Jamie Lewis Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) I posted in wrong forum. Can a mod please move it for me? Sorry for screwing up my first post! Such a newb! Edited July 3, 2007 by Diavolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Maibaum ASC Posted July 4, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2007 Outstanding film, incredible cinematography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Plaza Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Definitely a Master piece, i didn't surprised coming from Emmanuel Lubezki "Chivo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 IMO, Lubezki has been robbed of his rightfully due Oscars two years in a row now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Lewis Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 IMO, Lubezki has been robbed of his rightfully due Oscars two years in a row now. I was really bothered by him not getting it for Children of Men. After I left the theater my jaw was on the floor at how absolutely beautiful the cinematography was. It was simply amazing. I'm guessing you're referring to The New World? I haven't see that yet. How does it compare to CoM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 (edited) I was really bothered by him not getting it for Children of Men. After I left the theater my jaw was on the floor at how absolutely beautiful the cinematography was. It was simply amazing. I'm guessing you're referring to The New World? I haven't see that yet. How does it compare to CoM? For my money, cinematography doesn't get any better The New World. Definitely better than CoM, for me. In fact, The New World has the best cinematography since at least 2000's In the Mood for Love, in my opinion. You should check it out when you get a chance. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. I think it's fair to say with TNW and CoM, Lubezki has vaulted himself into the very upper echelons of working DPs. Edited July 5, 2007 by Tom Lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Shani Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 i just sew the movie and let me tell this kind of moves remind me why i am a cinematographer it is visually stunning and brave hope same day i could shoot like this:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Pablo Ramirez Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 the cinematography of children of men is stunning, but the thing that impressed me the most was the camera work pardon my grammar english ain't my native language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igor Trajkovski Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 In the above video, what is Emmanuel holding? SLR and video camera? ? Regards Igor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Schneider Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 It looked like a directors viewfinder using a small dv camera as a video tap, like a different version of the 'ultimate director's' viewfinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-vdf35.php In the above video,what is Emmanuel holding? SLR and video camera? ? Regards Igor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Shap Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) http://www.qcam.co.nz/images/Directors%20viewfinder.jpg Edited July 23, 2007 by Marc Shap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Kesher Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 What's the image quality like from viewfinders like the one above? Good enough to use it as a 35 adapter together with a Handycam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John R Hudson Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I read whereas they shot using only available light with only a few instances of bounce and artificial Beautiful film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igor Trajkovski Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 @ Chayse Irvin - Thank you. What's the image quality like from viewfinders like the one above? Good enough to use it as a 35 adapter together with a Handycam? I wonder that too. It depends also if the GG has only markers of the frame and nothing in the center. Regards Igor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Dautry Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 best movie of the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 What's the image quality like from viewfinders like the one above? Good enough to use it as a 35 adapter together with a Handycam? I guess if you have a spare cine lens? Something in "Arri PL, Panavision, Bayonet or BNC-R". It's probably still overkill though, unless you're using it for the unique image, at which point image quality must not really factor into it... Anyway, Children of Men is definitely a great film, I love the visual style. In fact, I've got to rent that again, wish I'd seen it in theaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Bliss Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 "children of men" - simply briliant, I have used this gismo on a recent shoot in Korea, worked a treat, either hard wire it to you clam-shell or micro wave it. Mark www.markbliss.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Bryant Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Back to the YOUTUBE video real quick. They talk about using only natural light, but what about scenes at night like the one at the farm house where theo is sneaking around outside the cars trying to get them out of there? Did they just use a very high speed film? It doesn't seem to grainy, nor does it seem like there is much like to supply a 500T stock. Maybe i'm just too much of an amateur and don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Carruthers Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Back to the YOUTUBE video real quick. They talk about using only natural light, but what about scenes at night like the one at the farm house where theo is sneaking around outside the cars trying to get them out of there? Did they just use a very high speed film? It doesn't seem to grainy, nor does it seem like there is much like to supply a 500T stock. Maybe i'm just too much of an amateur and don't get it. Ive seen that interview as well. They used light, they just kept it as natural as possible, and tried not to clutter the set with cables or grip equipment. I remeber I seen a picture somewhere of a giant light soarce hanging from a crane in the farm scenes at night. it may have been the asc article. And they tired to build the lighting into the sets, and alot of the time scenes are just lit with photofloods or worklights which you see on film. And he used a single film stock 500t 5229 which is a low contrast film stock which allowed him to shoot under extreame conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Bonomo Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Usually the "no artificial light" rule is not rock-solid. On The New World, Malick wanted only natural light, but they talked him into using lights on the interior scene in the castle in England, for example. To me, it's silly to get so swept up in the natural light thing that you cannot compromise at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Bryant Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Wow, that's certainly more artificial light than I expected. It's great to see what it actually takes to light something, which helps the less-experienced losers (me). haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) Wow, that's certainly more artificial light than I expected. It's great to see what it actually takes to light something, which helps the less-experienced losers (me). haha Lol, keep in mind those are in-studio and sound stage shots! Do you expect "natural light" inside a closed building?? :) Edited January 15, 2008 by Tom Lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Larson Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Lol, keep in mind those are in-studio and sound stage shots! Do you expect "natural light" inside a closed building?? :) It worked great for Georges Melies! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now