916954
>>84917414
Holy shit, this actually looks great. Fuck. If it only it was more practical to film and edit like this

>>84917434
It's apparently a bit tough to act in front of three cameras though.

>Because of the nature of Cinerama, if the film were shown in flat screen projection it would appear as if the actors made no eye contact, at all.

>>84916805
>Digital cameras were a mistake

Haven't the latest cameras from RED essentially surpassed film? 35mm at least.

aren't they making 360 degree VR movies now?
there was some WWII one being made

>>84917499
>If it only it was more practical to film and edit like this

You could do the same with 3 digital RED cameras if you really wanted to. Peter Jackson created a stereo RED setup to manage 3D in the Hobbit films.

>>84917538
low effort bate.

>cameras that can only be stationary
>no dynamic editing
>can't be watched on anything but obsolete niche screens

>best cinematography

File: How_The_West_Was_Won_1962_USA_2_K_Scan_Smile_Box_B (2) copy.png (2MB, 1920x713px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x713px

>>84917538
Bad idea.

>>84917576
And how did that work out for him? the hobbit movies are complete utter shit

>>84917638
>>can't be watched on anything but obsolete niche screens

You can, it was released on Blu-ray.

>>84917705
They are, but that irrelevant to the camera rigs they built.

>>84917705
>the cameras made the screenplay bad

HFR was a gimmick tho, I'll give you that

>>84917729
He's a wide guy.

It also looks fucking awful in motion

I think this is a gimmick that could have been done 60 years ago and will never become mainstream because films are not about paying attention to things in their peripherals.

>>84917708
In other words, this was the peak of cinema.

>>84917414

wtf i love white people now

>>84917708

Wouldnt that only really work for the people in the middle

File: nu males btfo.jpg (162KB, 650x268px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 650x268px

>>84917739
>>84917742
I never claimed that the cameras made the screenplay bad, the movie is garbage

>>84917948
Yes. As always the money seat is at dead center.

>>84916954
Ive noticed movies today no longer have this way of filming. They dont let the camera sit and allow the actors to move about the frame, instead we have shot reverse shot. They dont focus on staging/blocking or showing an elaborate set

File: хачики пристают ко мне на улице.jpg (19KB, 630x472px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 630x472px

>>84918317
I guess...

>>84916805
>Also digital cameras were a mistake.
being this fagg
vr is practically Cinerama

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 1280x718px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x718px

oops now its just normal widescreen

groundbreaking deeznuts

>>84916805
>digital cameras were a mistake
ugh, you're one of THOSE douches
>>>/p/

>>84918442
They're getting better, but Hollywood made the switch about 5 years too early. We're only now getting to the level of 35mm quality again.

>>84917370
>3D IS FROM DA JOOZ
lol you people are at self-parody levels

>>84918436
It's not, you can't get that much field of view with a single camera.

>>84917362
>I am a pleb: the post

>>84918737
>what is a wide angle lens?

>>84918737
Yeah... You can. You're just an idiot. The reason Cinerama was invented was because lenses sucked ass back then and photographers didn't have as man choices

>>84918837
Nope.

>>84918844
>The reason Cinerama was invented was because lenses sucked ass back then and photographers didn't have as man choices

[citation needed]

>>84918873
yes that's right lol, i'm just lying, there's really no such thing as wide angle lenses

>>84918930
a wide angle lens can not get anywhere near the fov these shots have. a fish eye could, but that would result in severe distortion.

>>84918914
How about a citation for the original claim that you can't get that kind of fov from a single camera lenses?

>>84917559
The files are pretty large.
Lower resolution videos look shitty.

>>84918961
You're still wrong. How about you stop making threads about cinematography until you actually know what you're talking about

>>84919022
Perhaps you should post sources or just stop with the nonsense.

>>84917370
James Cameron is jewish?

>>84917729
beautiful.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-13 at 22.47.14.png (87KB, 278x214px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 278x214px

>>84920284

>>84919022
Not him but you're a fucking idiot if you think you could just use a wide-angle lens to achieve this effect.
>t. professional photographer and videographer