Matthew Buick

The Brand Power adverts here in the UK don't have such red flesh tones, but they're not great. Bid/Price-Drop TV, Ideal World, and those ghastly Cillit Bang adverts really do get my hackles up. I'm fairly certain I could do a better job.

I think you have to ask the moderators to do that for you, but please don't go, I think you're good for this forum.

That's exactly what I thought! I was going to raise the point before someone decideD to give their argument muscle some flexing. Anyway, here's a photo of what I'd view as a suitably realistic, yet surreal mars landscape. Obviously there wouldn't be a palm tree, but this was the nicest photo I could find. Now please let's not forget we're here to help David Cronin, rather than moan about the colour of Mars' sky. Here you are. I just lowered the blue to almost nothing, lowered the green, boosted the reds and the contrast, and lowered the brightness a little. All the Mars you'd ever need!

Brilliant choices! Who'll be doing the cinematography?

I'm looking forward to seeing Blood Moon Rising. What is it about? It sounds a bit like a zombie flick. I love zombie films! My 2009 filmaking new years resolutions are as follows: 1. Try to get my first proper job as a director of photography. 2. Film my flickr reel with at least 200 brilliant photographs, in at least two different countries. 3. Get into shape more. If there's even the slightest chance that'll relieve my CFS, even just a bit, then I'll do it unquestionably.

Then I made a simple mistake. You even commented yourself on thinking you had not seen any true replications of the red planet. For goodness sake don't get this thread closed!

I've had a peek at photos of Mars' surface on Google Images, and it seems that the sky can take on a wide variety of colours, sunset red, dusty red, plain ol' dusty, green, turquoise, and an earth-like blue. So it seems I was correct. Anyway Mr. Cronin wanted something dreamlike and surreal, and I feel a turquoisy blue would suit that look. Secondly, Mars has an atmosphere, and as Phil Rhodes mentioned it sometimes has cloud. It's more than possible the dust in your pictures has been blown up by the wind. Mars must have wind. There! Saved a big argument all in one post! Now back on topic...

I've seen pictures of Mars from probes and the sky always seems to be that colour when it's clear. Your pictures show the sky full of sediment, perhaps kicked up by the probe that took them landing, or a meteor. Please stop trying to be such an egotist.

I've found that simply upping the bais of the picture to the reds can produce quite a mars-like tone to sand. You may need to do something with the sky as well, I believe the martian sky to be a sort of turquoisy green. Maybe just removing the blue colour record altogether would help. I just tinkered with a photo of a desert scene, and I found that lowering the blues to -50, the greens to -14, the reds up to 42 (zero being the default colour level), and lowering the saturation and upping the contrast just a tiny bit made something that resembled a martian landscape while still being suitably dreamlike. Good luck!

You should see his work on 'Millions'. Terrific stuff, he should have been BAFTA nominated for it.

I'm currently not looking to go AVCHD. Sorry for the confusion. I'm just trying to gauge the market, but when I do I'll be sure not to use FCP. Thanks a lot!

I don't think it's film having a problem of dissapearing, so much as Kodak having a problem. It has abandoned all its best stocks, Kodachrome, 5254, 5248, Super XX and many more in favour of a rather dissapointing range of low contrast films designed to accomodate digital better. If that's not lying down and letting your adversary get a clear shot then I don't know what is. Kodak has the experience and expertise to produce filmstocks so astounding in terms of colour reproduction that no amount of 4K full frame cameras or Jannard sized ego's could ever overcome, and that would send digital fanboys running with their tails between their legs for the forseeable future, and good riddance. In my view digital saps the soul out the art of the cinematographer in a sea of 'oh well, we'll just fix it in post', and endless technicalities. Now that may appeal to some, it may offend others, please don't be, I'm merely trying to preserve the integrity of my chosen artform.

It's OK. I'm done now, sorry about that. *Moving swiftly back on topic!*

It'll have both manual and automatic, so you'll be able to use any stock. Sorry for the confusion.

Why can't people just take these things as the little jokes that they are, if anything it's a positive thing. It takes Adolf Hitler, perhaps the most monsterous of God's creations ever to walk tthis earth, and makes him into a figure of fun. I don't that can possbly be anything short of wonderful, Hitler absolutely must become the most ridiculous caricature in human history by the 100th anniversary of his ascent to power, and he's well on his way.

Here's a little more gen on said camera I'd imagine it'll have everything on board you'll need to learn about Super 8 shooting, it's a real shame about the lack of 24fps shooting though.

To be honest the lenses will probably won't be all that great, contrasty and possibly slightly murky sort of footage, possibly with a colour bias, but I may be wrong, I haven't personally owned that camera. It'll be solid enough mechanically, and fairly suitable for learning the ropes, but if you're to make a serious film or something then upgrading it would be strongly recommended. You'll need a manual exposure mode these days, or at least an exposure shift. None of the stocks that the cameras automatic light meter was intended to read are still available new today. Kodachrome 40 was the last of these old stock to go (it did so in 2005), you can still buy Kodachrome second hand on eBay today, but it's become rather expensive as supply dwindles. Plus it can only be processed by Dwaynes of Kansas. Super8wiki may hold some information on your camera. Hope all that helps! ;)

Good grief! I geniunely loved that film for it's cinematography, I don't know why you would assume that I was 'kissing arse for shitty cine'. Also, I didn't touch a drop of the alcohol this christmas, incidentally there's none left. If anyone's been drinking too much it's you. Sod off!

I'm going to see this movie possibly after the new year. Really looking forward to it.

What!? :blink:

I think Kaminski did a terrific job on Indiana 4. I can't understand why so many people have found fault with it. Sure, it wasn't as deep an involving as Slocombe's work, and he did use a little too much filtration, but Janusz Kaminski and Douglas Slocombe are two completely different cinematographers. I think it's really nice that Janusz put his own spin on the Indiana Jones style, while still maintaining respect and reverence for his predecessor's work, and not destroying it for his own benefit. That I feel is a mark of a truly brilliant cinematographer. Are the OSCAR nominations for cinematography out yet? I really do feel this should be among them.

Happy Christmas Karl! Great thread. Merry Christmas everybody! Gosh! I'm so full with food I can barely type! :blink:

Ditto. Really sorry. :(

Well that's a nice feeling! Thanks for the info. Also, it's a real shame the Dye Inhibition print are no longer available. In my view they gave the best colour.

Those effects shots put me off the film entirely. I like the old movie look but that was just too much for me, that and Hitchcock's neurotic sytle of directing. Also, didn't three strip last see service in 1955 on 'Foxfire'? 'The Birds' was 1963 wasn't it? Or are my dates wrong?