Giovanni Speranza

My monitor works. But if you watch those grabs with attention you will admit that almost all have a brownish tint. It's not my monitor, it's not my eyes, it's not anything else thatn the RED. Maybe with some CC the brownish will go away.

Yes and it'a all brownish.

Ok, so i'm not blind.

I start defining in my mind the look of the shot. As cinematographer i then choose the location to suit the look that i have in my mind. If i can't choose the location i have to build the look based on the location. Then i light trying to get exactly what i wanted. Sometimes it's easy and fast, sometimes is a longer process. I first want the exact point of view , the lens angle and the character positions and the set defined. Then i light.

Finally some good film stock + good cinematographer + good telecine for a very high image quality and colorimetry .

I didn't like Wanted, a lot of noise, ugly colors.

The cinema was ALWAYS at it's zenith. Maybe you should say: is it dead? Or you could say: after IMAX HD is there some room for improvement?

Hi, why all red footage i see in the web has a brownish, low saturation, almost monochromatic tint?

I'm sad. Don't you go to cinemas? Don't you watch trailers? Don't you see the IMMENSE difference between Kodak Vision and digital? If you don't see the difference, you don't deserve to be called a D.P. or cinematographer. Maybe you will do great films with digital, maybe you MUST work with digital. But SO FAR no digital camera can compare with Kodak Vision. Just download some trailers at Apple.com, whatch them and then go to imdb to see how they did it. And if you have any visual taste you can't say that digital is up to Kodak Vision

Frame lines?????? nobody is talking about lines! We are talking about image format. And i'ts not me, it's a known fact since a century. The widescreen format is similar to our sight. We don't see a round image, we see an elliptical horizontal wide image. PERIOD

Widescreen has to do with our eye's nature. Try to look at a square image. I will seem vertical. The 4:3 ratio instead seems square. But our eyes are horizontally aligned and we have a widescreen sight. Widescreen film is more natural for our sight.

Oops double post in the same text area... Anyway here is an example A normal city, a normal day, shot with a 35mm adapter "NOT OVERUSED" and the movie look is much more pleasant than an ENG dof could achieve. Click here for the movie

When discussing with people about the need for a 35mm adapter, we always talk about look, cinematography, history, film. But there is another, more important reason: Our eyes focus on the infinite only when they watch at the infinite. So a camera with infinite d.o.f. with a person in the foreground could be interpreted by the brain as a camera watching at the background (!!). And would be fatiguing and unnatural. A 35mm adapter makes the image more logical to our brain. Our eyes have a focal aperture of f/2.25. the retina is 30mm wide. The perfect focus area of the retina is just 2mm wide. The rest is bluried and doubled due to stereo imaging. Our eye has a shallow DOF and small focus area. Our eyes scan the world at an amazing rate. They move as fast as 1/50 of a second to look at some detail then stops for as short as 1/20 of a second, that information is sent to the brain and then the eyes scans again for new details. In a second we focus on 50 things. This give us the illusion of infinite dof. But it's just an illusion. Our eyes have a shallow DOF Try to look at a person in front of you and still try to see the details on the background. It's impossible because our eyes produce a stereo image. The background is bluried because the 2 images from the eyes are shifted and out of focus. The result is bokeh. A person in focus with a background in focus is impossible in the real life unless you are watching at the bkg. And this is the reason because the camera has to focus on the person, because if you want the audience to focus on the person on an infinite focus shot IT'S IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE PERSON AND THE BACKGROUND ARE ON THE SAME SCREEN PLANE! Only a 3D movie could work at infinite focus because the audience would be able to select and focus what they want. Until we shoot movies in 3D, which could be at infinite focus, the director has to focus artificially on the subject, because the audience can't select the focus on the image projected, with the result to fatigue the eyes and the brain. The need for a shallower dof is not from an artistic view only. The shallow dof is a highway to the brain. shallow dof images are more logical to our brain. We see everything isolated, and a movie should do the same in order to be natural, apart large shots. When discussing with people about the need for a 35mm adapter, we always talk about look, cinematography, history, film. But there is another, more important reason: Our eyes focus on the infinite only when they watch at the infinite. So a camera with infinite d.o.f. with a person in the foreground could be interpreted by the brain as a camera watching at the background (!!). And would be fatiguing and unnatural. A 35mm adapter makes the image more logical to our brain. Our eyes have a focal aperture of f/2.25. the retina is 30mm wide. The perfect focus area of the retina is just 2mm wide. The rest is bluried and doubled due to stereo imaging. Our eye has a shallow DOF and small focus area. Our eyes scan the world at an amazing rate. They move as fast as 1/50 of a second to look at some detail then stops for as short as 1/20 of a second, that information is sent to the brain and then the eyes scans again for new details. In a second we focus on 50 things. This give us the illusion of infinite dof. But it's just an illusion. Our eyes have a shallow DOF Try to look at a person in front of you and still try to see the details on the background. It's impossible because our eyes produce a stereo image. The background is bluried because the 2 images from the eyes are shifted and out of focus. The result is bokeh. A person in focus with a background in focus is impossible in the real life unless you are watching at the bkg. And this is the reason because the camera has to focus on the person, because if you want the audience to focus on the person on an infinite focus shot IT'S IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE PERSON AND THE BACKGROUND ARE ON THE SAME SCREEN PLANE! Only a 3D movie could work at infinite focus because the audience would be able to select and focus what they want. Until we shoot movies in 3D, which could be at infinite focus, the director has to focus artificially on the subject, because the audience can't select the focus on the image projected, with the result to fatigue the eyes and the brain. The need for a shallower dof is not from an artistic view only. The shallow dof is a highway to the brain. shallow dof images are more logical to our brain. We see everything isolated, and a movie should do the same in order to be natural, apart large shots. Of course if we ABUSE dof and work always at f/1.2 it is unnatural too.

Hi, here you can see some clips done with the A1 and a 35mm adapter.

If i compare films made with Arri and Panavision, i would choose Arri.

Oh yes, you are right. Sofia's father tried to convince her to shoot in HD but finally she preferred film. (too nice to be true....)

no

Numbers are numbers, but for a good picture sometimes numbers are not enough. I saw the Superman trailer and the Scary Movie at the theater (Genesis), and Lost in translation + Star Wars (Sony) and i can say that the Genesis SUCKS! (or maybe some DOF sucks!!!!!) and that the F900 is AWESOME. Not all the stuff done with an F900 looks awesome anyway, some films look crappy. So at the end i would like to see the same DOF and Director working with both cameras and only that could convince me. But for now i prefere the F900.