Cinematography reached its peak in 1962 with Cinerama.
>Cinerama involves three cameras aimed at different angles to capture 146 degrees of horizontal planes and 55 degrees of vertical planes--meant to simulate human vision. The idea was to project the film using three synchronized projectors onto a curved screen to create a wraparound effect.
Nolan shooting in 70mm IMAX is groundbreaking, even though they were shooting 105mm back in 1962.
Also digital cameras were a mistake.
Perfection.
This looks incredible. Does it work on a curved TV?
Saw LaLaLand in LA at the Cinedome, being in that theater and seeing the curved screen was the best part of the entire film
Three 35mm frames aren't equivalent of one 105mm frame you fucking moron
Give or take a couple millimeter of overlap. What's your point faggot?
>Also digital cameras were a mistake.
This guy is fucking Einstein
these unironically look great.
why are (((they))) pushing the 3D meme rather than this?
Indeed.
This looks fucking amazing as hell. Just imagine Pure aesthetic Cyberpunk kino on one of these babies. Fuck.
Doesn't look comfortable to watch.
Holy shit, this actually looks great. Fuck. If it only it was more practical to film and edit like this
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.
Fuck off man, I want to see the whole picture not covered by some retarded black half ovals
>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
>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.
low effort bate.
>cameras that can only be stationary
>no dynamic editing
>can't be watched on anything but obsolete niche screens
>best cinematography
Bad idea.
And how did that work out for him? the hobbit movies are complete utter shit
...
...
>>can't be watched on anything but obsolete niche screens
You can, it was released on Blu-ray.
They are, but that irrelevant to the camera rigs they built.
>the cameras made the screenplay bad
HFR was a gimmick tho, I'll give you that
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.
In other words, this was the peak of cinema.
wtf i love white people now
Wouldnt that only really work for the people in the middle
I never claimed that the cameras made the screenplay bad, the movie is garbage
Yes. As always the money seat is at dead center.
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
I guess...
>Also digital cameras were a mistake.
being this fagg
vr is practically Cinerama
oops now its just normal widescreen
groundbreaking deeznuts
>digital cameras were a mistake
ugh, you're one of THOSE douches
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.
>3D IS FROM DA JOOZ
lol you people are at self-parody levels
It's not, you can't get that much field of view with a single camera.
>I am a pleb: the post
>what is a wide angle lens?
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
Nope.
>The reason Cinerama was invented was because lenses sucked ass back then and photographers didn't have as man choices
[citation needed]
yes that's right lol, i'm just lying, there's really no such thing as wide angle lenses
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.
How about a citation for the original claim that you can't get that kind of fov from a single camera lenses?
The files are pretty large.
Lower resolution videos look shitty.
You're still wrong. How about you stop making threads about cinematography until you actually know what you're talking about
Perhaps you should post sources or just stop with the nonsense.
James Cameron is jewish?
beautiful.
...
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