Chris Durham

Well, umm, yeah. You're talking about sensors that generally use line skipping to shoot video, so as long as a lens lets light through well it should resolve a decent image. So if you want to use cine lenses on a DSLR you need to think about why you would put a tens-of-thousands-of-dollars lens on a $2000 camera. The best answer is because it's the glass you have. If you don't already have it then you go to the next best answer which is precision. I'm not saying that L series glass is lacking, not by any stretch, but you talk about focus pulling yourself. In a cine lens you want to be able to measure focus accurately, mark the lens for focus pulling, you want the lens not to breathe when you zoom. A cine lens may have a better iris so that you have more attractive bokeh. There's not much point in modding a 7D to use PL lenses unless you have PL lenses at your disposal. Or unless you're wanting to start your collection - the Zeiss CP lenses make a pretty compelling argument, but those are really glorified stills lenses too. Which brings me to what I think is your main point. For a lot of applications, stills lenses are fine. I've shot with Zeiss Nikon lenses on a Red and I liked it a whole lot better than Red lenses or even Digiprimes. Some modern digital cine lenses are too sharp for my taste.

They need to come up with a set of instructions on the best way to duct-tape 4 monitors together because I have no clue how else to take advantage of that resolution on the average computer.

This just seems bat$#!+ insane to me. Can anyone explain why this isn't the silliest idea in web delivery?

Don't forget professional control surfaces. Tangent Wave is nice, but definitely indie gear - not something you want in your arsenal when you're hanging out your shingle as a Pro.

Film Forum - As a matter of fact, if you want a real classic go NOW, or at least this weekend, and watch the 50th anniversary restoration of Godard's "Breathless." It's run ends on the 13th. Go. The restoration friggin gorgeous. Anthology Film Archives - plays all kinds of stuff, from Avant Garde, barely known films to true classics. I saw Renoir's "Rules of the Game" there recently, and Haneke's "The Piano Teacher" IFC just played "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" this weekend. There's also MOMA, The Film Society of Lincoln Center, The Landmark Sunshine does semi-classics as midnight movies, There's another theater over by Lincoln center that does first runs but was playing Felini's "8 1/2" a while back. I've lived in the city for 5 months and found these places and I'm sure there're plenty more. NYC is a treasure trove of good cinema.

If only the bean counters were counting popcorn instead.

Interesting article in Wired about how the inventor of the pixel (or one of them at least) is addressing the problem of square pixels 50 years later. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/smoothing-square-pixels The low-resolution examples given are compelling and I'd be interested to see how this might translate into more natural images in higher resolution images.

It's not necessarily inaccurate, particularly for professional productions; it's just that it's kind of meaningless, particularly for less-than-professional productions. There was a short/pilot that I shot last year and the director was fired halfway through production. This was a [bad] actor with directorial aspirations, and in the drama that followed his removal he attempted to dress down the lead actor for having been pursuing acting (in a non-production town) for two years and not having a single IMDB credit. It was funny because not only had he cast this actor, the actor had more professionalism, dedication, and talent than the "director" by huge margin. Point is, the hack director was more concerned with IMDB credit while the actor was more concerned with, well, acting. I've cast that actor myself since working with him and recommend him when asked, whereas the director... not so much. So I think at a certain level people use IMDB to pad their resume and insinuate that their number of credits speaks to their competence, which is a game that doesn't really work when you get to a level where your work needs to speak for itself. The value in IMDB at that level is for quick-checking qualifications, but I don't think it's seen as authoritative. At that point, too, your reel does a lot of the talking.

I think the public are torn between two desires: The desire to spend fewer bucks and the desire to get the greatest value for their buck. It seems to me that the hubbub about digital projection started with the Star Wars prequels which, being shot on digital, tended to look better in digital. On top of acquisition, many films which are captured in analog even, have a heavy digital effects element which benefits from digital projection. Since it is these movies that are often the blockbusters and have the public exposure it's easy to sell audiences on the notion that digital is better. But if the studios and cinemas were to laud the 65mm format or IMAX format correctly, then there are dollars to be had. People were scrambling to see "The Dark Knight" on IMAX because it looked great but also because "this IMAX is better than what you normally see in IMAX;" because, unlike most movies screened in IMAX, the IMAX sequences were shot with IMAX cameras. There was a hook and people ate it up. Not everybody. Like I said, there are two forces at play here value vs cost. If I had a family and kids I might not be able to afford the extra $$ plus the trek across town to the one IMAX theater to see the special format. That's fine. That's why there's not an IMAX on every corner. But for even my non-cinephile friends in the 18-34 demo with no family and a bit of disposable income, it was a no-brainer. Go see it in IMAX. (honestly, even if I had a family and kids, I'd go see it IMAX first then take the family to the megaplex). People will buy into your marketing if you're marketing what you're doing right. Film may be losing its place as a distribution format, but it doesn't have to lose its place as an acquisition format. Modern film technology and larger formats will keep the edge and you have to applaud guys like Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister who are going ahead full steam with analog.

Here's the problem with DoF adapters: They're all about DoF. More exactly, they're all about SHALLOW DoF, because you can get deep focus all day long without any help (well, maybe with a little light). So people buy the things - just like is happening now with HDSLRs - under the mistaken belief that shallow depth of field is part of the visual grammar of cinema. It's not. SELECTIVE FOCUS is - the ability to bend focus to suit your needs. With an adapter, though, forces conspire to keep your focus shallow, rather than selective. One is the aforementioned mistaken belief that shallow is better - shallow focus is a lazy way of making a pretty picture. Another is the "I spent money on it so I need to use it" mentality. The other big problem is that once you've got it on the camera and set up, you don't want to take it off, and since you're losing light because of the thing, you're more likely to shoot wide open. HDSLRs aren't so bad. They have they're own problems, and an undisciplined shooter is still an undisciplined shooter; but you can at least get over the physical limitations of an adapter.

Damn shame. I'm not a fan of wanton Steadicam use - I think it's used a lot, especially on TV shows with quick production turnarounds, as a crutch when people don't want to spend the time thoughtfully choreographing camera movements. Handheld is often worse. When it's used correctly it really brings you into things; when it's not, it makes you hyper-conscious of the presence of the camera. Using handheld because a camera weighs next to nothing and you can get away with not using a steadi is the wrong reason. Of course, there are many cases when a Steadi is the right tool for the job, and when that is the case, it's the Steadicam that's the right tool, not a Glidecam. Every one I've used (and I haven't used the high end ones) is utter crap.

Well, the point of the CP is to be an intro-level Cine lens I think, and on on appropriate to the HDSLR/Red crowd. They've basically taken the glass of some of their stills lenses, manufactured it in Europe instead of Asia (so presumably to a higher quality) and housed it in a common-diameter barrel more ideal to cine accessories like rods and follow focus. They're not the greatest lenses in the world but at around $35,000 for a complete set of PL glass you can't complain much. And I've been on Red shoots with a Nikon mount and the stills lenses and they produce a pretty damn good image. There's no reason not to use these in independent films with indie budgets, and on higher end stuff you can always rent better. So I think for the low-end to middle budget cinematographer they're not a bad investment.

If you're talking about the Zeiss CP.2 (compact prime) lenses, they're T2.1 (with the wider lenses having a smaller aperture)

That's high praise and from a respectable source. So glad to see Arri making waves.

Well, no promises on whether you'll vignette or not - S16 lenses project to the S16 format which is smaller than FF or even S35. Your best bet is probably the Panasonic GH1, which was the first DSLR to get the PL treatment. It doesn't have the best dynamic range, or highest resolution by itself; but look around and you'll find a new hack for it that uses an MJPEG codec and provides a pretty impressive image. If you don't know, the GH1 uses Panasonic's 4/3 sensor which is smaller than APS-C on the 7D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system

"The Girlfriend Experience" was gorgeous I thought. And probably the best looking thing I can think of from the Red.

If you have money to start investing in PL Glass then I'd look instead at renting cameras. That said, if you want a relatively inexpensive camera at hand to pop those lenses on the 7D is about as inexpensive as you can get. That's an intriguing looking mod. I haven't seen that one before.

Does this mean we get yet another revolution in filmmaking? Awesome!

Are you planning a telecine or a frame-by-frame scan? If you're doing a scan to a 2k dpx sequence your grain should be apparent. I've seen 1080 scans of 8mm and 2k scans of 16mm where the grain was pretty obvious.

For what it's worth, this kind of mentality is all too frequent in Dallas - the mindless embrace of the local indie scene in which everyone is a maverick, paving their own road with new tools for making movies and new strategies for funding them, or not funding them and somehow miraculously Midas-touching them into gold anyway. So few ever pause long enough to think that the methods and economies of movie making have evolved as they have over the last hundred years for a reason. Everyone wants to be part of the revolution. It's a huge part of the reason I left that city.

It's very easy to rip the image apart - I mean, it's pretty crisp but very problematic - but well shot, all things considered, with very clever use of so small a device.

Well the thing is, I know there are a lot of people who get others to pay for their movies. I mean, you don't make a movie with your own money unless it's a very inexpensive movie, and even then you view it as an expense, not an investment But this guy is a writer/director, not a cinematographer. So what's the sense in raising money for a camera? Why not raise money for a movie and rent a camera or hire an owner/operator if you're really snowed by the notion that a Red will make your movie for you. The kicker is that the $30k he's asking is gonna buy a really minimal Red package and you have to wonder how he'll then afford the rest of the movie. Posting a Red isn't free, even if you do it yourself.

I know this guy Tim, and he's not kidding. It could be worse though, he could be starting helpmebuyacanon5dmkiianduglyzacutorig.com

Thanks guys. Yeah, Adrian, I think the liability of staying with other filmmakers is rough. Hell, it's already a liability living with my girlfriend, an actor (thankfully she's getting background work here and has made more money in 3 months in NYC than in 2 years in Dallas). I've been taking the opportunities I can to make acquaintances with other filmmakers. I'm going to start visiting camera shops and rental houses just to network and whatnot, and I'll also be contacting Local 600 to figure out my best path into the union and what skills I need to be cultivating in the meantime. I'd rather start off as a loader or 2nd and learn the discipline and work my way up than become one of the endless ocean of "DPs" freelancing with a 5D and Zacuto kit. I mean, I'll probably do that kind of freelancing on the side, but I really want to learn cinematography.

I wish I'd done something like that too. I'm now in my mid-30s and the primary breadwinner. I'm maneuvering my finances so that I'll eventually be in a position (by having fewer expenses, less debt, etc.) to responsibly take the willing pay cut that will come with a career change. In the mean-time I want to do everything I can to cultivate the skills and curate the relationships necessary in having a career to change to.