Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/11/19 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Shelly Johnson ASC used to post once in a while, but hasn't been here since Nov 2014, where he would have encountered posts like this from Tyler, giving Christopher Nolan some advice: I don't know if that sort of post is what turned Shelly off, like it turned off Larry Fung, but it sure wouldn't make anyone of that calibre feel like participating. David Mullen responded with: "Long-time forum member Gregory Irwin was the focus puller that you seem so intent on disparaging. My first thought is that you should try doing the job if you think it is so easy. It's a little too easy to sit on the sidelines and point out the flaws in a very ambitious production without knowing fully what the challenges were." Unfortunately, 5 years later, there are no lessons learned, and this kind of crap is still going on. Tyler was recently lecturing Greg again on what he felt was happening on a set that Greg had actually worked on. Unbelievable, more interested in hearing his own voice than asking questions of someone who was there. It's a testament to his patience that Greg has stayed around. So it's really no wonder there are precious few ASC members or other professionals with mainstream release experience on these boards, when their hard work can be so insultingly dismissed by someone who really doesn't know what they're talking about. Most people here are quite respectful but it only takes one goose pretending to be an expert and posting rubbish daily to turn what should be an encouraging learning environment with reliable information and occasional input from experienced professionals into the equivalent of a youtube comments section. To pre-empt any accusations of elitism, I'm not saying professionals or ASC members are the only voices worth hearing, there are plenty of amateurs, enthusiasts and students who also contribute wonderfully to the general knowledge base here, but what we don't want to do is to turn off people with exceptional experience because of ignorant and unwarranted criticism of their work and misinformation presented as fact. There are plenty of other nooks of the internet where people can do that. This will be my last post on the subject. Sorry to lower the friendly tenor of the forum but as illustrated, this has been going on for a long time. I'll go back to simply trying to correct the misinformation that Tyler regularly posts that's within my area of experience (and hopefully get corrected myself if I accidentally post something erroneous) and I'll continue to try and refrain from making it personal. I just wish there was some evidence of change, for the sake of the forum itself.
  2. 4 points
    This was Larry Fung’s ASCs last post back in 2017: “It's true I hadn't been to the forum in a long time, and when I did I was confronted by a rather insulting post regarding a project I poured my heart and soul into, which reminded why I don't sign in more often. All cinematographers work extremely hard to do their best and it's unfortunate when our community is disparaging rather than a source of encouragement and support.” Guess who had made the insulting post? That’s right, the invaluable contributions of a world class DP were lost to the forum in exchange for endless posts full of misinformation and fanciful “opinion”.
  3. 3 points
    Paul Maibaum, ASC and Eric Steelberg, ASC also used to post here, as did a number of other professional DPs working on shows that you would have heard of. It's impossible to say what their reasons were for ceasing to post, but it's not hard to imagine that they too became disenchanted with the tone of some of the posts here, and the descent into wild speculation, ill-informed opinion and blind arrogance. Any internet forum is only as good as the people that post there, so it's up to us if we want Cinematography.com to remain a place where information is shared and advice is both trustworthy and freely given. I suspect that the vast majority of members here would prefer that it did remain a resource for learning and discussion. For those who want nothing more consequential or reliable than a chat room, well, there are plenty of other places to frequent.
  4. 3 points
    Also probably because they don’t like to be told by ‘random internet guy’ how they should have shot their movie... 🙂
  5. 2 points
    Not really. The one Andrew from AZ builded for my SR2 uses the Place/Space where the original Exposure Meter was. The Sensor use the prism for the Exposure meter and gots the power from the internal 12V. The SR Exposure meter unit is really easy to change. The 416 IVS uses a more complicated housing and a prism below the viewfinder, the replacement should be more complicated and far more expensive. Maybe so much more expensive that you ask yourself if it's worth it at all. However its pretty easy and inexpensive on a SR2 & easy on a SR3… not sure why you should go for a 416 then. I love mine. Works pretty well! The Teradek´s are a bit hungry on the SR2 NiCd.
  6. 2 points
    ok lets put all these energy in shooting some good stuff out there! No matter what Format.
  7. 2 points
    I wonder how many people would jump out of an window if Mr. Deakins say so… However… for those who didn´t participate at the cameraimage these days… the opinion of some here to declare film as dead is obsolete ... the rising numbers the past 3 years actually are the opposite. Film is coming back big time. https://petapixel.com/2019/11/08/surprise-kodaks-film-business-grew-21-year-over-year/?fbclid=IwAR1zwBbOShSvgSz73j6v5FN_rPef-k6Qm2dY8fOatdeu7sNY11O5AD9-BXg Saying this the problems Mr. Deakins had at hail ceasar are also gone, over the last 3 years many labs re-open and you get every Kodak stock immediately when needed again in almost every country. (I myself had no problems with it recently in Europe, Thailand & China). So shooting on Film is not a Problem anymore like it was in 2015. Same with Filmcameras, many Rentals upgraded their cameras with HD Video assists recently. And i know 2 Series for a Major "4K" Streaming Platform who shoots on Film right now. I also would prefer Film. I don´t know any digital camera which can handle Highlites & Highkey as nice as Film does. All the Colorists i work with prefer Film… at Company3 & at the Mill… these Guys who handles Alexa, Sony & Red Colors on a daily basis. I shoot most daily Commercial Jobs digital, but if i have the Choice… Film… And b.t.w. i had more **(obscenity removed)**Ups & Issues with Alexas and Reds as with any Lab, Lightleak or Loader so far…
  8. 2 points
    This discussion starts to feel like that Man of Steel movie with the main characters pointlessly smashing each others through brick walls for 2 hours
  9. 2 points
    My opinions, Tyler, are always quite clearly stated as such. I don’t indulge in making appeals to authority by fabricating quotes and attributing them to famous cinematographers. I don’t make up stories about faulty equipment and pretend that ‘many people’ have told me about ‘known issues’. I don’t claim to have more experience than I actually do, and I certainly don’t have the arrogance to tell award winning ASC members how to shoot their movies. All that crap might play well at your local film society, but in the real world, people know better.
  10. 2 points
    The first time you go out to work on a movie as a cinematographer and the director says he wants to do a deep focus effect and shows you a frame from “Citizen Kane”, it would get real practical very quickly. There are few touchstone reading materials for cinematography but Toland’s article on shooting “Citizen Kane” is one of them.
  11. 1 point
    You have to admit that the NeatVideo would be a great idea. Look how polite and respectful the filtered comment sounds on the previous page VS. the original one 😉
  12. 1 point
    Hmm I think it can also be less complicated than Indiecam's Arricam Tap (I tried the prototype and it's a pretty pretty good tap that can clean the screen and so on...like the IVS). The AZ version is less spectacular, you can not squeeze / rotate the picture, no Frameline/Footagecounter/Title Generator. But it still does a pretty good job for around $ 2k! And better Image Quality as from the older SD IVS. I think with some 3D printing / custom milling it might be possible to create the AZ version for the 416 - maybe ask Andrew / AZ directly. But at a time where you can get a decent Super16 SRI/2/3 or XTR for around 5k + 2K for a super light HD tap, I would not spend the same amount on a HD tap for the 416? Maybe Rentals will, but when i asked Vantage recently about HD upgrades for their 416 they wasn´t sure if they need it. I do not know now if the revived popularity of 16m film will change that. Or if at the still reasonably low camera prices the owner operator status keeps this business. The AZ HD Integrated/Lightweight Tap for the SR & Aaton keeps the weight pretty close to the 416. I do not feel much difference, both cameras are pretty light depending on the lens and setup around them. However i really can recommend the AZ HD Tap for the SR and AZ Spectrums work. It works great and its worth it!
  13. 1 point
    Dont worry he also thinks you should under expose Log footage .. to protect the highlights .. ! more prices Purcell Pontifications ..
  14. 1 point
    Narrative cinema is well over 100 years old now so perhaps innovation in the form is inevitably harder to achieve as the form has evolved. But as for whether watching old movies is a cause of stylistic stagnation, I'd tend to disagree -- I would think watching only contemporary works is more likely to cause repetition of current fads because of a lack of perspective on the breadth of narrative forms. Today, to be a classist is almost to be avant-garde... certainly a contemporary movie often doesn't seem to have the visual expressiveness of a 40's MGM musical or b&w film noir. Or "Citizen Kane" for that matter. But ultimately, great artists come from all walks of life and some are well-studied and some are just gifted and expressive without experience nor education.
  15. 1 point
    I must say I think there's some truth to this. When I was studying I often found that having seen certain films commonly considered as "canonical" was more a mark of elitism rather than actual learning. Noone wanted to be "that guy" who hasn't seen X or Y movie, because OMG how could you liek NOT have seen that, it's totally amazing and brilliant, when in truth, most people couldn't even tell you what makes those films so incredibly amazing and relevant. And that's not to say that those movies aren't relevant or great, just that there's an inertia in praising them which in turn makes opinions that cast doubt on that praise just get scorned. I think Max is completely right in questioning these "canonical" films, and if they are so great, it should be quite easy to point to all those things that make it such a great film, which some people have done, but others haven't. And adding to that, there's a lot of amazing films which get so little praise and consideration, while they maybe should be up there with those great classics. I think one such underrated masterpiece is Nothing Sacred from 1937, an amazing screenplay full of multiple layers of irony, one of the in my opinion greatest opening scenes ever (the one with the fake arabian prince), great Technicolor photography... It isn't even among the greatly remembered screwball comedies, yet I think it should be one of the most respected ones. But it isn't. Just one example of films that I not only believe to be impressive and underrated, but I could even objectively defend why they should be more highly praised than some "great classics". And, in the case of Citizen Kane, let's not forget that it rides a lot on the original hype and controversy of back in the day, of going after the big media mogul Hearst (someone whom many people who so greatly praise Kane wouldn't even know who he was), which also was somewhat kicking him when he was already down. It's ironic how there's so much overreaction among the liberal/progressive thinking intelligentsia when a certain someone criticizes journalism and the media, yet those same people greatly praise a film doing exactly that. I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but just some thoughts I wanted to get out of my system. Like I said, I nevertheless think Kane is a great movie and certainly worth a watch. But not greatly enjoying it or not immediately being dumbstruck at its genius does in my opinion not mean someone is somehow ignorant or incapable of being a good filmmaker. More importantly, I think it would be worrisome if we became so close-minded that we don't even want to accept someone questioning such a commonly accepted idea. I believe filmmaking is first and foremost storytelling (some people might disagree, that's fine). Someone who wants to be a storyteller should also be someone who thinks for himself, and someone who thinks for himself should be someone who questions that which others just accept without question. And when something becomes such a universal truth then it's the perfect moment to question it. If we become so cowardly that we just don't want to stick out from those commonly accepted truths then we have betrayed all that which we supposedly stand for. When I started studying film, this was probably my greatest disappointment, finding me surrounded by people who not only didn't want to question the Zeitgeist, they even reacted aggressively to someone who did, shielding themselves through the groupthink. Instead of an open dialogue of different opinions I found a hivemind where no one wanted to stand out. Was this what filmmaking was about? Pretending to be different and original but really just going with the flow? I find the same thing when I go to film festivals, and I find it greatly frustrating and depressing. Everything I see follows certain tendencies, nothing stands out because everything is "different" in more or less the same way. The supposed avant-garde has become ridiculously conservative, simply assuming those values that were progressive maybe 40 or 50 years ago as this conservative baseline. I sometimes think that this is the real reason why cinema is dying -- there's simply no interest in new ideas. Neither in the commercial production, nor in the alternative production. Instead of a tendency of approaching each other, avant-garde and commercial production are just drifting apart, settling in boring habits of just the same over and over, while the new ideas have left this medium and moved on to all the other emerging media. Similarly (or perhaps at the root of this phenomenon) I find the human panorama in cinema to be just an endogamic elite which favours others thinking alike, not wanting to give anyone with new ideas a chance. Perhaps they see it as a threat to their established position. I say all this from a purely European point of view, where our cinema works very differently than in America, but that's my experience. When I study how things worked some decades ago it seems like there was this whole spirit of innovation, of trying new things, of giving young people a chance, of being open to different ideas... now it's all just crusty old farts (often just mentally old, not physically) who don't want anything to change, because they have theirs and that's all they care about. Anyway, sorry for my digression. Just some things I wanted to get off my chest I guess.
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    this is so 2015… now you need all over Adidas, Nike, Astera LED´s and a Bolex.
  18. 1 point
    I counted two with a quick search.... David Mullen and Paul Maibaum posting actively (newer posts than couple of years old). most of the ASC members don't seem to have been very active here in the last 10 years. Maybe visiting sometimes but not posting anything. What happened in the 2010-ish that drew them away from the forum? too much work to concentrate the spare time on internet forums? 🙂
  19. 1 point
    super easy to buy film and get a great lab....Cinelab London are my choice...they treat me fantastically.....and Im not even on IMDB haha
  20. 1 point
    I can't comment on any of the 'arguments' here but at 53 years of age I can only state the obvious........if there were no advocates for film (celluloid) then we would all be forced to use digital whether we like it or not......and it would be like on youtube...where everything looks like its been shot by the same person and edited by the same person.....ironically we all would love to shoot big film on a dream project (the original point of the thread).....me? I'm no cinematographer and no DP but I choose to ONLY shoot moving images on film for my paid and personal projects.....I am literally willing to earn less, shoot film and feel like I have achieved something and love the look of...obv as well cos I come from the darkroom and I have used a light metre always so its where I am comfortable.......long live my Aaton XTR XC (no video tap, no film counter) and long live my beloved 16mm film!
  21. 1 point
    ........revealing the hole in the floorboards through which, moments earlier, carried by the Sisyphean weight of his wallet, the sound recordist had crashed into the Stygian gloom of the edit suite.
  22. 1 point
    And the projector sprockets went ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa in the darkened room, as Tyler took a long, slow draw on his Havana cigar. And then the door swung open with a bang, shuddering on its hinges. Light filled the room. In walked Robin, wearing a fedora and a crinkled raincoat. Dom followed at his heels, a large calibre gun in his hand ..... the look on their faces was grim. Tyler shut down the projector and it rattled to a halt. Someone flicked on a lamp. Swirls and motes of dust circled in the beam of light ...
  23. 1 point
    Lol, this one was not one of those. Very talented DP and crew, lots of care taken all around. Plus the chance to work in close proximity with one of the best chefs in the world. It was a great pleasure and honor to come to work each day. But yes, I do my fair share of the other kind too... 😉
  24. 1 point
    You have missed my point entirely. Even if you shoot the Venice in Super 35 mode and use the same lenses, you will have a completely different looking image than 5219 pushed 2 stops. They may both look aesthetically pleasing (in different ways), and perhaps you can grade the Venice to look more like the film image. But there’s no way to make the film look like the Venice image in that low light scenario, as there won’t be enough shadow detail captured on the negative. So if you are shooting available light night exteriors and trying to achieve that ‘pushed 2 stops’ film image look, then you have options. But if you are going for the smooth long tonal scale look in the shadows, then obviously there is a reason to consider a camera like the Venice instead. Again, I’m responding to your comment: The problem is that you are applying a uselessly broad criteria (i.e. it works, or it doesn’t work) to the situation, presumably meaning that it, film, will render an aesthetically pleasing image (in your opinion). The reality is that the project’s DP will be making that aesthetic judgment call on the day, and ‘what works’ for them largely depends on the specific look that they are going for. You, the viewer, are telling the painters what kind of paint they should be using, when you don’t even know what they are trying paint!
  25. 1 point
    5219 pushed 2 stops may ‘look great,’ but it does not look the same as, say, a Sony Venice at 2500 ISO in low-light mode. If you shot them side-by-side and intercut the footage, they will not match. One format cannot be a replacement for the other; they are two distinct looks that are both valid choices, depending on personal taste. Yes, you can get a different look that might be just as aesthetically pleasing on 35mm. But it won’t be the same look. So it’s not just a matter of format cost, or immediate viewing, or peace of mind. The producer, director, and cinematographer are going to pick the tools that allow them to tell their story in the way they see it. Arguing about how someone else’s work would look ‘better’ (i.e. suiting your own personal taste) if it was shot ‘your way’ is just silly (and somewhat rude, if talking about a colleague). Like or dislike the work, fine. But we should leave it there. So, I propose an amendment to the Purcell Maxim: Other cinematographers SHOULD NOT DICTATE the cinematographer’s job. 🙂
  26. 1 point
    Robin, Internet forums are fact free zones. Opinion, conjecture, and fabrication are the currency here. Tyler already explained this to us.
  27. 1 point
    sure me and some directors ask for it most of the time. Sometimes it works out, but often the ad-agencies / clients like P&G, Unilever & co. have post-production deals with mpc/the mill/company3… which handles all their edits, onlines and the grading is then 1-2 weeks later at the other end of the world. I always give my notes and try to get a chat with the colorist. But its super rare that productions/clients wants to pay for the participating/supervising of the grading day these days, not even flights to london/ny… Most of the time is ... Job request 1-3 weeks before the gig - flight to location - recce - maybe another day of preparation - shooting and flight back home / next gig. that's the usual flow for many international gigs right now. I also know directors which fights & gets their own colorists. Some Postprod. are cool with that but some Postproduction Houses can be… who knows… But the advertising market is constantly changing. Right now there are popping up more and more small boutique productions run by the Filmmakers/Directors themselves and they get more creative- control again. However in the end I just want to have a nice result which makes me happy as well. This is not always easy with advertising. have a lovely day as well!
  28. 1 point
    Everybody can move a zoom lever or turn a knob. To masterfully move the camera is a different task. Travel!
  29. 1 point
    I looooove a good, creepy zoom.
  30. 1 point
    This is a small selection of material that I have shot on Sony F5 and FS7 cameras over the last six years, most of which I have posted here before. None required a complicated color grading session. In fact, many of these frames simply had a LUT applied to the S-Log3. There are day exterior/day interior/night interior scenes; different color casts (done with filters, gels, or LUTs); different skin tones; saturated and monochromatic looks; sunny, dappled, overcast, and existing lighting conditions; narrative, doc, commercial, corporate work; all kinds of situations. And many of these are lower budget projects with minimal or no crew. These Sony cameras in the right hands can make great images, and are not difficult to grade or to work with - if you know what you are doing. But just like with film, you do have to 'know you stock' - then light, expose, and compose accordingly. That's what we cinematographers get paid to do - know how to work the medium to get the intended result. Are the FS7/F5/F55 as good as Alexa, Red Monstro/Helium/Gemini, or 35mm film? No. I just shot a project on the Alexa Mini and Cooke 5/i's that the Sony F5 would have struggled with, color and highlight-wise. But that doesn't make Sony cameras 'bad' - you adjust your approach to the 'stock.' Obviously, you don't expose and light reversal film the same way as Vision 3 color neg, at least not if you expect the same end result. Same thing with different sensors and cameras. I shoot with all kinds of digital cameras, many of them not of my choice. I have to know the strengths and pitfalls of each camera, especially if I have to go into a job with little to no prep. I've learned what ISO settings I like for each system, how far I can push the color, and mixed color temps, what kind of filtration each sensor requires. Even which lenses work best and which to avoid. And I have to say, of the currently available cameras Blackmagic Ursa Minis really are at the bottom of my list, as I find them to be the least flexible and with the most pitfalls. But I've made them look as good as I can when I'm forced to. That's what I'm getting paid to do, after all.
  31. 1 point
    I’d say you derailed the thread when you started telling fairy tales about broken Arri Minis. Tim Tyler regards his forum as being a place for facts and shared knowledge. So do most of the members. It’s apparently only you who sees it as an opportunity for self aggrandizement and make believe. Respect is earned, not given away.
  32. 1 point
    Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The fans on a Mini lead to a seperate chamber that has nothing but cooling fins inside. There is no “hole leading directly to the boards”. The electronics are very well sealed and isolated. Naturally a more compact form will have its design challenges, but I think the designers at Arri have done a very good job, and to accuse them of not thinking about the use of the camera when Alexas have remained the most popular, reliable and user-friendly design series in the digital age is really kind of silly. Maybe ask yourself if you actually know what you’re talking about before posting any old random thought that pops into your head and pretending like it’s a fact. I don’t want to seem like I’m picking on you, but if you keep posting misinformation with the air of an expert you’re going to get pulled up.
  33. 1 point
    Guys there is something we have to realize here.. and I have been one of the main culprits .. Tyler is way more experienced than Deakins or Sher.. who lets face it ,are pretty much flying by the seat of their pants each job..digital guys what can you expect duh.. and certainly anyone on this forum.. !!! .he has shot way bigger budgets and a CV that speaks for itself.. now that Roger has eventually got his gong from the academy .. .. surely this year is its Tylers turn..
  34. 1 point
    All over the country eh? In the field, making product! You may have missed that I said I worked for Panavision and have access to worldwide service logs. We ship gear between branches all over the world so we're never just one shop. I've looked at service records for Minis across the entire fleet of over three hundred bodies, and looked for recurring issues that may need addressing. In the last year less than 1% needed power boards replaced for reasons other than obvious user damage like salt water exposure. Same with SDI boards. The most common issue outside of user damage is stuck or lit pixels, which is usually easily fixed with a sensor calibration - something that should be done anyway after a certain hour count, a bit like how your car needs a service. Your assertions are what's called anecdotal - you've talked to a handful of people who told you something that someone else said that may or may not be accurate. None of them actually analysed the problem or did the repair. A board failure could be caused by salt water damage from a previous job that went unnoticed. An SDI issue could be due to a damaged socket. A sensor replacement could be needed because the camera was dropped, or debris had gotten under the cover glass and damaged the sensor surface. You might have heard that a camera was replaced because of x when actually it was nothing to do with x, but here you are telling everyone about it. Minis have been out for over three years and I've never heard anyone say they have reliability issues, no-one in Panavision, no-one in Arri, no-one in any of the other rental houses I deal with, nothing on any internet forum. But apparently "everyone" you talk to says they do. You say "a few shops" have told you the SDI board is a failure point but our records show only two SDI boards were replaced in the last year out of well over three hundred bodies (and I suspect it was an external cause, because they were both on the same production.) How is that even relevant? Are you trying to suggest Blackmagic cameras are somehow more reliable than Alexas?
  35. 1 point
    I think with Arri we are probably very close to releasing a new sensor. They are going to have to move on from the 10 year old sensor tech quite soon or be left behind in the market. (this is a guess, but at some point they have to update and that has to happen in the next 12 to 18 months or Arri risks being wiped out by the competitors) If you can pay off the Amira before that happens, then your fine. But if Arri come out with a new range of cameras (with new sensors), I think it would kill your Amira rentals. Rightnow people will rent Arri's with 3.4k sensors because they want Arri colour science and can compromise on resolution to get it. (Alexa LF and 65 being too expensive for most budgets). The Alexa still rents because there isn't a super 35mm Arri with 4K+ resolution as an option. Of course also an Alexa shooting 3.4K is still good enough for most things. But once there is a new Arri 4k/6k (what ever), people are going to want that.... Not the old tech. So you'd ideal want to pay off your investment before that happens, an Amira would still be a nice camera but its going to be as popular as a F35 or D21 is now. The market will want the latest tech (even if the old tech is fine) The FX9 at least is a newer sensor/design and because its FF and 6K, it could still be marketable in a market that has the next generation Arri's in it. The FS7 has been a solid investment for many freelancers with a decent level of demand, in the UK its become the default (non Arri) broadcast and industrial camera. If the FX9 continues that trend it could be a good buy. Depending on the market but in the UK the FX9 would be a no brainer in that budget range. The issue with RED's is clients may be looking at the top end 8K super death skull version, rather then the 5K Gemini (even if its better). So you might loose out to people with the higher spec, people booking RED's are usually doing it so they can go 8K.... blah blah blah weapons.... Otherwise the Scarlets and the Epics would still be asked for... Its always a gamble though and dependant on what the local prod co's look for. For instance Black Magic make some decent cameras but I've never seen a job posting in my market for an Operator with BM camera, they all ask for Sony FS7, Arri or RED. Or save money for the new Arri....
  36. 1 point
    Apparently, JOKER had an eight minute standing ovation at the conclusion of the picture!! I was told that is unprecedented at the Venice Film Festival. A great start! G
  37. 1 point
    Thanks guys. I need to convince A24 to make prints! What's interesting about exposing and grading black and white is that you make day scenes brighter than you normally would, since it's your only tool to strengthen transitions between night and day. This is not fully portrayed by this first trailer, which has a very high number of shots from our "dusk" and "dawn" scenes. This film was much different than the Witch. This time, the night scenes around the "lantern" that look so dark in the movie were nearly blinding on set. It also has a proper black and often good highlights, unlike the low-con look of "The Witch." We may continue to stay rich in contrast for our next color film as well. Shall see. Harris Savides had such a profound influence on so many of us cinematographers. For me, the soft look and unending highlight scale stuck for a long time. Jarin
  38. 1 point
    This is the crux of the problem with the point you seem to be trying to make. If what you care about is something that conforms to "today's standards" (whatever that means), that's fine. Just remember that 20 years from now, nobody will care about the work you do when "standards" have changed. It's a good idea to take a long view here. When I was in art school (for film) in the early 90s, I had a conversation with a professor that really stuck with me. I was there because I wanted to be in Boston and I wanted to study film, but wasn't particularly interested in avant garde art films, so my mindset was somewhat rebellious from the get-go. Also, I was 20. I was making a ham-fisted argument about rapid cutting being the death of serious cinema or some similarly pretentious BS, and he basically shot me down and pointed to dozens of examples going back to the 20s that countered my argument. I went back and looked at those films and sure enough, he was right. (As an aside, I can't imagine how hard it is for film professors to deal with this with every year's crop of freshmen know-it-alls). The bottom line is: It doesn't matter if it meets "today's standards," unless all you care about is commercial success. All of the history of film leads up to what we have now - it's a constantly evolving language. You may not like the pacing, or the style of acting, you may not be able to relate to the cultural references or the language, you might find black and white or silent film to be "boring" but skipping them to develop your own "original" style is just pure hubris. I find Birth of a Nation to be morally repugnant, but it's still worth watching. Ignore that history at your peril.
  39. 1 point
    It’s true that cultural expression changes with geography and time. Just go to your local bar at noon or 12 hours later at night, very different forms of expression. But movies are not about culture, they are about “the human condition” (at least 99% of them) which haven’t changed since the birth of cinema. Peoples actions are basically driven by three things 1.Passion(procreation,hobbies,faith, self fulfillment/preservation…) 2.Power(money, status…) 3.Seemingly irrational acts (Zinedine Zidane world cup final head butt. Or writing over 1400 posts on a cinematography forum, when you don’t actually seem to love movies.) Any action in a film can be boiled down to 1 of the 3 reasons above, or any action in life for that matter. (That is of course if one believes that free will exits over determinism, but that’s a whole other discussion.) That’s why simple story structures like A wants B but C gets in the way, always works independent of location(I’m assuming you are not watching “foreign” films either) or time. For example: 1927 Silent film: 7th Heaven. Guy want’s girl but -- the first world war gets in the way. 2003 Animation: Finding Nemo. Father wants to save son but -- the big sea gets in the way. 2010 South Korea: The Yellow Sea. Guy want’s missing wife but – the mob gets in the way. Film is like music something deeply human and universal, and it resonates across borders and time. Sure we all have different tastes and preferences, but you can always learn something no matter where or when the film was made, or if it was good or bad. Like Stephen King says in his book on writing, if you want to be a writer, you only have to do two things, you have to READ and you have to WRITE. And if you want to be a writer/director the same goes for film making. I just can’t comprehend why you want to make movies if you don’t want to watch them.
  40. 1 point
    Being soundly educated in the classics has always been a road to success in the arts. Of course there's no guarantee because the other requirements are talent and lots of hard work, and basically, sticking with it and not giving up. There's another thing though: being obsessed with other's achievements, and being an expert on what has been produced by others, but not really getting out there and doing your own things. A famous classical musician once said something along the lines of "If you're at the top of the game you don't have time to sit down and listen to the other soloists." But people do. We need inspiration and technical and artistic knowledge. So seek a good balance. Get educated, stay educated, but get out there and do your own thing as quick as you can, and keep doing it. Don't watch too many films - make your own. But you have to know your art. Wisdom and hard work ..... Yes, you must watch Citizen Kane. It's a classic.
  41. 1 point
    I don't know. I just really like watching movies. And I love breaking down the craft as far as I'm capable. It's been my favorite thing to do since as far back as I can remember having a favorite thing to do. The first thing my parents let me do by myself was walk to the movie theater and see whatever was playing. I didn't even know what I was watching half the time, but if it was PG, I bought a ticket. I just turned forty a few days ago and all I asked my wife for my birthday is to let me BBQ and watch a good movie on my projector in the basement. That's a perfect birthday in my opinion. So... when someone tells me there was a movie made almost eighty years ago that was so good it's influenced new movies ever since... it's hard for me to understand not wanting to watch it.
  42. 1 point
    Also, it's just a plain old good movie. So if you like watching good movies, I would recommend it. And now with 2018 availability to many old movies that weren't available in the past and with the technology to watch these old movies on bigger screens again, now's a better time than any to catch up on the classics that came out in theaters before we were born. I watched "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" for the first time last night on a 10 foot screen in my basement. It was great. But all that aside, I'm sure Mr. Mullen has said this plenty of times in the past, but it's worth finding out who your favorite filmmaker's favorite filmmakers are and watching their movies to learn what your favorite filmmaker's influences were. I really like Martin Scorsese films and he talks about his influences all the time... I have "The Red Shoes" sitting in a netflix sleeve as we speak. I just listened to an interview with Quentin Tarantino where he talked about how a review of one of his favorite Jean-Luc Godard films inspired his entire point of view on writing. Who knows what will inspire you, so why not watch as much as you can?
  43. 1 point
    One of the things about this that I notice is that a lot of less-experienced people who are perhaps just starting out have very little idea of blocking and staging. This is part of the reason why a lot of very basic short films are terribly "cutty" with each shot doing exactly one thing, before, kerpow, we're off to the next one. This is a different problem to the frenetic editing of some action movies, which is done to make it feel pacy; those films are often shot in such a way that they could be presented in longer takes if the editors were a bit more considered, which is a topic for another day. But a lot of short films are essentially presented as a string of individual setups, where a longer take, with at least more willingness to operate the camera, perhaps even move the camera, and show a lot of action in one go, might work better. Older movies are a very good demonstration of this sort of thing, particularly musicals which made a point of showing a dance sequence in full. It might not be what we're doing now, but it demonstrates a lot of technique. The musical number "A Boy Like That" from West Side Story was once used as an example of this in a class taught by (if I remember correctly) Stephen H. Burum, ASC. It's far from a one-setup scene, but the use of blocking and staging, with cleverly set up light to keep people visible, in silhouette and in front light, is absolutely masterful. Shot in 65mm, on 5251, a 50-speed tungsten stock, by Daniel L. Fapp. People constantly claim this is three-strip technicolor. It isn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oxfOncYiag
  44. 1 point
    There’s no law that a painter has to have seen a painting by Leonardo, Vermeer, Van Gogh... or any painting for that matter. But it has always seemed odd to me when someone can’t be bothered to learn the fundamentals of their chosen art form, which includes some BASIC history. But whatever works for them. But if I ran a film school, you’d be darn certain that every student would be shown “Citizen Kane”. And doubly so if I ran a cinematography department!
  45. 1 point
    If you happen to be talking about the later version Vario-Switar 16-100mm, Parts are available from Bolex to convert the bayonet mount to a C-mount.
  46. 1 point
    This opening shot... I can not spot any CGI (though I intuitively know there is some to at least replace the countryside/sky) but this opening shot is marvelous. Do you think it was a drone all the way through, or some sort of hidden cut switching to a crane with an op who can walk off? Would love to know if anyone actually knows or good speculation on it.
  47. 1 point
  48. 0 points
    disagree .. trying to save the forum.. wait till you have been here for longer and you will see the problem.. that is the very unprofessional aspect here.. not those who have had enough of it..
  49. -1 points
    You can convert K to megapixel very easily. Just multiply the two H and W resolutions and you get megapixel. The industry uses "lines" because that's how we determine resolution with film, you can't do it any other way. Megapixel is a factor of the digital age when you can count the active pixels on an imager grid. Since film's silver makeup is random, it's impossible to get a megapixel count from it. All we can do is project a still image onto a screen and count how many lines we see from the photographed chart. What I do know is that projection lenses play a HUGE role in this process and digital is no different. So a 4k imager of a digital projector is NOT delivering 4k to the screen. However, since film is a projected format, it seems irrelevant to discuss actual resolution, since nobody will ever see it. The only thing that matters is what the film looks like when projected. What I'd be interested in seeing is a test with modern projectors to see what resolution is visible by the audience. 35mm release prints (4th gen) are generally less then 2k in of themselves. When projected on screen, perceivable resolution is somewhere in the 700 - 800 line range. Is 2k digital any better? Well, I would assume so because even the worst digital appears to be crisper. Plus, with 35mm projection, there are many issues that cause the film to be not as crisp, from gate weave, out of calibration shutter and old glass. I recently saw Batman v Superman, a horrible movie that was on the borderline of unwatchable. Yet, it was a absolutely gorgeous 5/70 print which was the reason for going. I sat mid theater, the screen was huge and it looked better then any digital projection I've ever seen. No registration issues, no flicker, no dirt, no noticeable splices, no aliasing which is typical of lower resolution projection. Now obviously I saw it at the Arclight and yea, they have a DP70 up there, which is one of the finest film projectors ever made. Still, it was worth the experience to see such a wonderful projection of a horrible movie. It does show that 5/70 is still the best standard projection format around and 15/70 blows the doors off 5/70, it looks very digital it's so clean.
  50. -1 points
    Robin, I don't make up anything, there is no misinformation. I DP's three sony shows in recent years and graded another 2 of them shot by pretty decent DP's. The issues I had were on all the shows. The only way to make those cameras look good is to have complete control over your lighting on a sound stage and/or heavily grade the image to the point where it looks nothing like the set. Nothing is going to prevent me from giving my point of view on a subject. You don't like it? The "log out" button is right above. I'm simply stating some information that I've gathered over the last few years. Word of mouth and circumstantial as it may sound, it's worth discussing. As someone who goes on productions pretty regularly, I see a different angle then someone sitting at a shop. Many issues with cameras are NOT reported to the rental houses. If you call my comments and opinion rubbish, then so be it, thats your opinion. At the same time, there is no reason to constantly make note of it. Again, I'm merely stating experiences, which is exactly what everyone else says here. I keep saying this over and over again, internet forums are for posting opinions and experiences, they are not for facts. If you want facts about anything, the first thing to do is shut off your computer, walk to the nearest library and start reading professionally produced publications. Really it comes down to respect and you don't respect me at all, that's the sad part.
  • Create New...