Jump to content

Alex Lindblom

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Alex Lindblom

  1. This brings up old memories and threads (old threads are painful, like Jon Snow you know nothing and you can’t spell, honestly I still can’t) I know because I started a thread in 2004 about the flatness of Stuck on You and Mystic River (really have to re-watch that one)This was before the digital revolution and the existence of Arri Master anamorphics and Angénieux Optimo anamorphics. So even if you can ascribe the “flatness” of John Wick 2 and Star Trek Beyond to the Arris and Optimos A2S and perhaps the digital capture, it doesn't really tell the whole story. You bring up Silence (mostly shot on film) if you compare it to The Mission it’s very clear that something has shifted, there is a sense of 3D space in older anamorphic films that we have lost. Or at least had lost... ...Because if you look at Rouge One shot on a Arri 65 and old Ultra Panavision 70 lenses, it has some of that old school 3dimensional feel to it, And Black Monday shot on Sony Venice and Panavision T-series is clearly the best anamorphic and digital combination so far, so maybe we have finally turned a corner.
  2. Small correction it is -- 250 Mbits/sec ( 31.2MBytes/sec) NOT 250MBytes/sec according to the DCI specs: • For a frame rate of 24 FPS, a 2K distribution shall have a maximum of 1,302,083 bytes per frame (aggregate of all three color components including headers). Additionally, it shall have a maximum of 1,041,666 bytes per color component per frame including all relevant tile-part headers. • A 4K distribution shall have a maximum of 1,302,083 bytes per frame (aggregate of all three color components including headers). Additionally, the 2K portion of each frame shall satisfy the 24 FPS 2K distribution requirements as stated above. Note: For information purposes only, this yields a maximum of 250 Mbits/sec total and a maximum of 200 Mbits/sec for the 2K portion of each color component. https://www.dcimovies.com/
  3. 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.
  4. Footage from the Venice https://vimeo.com/261639898 VENICE en Cartagena de Indias. Colombia I have to say, I really like what I’m seeing, the footage reminds me of Samsara. Top marks indeed.
  5. This may deserve it's own thread but since it's clearly iPhone related... Paul Schrader holds a talk about how he recut and reshaped Dying of the light, and "re filmed" the footage from the monitor on an iPhone(he shows how -- about 33min in to the talk) because he didn't have access to the original material. The are pretty long scenes from both the new version -- Dark and Dying of the light, in the talk. And he shows the final scene of Dark so spoiler warning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcM8UU07cuY
  6. Stuart let's break this down... Well Danny Boyle famously called up Anthony Dod Mantle and said, I want to do something digtally, and that was 28 days later, a perfectly fine digital movie where the material marries to the story. But I basically agree with what you are saying about the top and the bottom, and the rest just simply trying to make a living in the middle and I have zero issues with that. Then we perhaps can agree to disagree because we seem to have completely different points of view here. What you call "not some esoteric notions of whether the medium dictates the quality of the finished piece." I call, the quality of the frame. And once again since the frame is the movie, you can't separate the story from the frame, you will have a radio play. So from my point of view there is no question that the frame affects the movie, and since the capture medium affects the frame it also has to affect the movie since they are one and the same. there is no way around it. But maybe we aren't arguing, that the, capture medium affects the film, but how much it affects the film? That of course is completely open to interpretation. And as you can see in my statement above, it's not about celluloid, I'm praising a film shot on a measly Canon XL-1S. And If you want some Alexa praise Skyfall probably has the best Bond opening of all time. I'll throw in some comedy for you as well the first 25-30 min of Don't mess with the Zohan when John Turturro drops a piranha in his pants is pure comedy gold, or Easy A, a rarely spoken about comedy with Emma Stone and a great performance by Amanda Bynes, both these films where shot on the Genesis. Again it doesn't matter if it's Alexa or Kodak but it has to be a "correct frame." And even if you think that sounds pretentious, that's what film is for me, one correct frame after another, in the correct rhythm, in time, do that for about 1600-1800 frames and you have a movie, and that's all it is.
  7. No of course not, film is a business, the one who pays has the final say. I'm not harping on cinematographers here, the shift to digital is clearly a budgetary one (of course there are also times when it's an artistic one) and therefore on the producers table, if the decision is economic.
  8. What I'm trying to say is, we are making a big mistake if we treat the 35mm and Alexa frame, as one and the same. This is where the problem starts if you have a 35mm idea, but then for budget reason you are forced to go digital. And you don't adjust your idea to the digital frame, and just go ahead and pretend we are still shooting 35mm and keeping exactly to the original idea, then the film will fall apart because the captured frame is no longer in support of that original idea. Again two examples The Beguiled (2017) The Witch (2015) both 1.66 period pieces, basically chamber dramas, with similar observatory camera style. With slower paced movies like these, you are the mercy of the mood of the frame you can't hide behind the cut, the frame has to carry you. For me the The Beguiled is an okay movie, a bit much style over substance for my taste, but it stays true to itself and pretty much achieves what it sets out to accomplish. Now the thorny part, I know Jarin Blaschke are on these boards and I mean absolutely no disrespect, so please chime in and rip me a new one, if you feel I'm going off base here. The single biggest problem with, The Witch it's that it doesn't stay true to itself, true to it's idea. The setting, the tempo, the tone, the intended mood, all theses things are telling me that this movie was never intended to be shot on digital. The frame is not helping the story, in fact it's working against the very story the filmmakers are trying to tell. Now if Robert Eggers actually conceived this as a digital movie from the beginning, and it wasn't a necessary budget decision along the way, I'll admit defeat and crawl back under my rock. But to circle back, the frame is the most important part of film making, and at this point in time 35mm film and digital are not interchangeable(they are close though), and should not be treated as such. Choose the right medium for the right story that's all I'm saying.
  9. David the comment's wasn't meant for you, I have nothing but the highest respect for you as a cinematographer and an educator. And I'm Extremely grateful for all the knowledge you have shared so generously trough the years.
  10. This very laissez-faire attitude (from some of you) to the frame on a cinematography forum is mind-boggling to me. The frame in relation to the next frame over time, that's what cinema is, that's all it is, that's all we have. And what I'm keep hearing is that the frame doesn't matter. It's the acting, the script, production design, lighting and on and on. And while it's true that the frame contains all of these aspects, none of it matters if the frame it self, isn't correct.(Now the frame can be either analog or digital, 8mm or 65mm but it has to be correct for it's intended purposes.) If the tilt is too low you see the apple box the lead actor is on, if it's too high you see the light, and the flag blocking it. The illusion is broken. It's like saying to a magician "you know what I can see the trap door but don't worry, the trick will probably work anyway." No -- it simply won't. Why spend millions on VFX if the frame doesn't matter, we could just release the green screen versions and save a lot of pain and money. The counter argument will be don't be ridicules of course it matters, it just doesn't matter if the VFX is on a celluloid or digital or if its 16mm or 35mm ccd or cmos and so on... But it does, the capture medium determines the frame, and the frame is the movie. Movies shot on different mediums feels different, not only because of the actual size, ISO and nature of the imager, and the physical size of the camera. But maybe even more importantly the actual idea for a movie itself is formed by the format you envision it on. Now you can shot a good film on whatever format you choose, but it has to marry to the material. For example: Paranormal activity it's not a pretty frame but it's a correct one. Narnia 1 brings us and the kids to meet Aslan and the second one brings us to the battlefield (in perhaps the most violent kids movie ever.) while Dawn Treader takes us, to some cheap BBC soap set, all the sets, props, VFX and lightning in the world, in this case 150mil worth of it, can't help it. Because the frame is not correct for it's intended purpose, to take us trough a magical journey trough Narnia.
  11. It's fine to critic things, but "It looks awful" brings nothing to the table, don't just bring down -- contribute. Saying that historical films can only use technology from it's time, is just silly. What about films, taking place before film was invented? And why is 2:1 aspect ratio more or less nonsense then any other aspect ratio? Interview with Tim Ives about season 1 and 2... http://deadline.com/2017/08/stranger-things-tim-ives-duffer-brothers-cinematography-emmys-interview-1202141889/ They shot Red Dragon on the first, Red Helium on the second.
  12. This discussion is getting quite silly. To Robin R Probyn, let me take some heat of Fatih's back here. Sure bashing for bashing sake is unnecessary, but the notion that you can't have your own point of view as filmmaker, is ridicules. That's the whole point of film making (that and making money of course, probably in reverse order.) Let say I want to shot a western, now since this is a film, not a book, or a stage-play -- it's a film, it needs to have a look, a tone, a vision if you so will. So in your mind you start with two polar opposite images The Searchers and The Revenant, and you say what do I prefer (of course, in the real world the man with money pulls the strings, but say you agree on the vision in this case.) I my case it's The Searchers, but it's not quite right, I never liked the cutting between actual locations and stage exteriors, and do I really need the VistaVision frame? So your mind wanders on and says -- Pale Rider. Yeah that seems about right and practical, so let us start from there. Now, that doesn't mean that, The Searchers or The Revenant's, look and approach due to artistic intent or technical limitations of the time, are any better or worse than Pale Rider. But, and this is the big but again, they are different. And if you are, or want to be a filmmaker. You really should have an opinion/preference, otherwise what's the point?
  13. Yes confirmation bias is a thing. But, I don't want to like a films more because they are shot on film. If anything is true, it is the exact opposite. Since most movies are shot on Alexa, I would of course prefer to sit trough movies I like. The same goes for capturing, not to be locked down to the cost and logistics of film. I truly wish the Alexa was a film replacement, but for me it's just not there yet. But where I think I have confirmation bias is towards the Genesis/F35 over film. I like enough movies shot on that system, that I can talk myself in to shooting on it, instead of going through all the cost and hassle of shooting on celluloid,
  14. But that's the crux of the matter isn't it? It clearly seems to affect the end product. Three examples: In Twin Peaks The Return, Lynch and the great Peter Deming, reprises the scene from the red room where Laura Palmer whispers in Cooper's ear. And if you compare it to the original, the difference is night and day, even though Kyle MacLachlan's old man make up isn't the best, you are there, the red room is a place. While in the new version, the red room simply feels like a fake set. The difference is stark. The Poltergeist remake. Sure there is a slight shift in the script but it sticks pretty close to the original. A film with a great cast, young and I assume hungry director, shot by Javier Aguirresarobe who also shot the The Others, a film I truly like. And yet, once more we have a film where nothing is working. Even though a lot of competent people where involved. And a script, that clearly worked the first time around. Francis Lawrence directed The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (for me the best in the series, I prefer it over the first one,) Then just one year later Mockingjay comes out and is mind- numbingly dull (and this from the man who also directed Constantine which I liked,) I can't remember how many sittings I needed, to get through both parts. Sure you can argue cause and correlation, but I'm certain that Francis Lawrence didn't lose all his skills in the span of one year, so there must be something else going on here. Because this an issue that effects the whole industry, it's no better on the art house side, of the street either. The White Ribbon, Michael Haneke's excellent 2009 film tics along just fine, but then his next film Amour has suddenly lost all momentum (even for a Haneke film.) To me it seems that there are just too many disparate films effected by this, to be pure coincidence.
  15. Well for me it's simple. It has to produce the same emotional response, as when you are watching, an actual movie shot on celluloid. It's clear to me that something like "the uncanny valley" for capture medium is going on here, Alexa images just doesn't feel right, you simply can't enter the dream. I'm a nowplaying podcast fan, so I have been watching the Death Wish series, and there is no question that Death Wish 3, is a pretty terrible film. But, it's big but, I have no problem sitting trough it. And this goes for a lot of older movies. While the opposite is true for modern films, even from directors I truly love, let's just take a few examples here because the list is endless... Blackhat, Twin Peaks The Return, Alien Covenant, Crimson Peak, Dumb and Dumber To,31, and so on and so on... The problem is actually even worse on modern low budget films, where at best, they manage to feel like a long TV episode. Now, for me this problem actually seems to go away for the most part if the film is shot with CCD technology. I doesn't seem to matter if it Genesis/Sony F35 or a 3 chip design F900/F23 even tough it doesn't look "filmic" per say, I'm still able to engage with the movie, like -- Rachel Getting Married for example. I also want to champion a little known film, #Horror from 2015. It's a flawed film, but it's something there in it, and to my big surprise it was shot on a Digital Bolex another CCD camera, I had no idea when I watch it, other than I liked the look of the movie.
  16. The movie was shot on regular Alexa's http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/ From Article: Deakins and Villeneuve concurred on shooting with ALEXAs (XT Studio, augmented by the Plus and Mini cameras) and capturing in 3.4K to Codex in MXF/Arrriraw. “We decided to shoot this open-gate, like Sicario,” Deakins shares. “I did shoot tests with the ALEXA 65, which produces fantastic images, but for this project it just didn’t feel right.
  17. Like the C700. This is ridicules. The Sony Venice is the first full-frame cinema camera (Don't say Red you can't really buy their version yet). When it comes to creative chooses, the e-mount means that you can put on virtually any lens ever created. You want to shot with the ARRI 65, that's perfectly fine but you can't buy it -- only rent. Also your fine with paying God knows what for an ARRI 65 rental, but not 7k on the raw recorder? I truly don't get the logic. The Blackmagic argument is like saying Porsche shouldn't be allowed to exists because Ford makes decent enough cars. And yet you are perfectly fine with the ARRI 65, which in this analogy would be an Enzo Ferrari. Again I'm sorry but you don't make any sense.
  18. I don't know where to begin. Sony says in one of the videos that the camera goes 9 stops i repeat nine stops under. And I bet that the XAVC file will preserve all 9 of them. But I don't know so let's say, for argument sake it's "just" 7 or 6. That's still leaves 13/12 stops in total I mean how much more do you need? And once again if you really need it, just shot raw. But if you are an indie XAVC is fine. I really don't get this Prores worship, yes it's good it's practical but there are other options out there. On a more philosophical note cameras became good enough on the 17th of may 2010 when episode 21 se06 of House "Help Me" aired, shot on a mix of 5D mkII and 7Ds. I went through all hundreds of posts on the most popular House forum, and only 3 people mention the look of the episode, and all of them thought it looked really good. Cameras today are all technically good enough, it all comes down to the individual look of them, and what you prefer Alexa, Red, Sony, Canon, there is no right or wrong here only preference.
  19. My God the nagging. This camera offers everything -- everything. Expect 120 fps I grant you guys that. XAVC is a perfectly fine codec. But sometimes you "need" even more quality. So they offer not one but 3 different forms of raw. And the beauty with raw is that you can turn it into any codec you want, so just convert in to whichever from of PRORES you want. Now Tyler if 6k down to 4k XAVC, is not good enough for you, then you simply don't by the camera without the AXS-R7 recorder. The price it's dirt cheap. Just try to shoot vistavision and see what it cost you, not to mention the set up with ancient cameras, if you can even find one. I don't get the negativity in today's market, there are more then good digital cameras in every price segment. Sure the Sony Venice is going to be too expensive for a lot of people, but then just buy a Sony A9 instead. It makes perfectly fine pictures and even shoots 120fps in 1080P.
  20. The wolf of wall street The Asc http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/December2013/TheWolfofWallStreet/page1.php
  21. Ah come on 1995 was a great year for movies. It produced at least four classic films that year… Leaving Las Vegas Casino Heat 12 Monkeys Other honorable mentions are… To die for – Little Odessa – Mighty Aphrodite – The basketball diaries – Braveheart – Nixon Now what's a “Drama” can be a bit subjective so if you want to strike some films of the list, that's fine. Now compare and contrast that to 2015, what do we have – The Hateful 8, and if I'm nice, Southpaw maybe. So something has definitely happened in 20 years, what that something is, I don't know.
  22. Well as Freya said it was shot in a 1.66 ratio that's how it supposed to be seen. Thank goodness the pan and scan days are mostly over these days. Interview with the cinematographer http://gocreativeshow.com/the-cinematography-of-the-witch-with-jarin-blaschke-gcs083/
  23. Well it's finally alive at https://vimeo.com/roardigital/videos the top three examples. Seems to be working, and I'm liking what I'm seeing so far.
  24. I mean I think it comes down to the basic appreciation of what film is, the essence of it. Pictures moving in time in space, by the manipulation of the cut. George Miller, manages to push a basic silent narrative for almost 2hr, personally I would have cut out all the night time scenes but that's just me, I'm sure somebody else loves them. The opening to Skyfall do the same thing maybe even better and of course shorter. And if you want to slow it down, you can go to the Once upon a time in the west opening, the same thing, pure cinema just in slightly lower tempo. As I said the film left me a bit cold, but the craftsmanship is right up there on the screen to see. This is the “purest” film I seen since the first Ju-on (2000) shot for Japanese television, which does the same thing for horror but in much slower pace and it's only 70 minutes. In music anyone can hear when someone takes a false note, something that seems to be sorely lacking in the appreciation of cinema. People have different tastes and you can always argue if you like it or not, but what you can't argue is if somebody can play the instrument or not. Leone, Carpenter, De palma, Trakovsky, Cameron, Spielberg, Haneke, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Miller they all can play the instrument. Yet their movies are vastly different, not only among each other, but even within there own oeuvre. Some I like some I don't, but I can always appreciate a job well done even though it may not be my preferred dish so to speak. And as a final note I also prefer T1 and T2 over Fury Road, but I thought we where talking about Hateful 8, sorry for the derail.
×
×
  • Create New...