Jump to content

Chen G.

Members
  • Content Count

    5666
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Chen G. last won the day on October 20 2019

Chen G. had the most liked content!

About Chen G.

  • Rank
    Veteran

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ramat Gan, Israel

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pointing to The Rise of Skywalker is a low blow: next to that film, Revenge of the Sith looks like a glowing masterpiece for the ages.
  2. That’s about the core demographic for any spectacle film.
  3. I’m more than happy with what we have, but every now and again I do think it could have been good if, between the Two Towers and Return of the King CRs, we would have another CR made up of alternates. But again, between the OST, Rarities, fan-credits and CRs I’m more than happy. Even if the OST didn’t contain alternates, it would still be worth owning alongside the CR for those cases where one wants a more concentrated listening experience.
  4. Yeah, I wouldn’t say they’re for kids, per se. But they are quite juvenile.
  5. "The Force is for everyone" as a shorthand to a cry for egalitarianism Condemnation of animal cruelty The immorality of arms trade (which, in the situation presented in the film, is a complete straw-man) Something about class
  6. Yeah, I find that maddening. I might have been more vocal in my praise of the film, had it not been for some people (including a couple whom I know and whose opinions I largely respect enormously) losing their minds over its supposed greatness. I find that sort of behavior - with regards to this particular film - just as hyperbolic as that of those who think its "the worst thing ever." Like I said, its trying to say that "The Force belongs to everyone" as a kind of shorthand for a cry to egalitarianism, which would have been totally fine had it not been well-established that Force-powers don't occur in everyone. Nevertheless, its a good film by way of story and storytelling (its well shot, performed, etc...) but I doubt its actually better than The Force Awakens. In spite of having the advantage of hitting the ground running, The Last Jedi is the slower of the two films, which would have been fine had I got more out of it than I did. I think that, had the movie landed on the conclusion that the Jedi should indeed end, it would have been much more interesting, but as it is it ends with a cop-out. Surely, if it did end with the Jedi gone, The Rise of Skywalker would retconned it in a heartbeat, but still!
  7. You mean, on the level of the films' socio-political commentary? The Force Awakens doesn't treat issues of diversity too differently the original Star Wars, so I don't mind. The Last Jedi tries to draw a parallel between the "The Force belongs to everybody" nonesense and egalitarianism, which just doesn't work because Force powers have been established as exclusive to a certain subset of people. Its also trying to say something about class and animal cruelty, which comes off as one of the biggest non sequitors of the whole series. The Rise of Skywalker is just nearly incoherent. I do. Saw a review of Attack of the Clones today on Letterboxd that went along the lines of "well, at least Natalie Portman's good to look at!" which made think. Easily the best-looking leading lady in the Star Wars canon. I don't mind the absence of George Lucas, I mind that we have three films set after what's supposed to be the final film in the series.
  8. On a side note to a side note, I never cared for the terminology "The Wizarding World" as the name for the franchise. It implies that the linking piece between the disparate films in the franchise is the setting of the Wizarding World, rather than anything to do directly with the plot, which to my mind tends to make the overall viewing experience rather uninteresting.
  9. Yes. Two films that lose most of their appeal on screens of under 140''.
  10. The way the Bayer filter is constructed, you're not getting the same resolution on all three colours: it has 50% of the photosites filtered green and 25% filtered red and blue each. So, as long as you're shooting colour, the full resolution is unattainable, although some cameras manage to extract as much as 85% of the camera's stated resolution. It depends on the footage, too. The same happens with the colour layers in film: the red always has the least resolving power, which is why red colours or scenes lit in red tend to look softer. Green is sharpest on film, hence green screens.
  11. Yep, although again the files produced by the camera could still be 4K files, but if you were to shoot a chart, it won't resolve 4K and if it were made to (by removing the filters), it would be littered with moire. A 5K RED Epic produces moire-free 4K images, though, and I believe a 6K scan of good VistaVision footage resolves just over 4K (including grains).
  12. That's what I'm saying, there's an optical low-pass filtering to prevent aliasing, plus a Bayer filter, both of which conspire to make the actual resolving power within 76-80% of the camera's resolution (more on some newer cameras), so a 4K digital camera resolves 3.2K, a 5K camera resolves 4K, etc. Its also why you have to oversample film when you scan it for UHD: 35mm film resolves around 3K, so you scan it at anywhere from 4K to 8K and then downres it back to get rid of aliasing. In large film formats you also have to take the optical limitations of the lens and possible judder in the camera system into account. So to get true 4K you need the source to be either a 5K digital camera or VistaVision (or larger). If one were being pedantic, one would say that on the film side of thing, true 4K comprises of 4K's worth of picture information rather than grains, in which case an even bigger format would be necessary. I should add, this is all true for stills: when you run the film at 24fps, the percieved, temporal resolving power increases because our eyes average information across several adjecant frames at any given time. Its an effect that's more pronounced in faster filmstocks (where its estimated to nearly double the percieved resolving power) than it is with slower or larger formats or with digital, and it also depends on movement in the frame.
  13. "Resolving power" is a comfortable way to discuss the actual resolution of things. If I take a 6K RED Dragon and shoot out-of-focus, I'll still get 6K REDRAW files, but the actual resolution - or, the resolving power - will obviously be less than that. Likewise, you can scan a piece of 8mm film at 20K and get 20K files, but the actual resolving power of the scan will be less than that. Digital camera never actually resolve their stated resolution. The footage has to undergo filtering for colour and aliasing, and is typically within 76-80% of the stated value. So a 4K RED One actually resolves around 3.2K. You'd therefore need to shoot at 5K to get images that will actually resolve a full 4K. Resolving power is also a good way to discuss the fine detail on analog formats, which obviously don't have actual resolution because they don't have pixels.
  14. Which is interesting, given it was shot on 4.5K digital which I don’t believe actually resolves a full 4K.
  15. All movies by any director who has his own style and viewpoints are told through their point-of-view. But WITHIN THE STORY, there still is a protagonist. For Kubrick and 2001, that’s Dave Bowman; as a surrogate for mankind, sure, but a protagonist nonetheless.
×
×
  • Create New...