Dek Rollins

I sometimes wonder why nobody can properly replicate the look of a film from the era they’re trying to pay homage to. Like how Stranger Things was supposed to be so eighties but it looks just like most modern productions. Not that all period pieces need to look like they were produced in said era, that’s just an example that seemed like they were trying to evoke that feeling.

If the finished product is only existent digitally that means film production from that master will only be capable of holding the digital information within that master, which doesn’t have as much color information or image information as a camera negative. There’s also the fact that I would much prefer having it traditionally color timed instead of digitally graded.

And again the editing would be digital and only the final assembly would be physical.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Dek Rollins said:

I was responding to Warb, not you.

Thank you. My work has been validated.

After all the film is shot and processed, a scan or telecine of all the footage is made and the whole film is then edited digitally. Then a digital readout of all shots/frames in the final cut is created (I forget what this is s called), and this is used to assemble the film from the finished negative. Then there is photochemical color timing and so on.

My final digital master would be from a theatrical show print (either 35mm or 70mm based on the negative format) in order to retain the filmic qualities that I enjoy in digital transfers.

EDIT: Darn it Ash!

Yeah, but it’s good to try at least.

I would like to make all my films without digital passes. Digital editing though, the old fashion way looks like hell.

I know, I was responding to Warb, not you. My point is that he shouldn’t need such scrutiny for the end result he desires. Though it would be nice if classic technicolor was still around.

There’s no reason you can’t achieve the same look as older films using modern equipment and film. As long as there are no digital passes and the production is handled in a way that is influenced by that time period, I don’t see why that couldn’t be accomplished.

My elementary school principal. He had the whole school in this weird cult where we worshiped this striped drape that was on every classroom wall. We had to say a rehearsed prayer to the thing every morning. I’m glad I escaped that creepy place.

May I inquire what actually happened with the audio? Like why are people butthurt about it being released?

Public download links are against the rules. Please remove those links and share via PM.

EDIT: Reported.

The reboot is much worse. At least I’m able to enjoy II, despite how dumb it is.

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I even like Ghostbusters II. I’m that guy.

Hey, there’s two of us!

I need to start bullying you guys. ;P

I agree with the other sentiments that have been posted. You would be missed. I don’t know anything about rehab from addiction or depression, but I think you can live a happy fulfilling life if you’re strong enough to last through this difficult time. I believe in you. I’ll be praying.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

Bruce is correct. 2/4 is exactly half score.

It is 50% but it isn’t a median score. They’re talking about halfway in a sense that there are an even number of scores below it and above it. If you only do 1-4 then there is only one possible score below 2 and two above it.

I acknowledged that I understand this concept earlier in the thread if you bothered to read it.

All I saw were posts of you failing in attempts at humor and talking about balls, so forgive me for not bothering to study each and every post before making a completely innocuous comment.

Don’t respond to dead conversations if you don’t want me to tell you you’re being irrelevent.

You know what? This is why I hate interacting with other people 99% of the time.

You pretty much said that you didn’t have time to read past the post you quoted yet decided to pay attention to the dumb jokes following the actual conversation. This is somehow my fault? You responded to a series of posts that you obviously didn’t pay attention to and I said that I already understood that point, and that you would’ve known that had you read the whole conversation. Your response to that sounded super dickish, so I got a little fed up with the crappy attitude you constantly have towards others here.

I started the series of posts that was this conversation, and given that there are often many different conversations going on at the same time in any given thread with jocular comments thrown in the mix, I thought it was fair to just skim rather than read them all and I must’ve missed whatever post you’re talking about. Since this isn’t exactly a serious conversation about anything of consequence I didn’t think it would be a problem. I responded dickishly to a dickish response to an innocuous comment. I’m within my right to do that. As for my crappy attitude, it wasn’t on display at all when I commented on the rating scale so I don’t see why you’d be fed up with it at that point, although that’s happened before where people have complained about my supposed irrationally bad attitude even when I’m being perfectly cordial, but “whatever” as my best friend Warbler likes to say. Thank you for a thoroughly unpleasant exchange. I can’t wait until the next time we discuss the Roger Ebert four-star rating system.

I apologize for being unpleasant. When I responded about having already addressed the point you brought up I suppose there was a little snark because I don’t like when people fail to just read the five or so short posts that followed the quoted posts. I found your next response to hold more than snarky retort, rather it seemed unnecessarily dismissive and mean spirited, as if conversing with other human being is somehow beneath you. This seems like a running theme with you, though I admit “constant” was an extreme exaggeration.

Again, I appologize for any unpleasantness. Hopefully no hard feelings.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

Bruce is correct. 2/4 is exactly half score.

It is 50% but it isn’t a median score. They’re talking about halfway in a sense that there are an even number of scores below it and above it. If you only do 1-4 then there is only one possible score below 2 and two above it.

I acknowledged that I understand this concept earlier in the thread if you bothered to read it.

All I saw were posts of you failing in attempts at humor and talking about balls, so forgive me for not bothering to study each and every post before making a completely innocuous comment.

Don’t respond to dead conversations if you don’t want me to tell you you’re being irrelevent.

You know what? This is why I hate interacting with other people 99% of the time.

You pretty much said that you didn’t have time to read past the post you quoted yet decided to pay attention to the dumb jokes following the actual conversation. This is somehow my fault? You responded to a series of posts that you obviously didn’t pay attention to and I said that I already understood that point, and that you would’ve known that had you read the whole conversation. Your response to that sounded super dickish, so I got a little fed up with the crappy attitude you constantly have towards others here.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

Bruce is correct. 2/4 is exactly half score.

It is 50% but it isn’t a median score. They’re talking about halfway in a sense that there are an even number of scores below it and above it. If you only do 1-4 then there is only one possible score below 2 and two above it.

I acknowledged that I understand this concept earlier in the thread if you bothered to read it.

All I saw were posts of you failing in attempts at humor and talking about balls, so forgive me for not bothering to study each and every post before making a completely innocuous comment.

Don’t respond to dead conversations if you don’t want me to tell you you’re being irrelevent.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

Bruce is correct. 2/4 is exactly half score.

It is 50% but it isn’t a median score. They’re talking about halfway in a sense that there are an even number of scores below it and above it. If you only do 1-4 then there is only one possible score below 2 and two above it.

I acknowledged that I understand this concept earlier in the thread if you bothered to read it.

I meant to say “epileptic whores,” not “doughnut wholes.”

MEAT BALLS

Also doughnut wholes, as well as cheese balls and most of all…

Chocolate balls.

Filled with creamy chocolate.

Eight is also an even number with no middle ground! Besides, just use half stars in the Ebert system and you now have eight! Though I do love me some balls!

I don’t really disagree with your point now that I realized my mental error in understanding. I still like the system and I’ll probably end up using zero out of four some time anyway. If I really hate it enough.

Something like Toy Story 2. 😉

See my edit.

Literally what yhwx said. 2/4=1/2. This is one half, otherwise known as 50%.

I do understand your logic now though. When the lowest increment is 1, the exact center would not actually be two.

But my logic lies in the idea that the stars are like a loading bar as a visual representation. When the bar is half full (two stars) that’s 50%.