4 ms·

Never knew it was that old. Sure, watching it nowadays, it's obviously not done using modern technology, but a compelling story and acting instead (which is oft

by d12bb 4y ago

Never knew it was that old. Sure, watching it nowadays, it's obviously not done using modern technology, but a compelling story and acting instead (which is often lacking in modern blockbusters). I'd have put somewhere in the nineties maybe, not '81..

daveslash 4y ago
I was re-watching Alien (1979) with my wife just yesterday, commenting on what a masterpiece it is, even at age 44. I've gotten into 35mm film a lot lately, and have a new appreciation for these other movies shot entirely on film (the lighting, dynamic range, camera work, the physical sets, the practical effects, etc...). This is in addition to the writing, acting, and pacing. There are some real gems in movies from that era.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > I've gotten into 35mm film a lot lately While Alien was shot on 35mm negative film, what defines it and other films like it is that they were shot with an anamorphic lens in anamorphic widescreen, commonly known as CinemaScope[1] using the full 3:2 35mm frame rather than cropping. When the prints are projected (effectively decoded through another anamorphic lens), the aspect ratio becomes 2.39:1. Alien also had blowup 70mm prints with a less common 2.20:1 aspect ratio. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope
  - daveslash 4y ago
    That's amazing! Thank you for this info! Regarding "I've gotten into 35mm film lately", I just meant to say that I've taken a deep technical interest in film in general, which has given me new appreciation. What you just provided is another learning-rabbit-hole for me! Thank you!
- midoridensha 4y ago
  It's not just movies; TV shows in the 60s were shot on 35mm film too, so now when they make Blu-Ray remasters, they look absolutely fantastic in HD.
  - daveslash 4y ago
    You're totally right! This is why the remaster of Star Trek TNG looks so good, but we don't have good remasters of Voyager or Deep Space 9 - the former was shot on film and they rescanned them all, whereas the latter were shot on electronic format, so there's no going back and re-scanning.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Not just TNG, but the late-60s Original Series of Star Trek too; the remaster looks absolutely amazing. It's too bad they screwed up shooting DS9 and Voyager that way.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > You’re totally right! This is why the remaster of Star Trek TNG looks so good, but we don’t have good remasters of Voyager or Deep Space 9 - the former was shot on film and they rescanned them all, whereas the latter were shot on electronic format, so there’s no going back and re-scanning. Nope, all four were shot on 35mm, but the latter three were transferred to videotape for editing, while TOS was cut on 35mm negative, so it could be “remastered” from the film more easily. For TNG, they had to rescan and edit, and recompose VFX, and recreate some of the VFX in CG, which was much more laborious, than the process for TOS, which, in addition to be edited on film, had more practical effects and simpler other effects (which the remaster was used as an opportunity to upgrade, in some cases.) AFAIK, cost for expected return is why they didn’t do for DS9 and VOY what they did for TNG.
      - daveslash 4y ago
        Thank you for the correction. I appreciate the info!
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        Interesting. But DS9 seems pretty popular with Trekkies, so I'm surprised they haven't done this process for that series yet after the success of TNG. VOY was less popular, so that makes sense. How was ENT shot? Personally, I'd actually rather watch ENT than VOY, though I have to skip that awful intro song.

by d12bb 4y ago

daveslash 4y ago

I was re-watching Alien (1979) with my wife just yesterday, commenting on what a masterpiece it is, even at age 44. I've gotten into 35mm film a lot lately, and have a new appreciation for these other movies shot entirely on film (the lighting, dynamic range, camera work, the physical sets, the practical effects, etc...). This is in addition to the writing, acting, and pacing. There are some real gems in movies from that era.

Maursault 4y ago
> I've gotten into 35mm film a lot lately While Alien was shot on 35mm negative film, what defines it and other films like it is that they were shot with an anamorphic lens in anamorphic widescreen, commonly known as CinemaScope[1] using the full 3:2 35mm frame rather than cropping. When the prints are projected (effectively decoded through another anamorphic lens), the aspect ratio becomes 2.39:1. Alien also had blowup 70mm prints with a less common 2.20:1 aspect ratio. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope
- daveslash 4y ago
  That's amazing! Thank you for this info! Regarding "I've gotten into 35mm film lately", I just meant to say that I've taken a deep technical interest in film in general, which has given me new appreciation. What you just provided is another learning-rabbit-hole for me! Thank you!
midoridensha 4y ago
It's not just movies; TV shows in the 60s were shot on 35mm film too, so now when they make Blu-Ray remasters, they look absolutely fantastic in HD.
- daveslash 4y ago
  You're totally right! This is why the remaster of Star Trek TNG looks so good, but we don't have good remasters of Voyager or Deep Space 9 - the former was shot on film and they rescanned them all, whereas the latter were shot on electronic format, so there's no going back and re-scanning.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Not just TNG, but the late-60s Original Series of Star Trek too; the remaster looks absolutely amazing. It's too bad they screwed up shooting DS9 and Voyager that way.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > You’re totally right! This is why the remaster of Star Trek TNG looks so good, but we don’t have good remasters of Voyager or Deep Space 9 - the former was shot on film and they rescanned them all, whereas the latter were shot on electronic format, so there’s no going back and re-scanning. Nope, all four were shot on 35mm, but the latter three were transferred to videotape for editing, while TOS was cut on 35mm negative, so it could be “remastered” from the film more easily. For TNG, they had to rescan and edit, and recompose VFX, and recreate some of the VFX in CG, which was much more laborious, than the process for TOS, which, in addition to be edited on film, had more practical effects and simpler other effects (which the remaster was used as an opportunity to upgrade, in some cases.) AFAIK, cost for expected return is why they didn’t do for DS9 and VOY what they did for TNG.
    - daveslash 4y ago
      Thank you for the correction. I appreciate the info!
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Interesting. But DS9 seems pretty popular with Trekkies, so I'm surprised they haven't done this process for that series yet after the success of TNG. VOY was less popular, so that makes sense. How was ENT shot? Personally, I'd actually rather watch ENT than VOY, though I have to skip that awful intro song.