Jump to content

Chris Durham

Basic Member
  • Posts

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chris Durham

  1. Well, I think about the value that was added to Wall-E, on which Roger Deakins acted as a consultant to tell the story more cinematically (actually he's apparently consulted on several animated flicks). Obviously he shouldn't be credited as a cinematographer on this, in the traditional sense, but the film was enhanced by his bringing to bear traditional disciplines on a "new" medium. I guess my point is that technology is a substantial component of cinematography and technology is progressive. While the discourse over it is healthy, the difficulty is determining where to draw the line. Since so many movies rely so heavily on VFX element -- even movies that aren't effects-driven -- at what point between wire removal and fully digital sets does it stop being cinematography and start becoming effects? Perhaps it's best to narrowly define cinematography as what happens in and in front of the camera. I say narrow in the sense that it's narrower than seems to be accepted by the academy and my devilishly-advocated position above.
  2. Not sure a cinematographer can rightly take credit for any sunset -- they didn't exactly hang the thing themselves. This is such a hard topic because we need to acknowledge that cinematography now involves so much more than the camera department, while at the same time understanding that the more that happens outside the camera department, the less the cinematographer can be credited with. Life of Pi really is an outstanding accomplishment in cinematography -- in the strictest sense if "drawing with motion." What I'm uncertain of is how much involvement Miranda had in the off-set aspects of that "drawing." If he was involved intimately in the lighting, framing, movement of digital elements, then perhaps the award is somewhat warranted. One thing is certain, though, and that's the short shrift given to the armies of VFX people making these movies happen. I think most of us would be much happier if there were real acknowledgement of these folks and something more than empty overtures made at improving matters. I was really pulling for Deakins on this. Skyfall doesn't do a whole lot that feels new, but every shot has such a master's touch.
  3. I don't suppose it's possible to simply remove the glass?
  4. Not so sure. Line skipping and rolling shutter issues on a DSLR could potentially have a negative impact. If it were a CMOS video camera you'd have the same issues (rolling shutter anyway), but 3CCD shouldn't. Assuming he wants to shoot on at least a prosumer camera I wouldn't worry about it. What camera is it? If it has better chroma subsampling it will certainly be better for visual effects. Depending on Codec compression/bitrate it may be better for vfx as well. That leaves you with Shallow DoF as your big DSLR advantage and at the end of the day, that's often just a lazy way to make a pretty picture.
  5. Digital back? Why would you ruin anything capable of running film by placing a digital sensor anywhere near it? Kinda like saying, "yeah, I'd date Kiera Knightly, but only if she wore an old-school diving suit and put a bag over her head." Super 8 > HD Video
  6. Yup. Cheaper price. Cheaper quality.
  7. It is sad. I have a really hard time finding any respect for people whose first inclination it is to do things the the easy way. If your concern is making art easier on yourself then your work will just be milktoast
  8. I would love to see some solid, long-term numbers on this. It's a conversation I have frequently.
  9. No, I really can't...
  10. The shots in "Children of Men," as already suggested are phenomenal. Would be remiss not to mention the Dolly shot in Godard's "Weekend" (shot by Raoul Coutard)
  11. Looks amazing. Damn I love film
  12. I was recently talking to a union rep here in NY trying to gauge how I should approach membership (probably as a AC, but we'll see) and if I recall correctly, he told me that the only way to come in as a DP is to be hired on a union production. You could come in as another category and upgrade later but you can't otherwise come straight in as a DP. I may have misunderstood but I don't think so. Does this fit with anyone else's knowledge?
  13. Hey Chris, I'm just wondering why you use .00075" for 4K as opposed to .001" which I believe a lot of people use for S35. If I understand correctly resolution shouldn't have so much to do with things as format with consideration also given to projection (which is why I could see giving a smaller circle of confusion for IMAX which, but for the larger projection, should have a larger acceptable CoC). Is it to accommodate for pixel pitch? Just wondering. I use smaller than .001" myself but that's basically to make sure my calculations are conservative.
  14. In terms of Android, I've found a very handy tool called CamCalc. Not perfect but pretty nice and focused mostly toward cinema calculations with usefulness for stills. Only a couple of bucks which is much less than the only viable option before very recently which was FilmCalculator (I believe) for around $40. This isn't as complete, but I've been using it and it's pretty damn handy.
  15. I saw it on IMAX here in NY yesterday. There are several shots that I noticed grain in the image that I imagine was from the 35 blow-up, but none of it is bad grain at all. Mr. Pfister knows how to expose an image pretty damn well. The movie was not only gorgeous, but had an amazingly well-layered story and was well-acted. Definitely worth seeing in IMAX. I didn't really do much analysis on it though; just kind of sat back and enjoyed it from the third row center where it took up at least 90% of my vision. I'll probably give it another go soon just to study it.
  16. Sony cameras like the HVR-Z7U, if I recall correctly, are 60i with a 24p recording mode. I wonder if that's what this is too?
  17. So, I went to the IMAX.com website and did some poking around. Each theater has a Theater Type description that describes the projection. For Lincoln Square it says: "IMAX's projection system that uses our rolling-loop 15/70 film technology to deliver crystal clear images in 2D and IMAX 3D." whereas the 34th and 14th describes: "IMAX's digital projection system that combines the power of two modified projectors with IMAX's proprietary image enhancer to deliver crystal clear images in 2D and IMAX 3D." So there you have it from the horse's mouth. Curiously it also describes the movies playing there. Right now, they're playing Twighlight: Eclipse: "digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of the IMAX Experience with proprietary DMR (Digital Re-mastering) technlology" It's description of Inception, however is: "digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of the IMAX Experience, providing the world's most immersive movie experience." Interesting, because there wasn't a DI done for Inception. Did they do one for the IMAX transfer? It seems like Nolan and Pfister would scream about that a bit. Maybe it's just something they put on there without thought because most are digital and, as the marketing folks always like to point out, digital is better <_<
  18. Thank you, David, for that emphasized IF. The fight isn't over yet. I agree that 4K is certainly better than 2K and I definitely want my cinema experience - when it has to be digital - to be better than my home theater experience. But I think that Arri have gone down the right road given existing technology and infrastructure (in terms of gear more than theater outfitting) by opting for larger photosites for more dynamic range with less noise. I think the day where we can get that out of 4K is yet to come, but to that end I'm glad that Red are out there pushing for it, hopefully to soon be joined by the likes of Aaton. I wonder though, just given the physics of capturing light, does it make any sense for these companies to manufacture 65mm format cameras with 4K resolution? I mean, (DoF issues notwithstanding) the technology exists to handle the resolution without increasing the size of the cameras so the major hurdle would be availability of lenses, right? or am I missing something.
  19. You can be very objective as to whether it's better or worse. Each pixel or grain is a piece of information. HD has 2,073,600 of them per frame. How many does a frame of 35mm have? You can say that neither is better subjectively, but if you want to be objective choose a metric. The problem is that one format beats the other in one metric, while the opposite is true for another metric. What is better is largely a matter of cost-benefit analysis. And that's subjective.
  20. If you want a good example of a Vision stock printed to B&W check out Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon." Very crisp and absolutely stunning images.
  21. Yeah Karl, the one at Union Square right? I live right around the corner from there. I was browsing through my Fandango App yesterday and noticed that Digital Projection is listed as an Amenity. That just gets back to my feelings about Thomas's post and the proper marketing of the format. Ugh. I mean, it's an amenity if I'm watching something shot in digital or made in CG.
  22. Hey Karl, do you mind disclosing which one? I'm looking for the best place to see "Inception."
  23. Double Ditto that. A friend of mine just tweeted: "Just watched YouTube 4k at .05fps on my laptop's 1440x900 resolution, and I concede: IT'S AMAZING!!! :/" I'm honestly baffled. Did Jim Jannard win a bet or something?
  24. If that's low budget, that's no excuse not to move the camera around. You can get a Fisher dolly for $200 for a weekend, $300 or so with track (assuming no big moves). couple hundred more for a jib. There you go. Better looking movement than half the cats out there for 13% of your budget (25% if you shoot on two weekends, but still, with that budget what are you using money for if not gear?)
×
×
  • Create New...