Jump to content

georg lamshöft

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by georg lamshöft

  1. "4k" nor "4:4:4" are measurements but just technical specifications. "4k" is just 4000 (as long as we are picky: "kilo" is always 1000 and never 2^10 ;-) pixels horizontally and "4:4:4 RGB" is full luminance AND chrominance information in each pixel in every frame. "Debayering" is just a specific form of interpolation using the different sensibility of human vision for chrominance and luminance. Why do we have to be this specific and picky? Because it makes it easier to differentiate technologies by spec and not only measurement. Otherwise it becomes even more difficult for customers to understand the value of technical concepts like oversampling bayer-sensors, beam-splitters or other technologies. Now a company tries to push "4k 60p" in a 20MBit/s-stream (or is that just the bitrate for 24p?) so large images without lot's of actual detail due to a low bitrate. The same issue here: "More pixels are just better, ALWAYS!"...
  2. Of course this statement is simply false. You can interpolate 4k 4:4:4 RGB-files from a 4k Bayer-sensor but calling that "4k 4:4:4 RGB" would render any technical description of resolution or sampling useless. A VGA webcam could be combined with a software that makes it a "true 8k 120fps"-camera.... "4k Bayer != 4k RGB"-critique is propably even more relevant today since RED (and a few others) started the "k-Marketing", suggesting that 4k is at least twice as good as 2k - but the professional video world has been technically more precise till then - something that we should return to, IMHO. Otherwise we would only end up with cameras with more and more "K" and not necessarily higher IQ.
  3. Even the normal Alexa with rolling shutter barely suffers from any motion artifacts (just try to film a rotating disc with stripes) while the Studio uses a mechanical shutter and doesn't suffer motion artifacts at all. Dion Beebe worked with Michael Mann who loves "videoish" looks and doesn't hesitate to use large shutter angles (like 270-360°) which generates very unnatural motion-rendering. Maybe this was the case here as well?
  4. Sensors much larger than S35 (24x36mm, 65mm and beyond) are made with a technology called "stitching". It basically means that a sensor this size cannot be producd in one pass but is made from several sensors which are "stitched" together on the wafer. This production process can only be handled by very few manufacturers (not sure about the suppliers of ARRI and RED) and always causes problems. The stitched sensors create one big sensor but still have slightly different properties which can be masked in firmware to a certain degree but may not be satisfactory for professional cinema standards.
  5. It seems you're right, I'm sorry. I've got the information from an older source and an Interview in German TV where Mr. Tykwer stated he will use a new digital camera by ARRI for his next project (that was in 2010).
  6. As far as I know, it's independently produced and therefore they seek an unconventional marketing!? I'm eager to see it, although I'm prepared for anything because of the Wachowskis involved... It is meant to be the biggest German production since "Metrolpolis" and IMHO Tykwer is the first German visionary director since Lang, but somehow I doubt this will be his masterpiece (which is just a matter of time, IMHO)... Mr Tykwer & Frank Griebe are big fans of 65mm (used partially for "the International") and I hope they finally have the balls to go for it in their next project! This time it's just loads of CGI + Alexa.
  7. Kodak the printer-brand? The digicam-brand? You're right, but not the film-division. They have a pretty modern and productive facility in Rochester, they're profitable, they have unique know-how that can be diversified for non-photographic applications, they have the best negative-films on the market and they're propably cheap to buy, too... All they need is a solid long-term investor. Come on, Mr. Spielberg, Nolan, Bay... But thats OT...
  8. Looks excellent! Next time 65mm, please. Can't Spielberg himself buy the film-department from Kodak?
  9. Interesting, since this is a new design, how well is it corrected? Just optimized to achieve mediocre resolution (4k on a 36mm wide sensor) with a focus on mechanics (stability, lack of focus shift, breathing) or actually a state-of-the-art design suitable also for D800 and others? Anybody had a chance to "test" it on IBC?
  10. Sorry, forgot the trailer-link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIP6gNU6e80 By the way, who contributed most songs in the film, the credits said "Nina..." but I forgot the surname!? Google won't tell...
  11. I accidentally came across "Excision", a quite interesting debut-film for lovers of very dark humor and uncompromising horror-drama. Particulary impressive is the performance of AnnaLynne McCord and interesting cameos (Ray Wise, Malcolm MacDowell, John Waters...). Since this is a low budget production with limited release I thought it might profit from some "word-of-mouth propaganda", I think the director/writer and main actress have potential! What might be interesting for us regarding cinematography (and therefore a post in this forum) was the presentation on a 4k DLP Barco on a big screen during the "Fantasy Filmfest" in Berlin. I think it was shot on a RED MX or Epic, resolution was fine and low-light scenes looked good, but colors were occassionally off and clipped highlights made bright exterior scenes very video-ish. IMHO, it's still a long way from the 35mm-sourced-films I watched on the very same screen, especially since it's limited budget apparantly didn't allow for extensive color-correction. Does anybody have additional technical information?
  12. I have seen it on 70mm at the Berlinale Retrospektive - if I remember correctly it was a restored print from 1989? IQ was impressive, especially considering the age of the movie itself, can't wait to see "the Master" shot with better lenses and film stock. 70mm is the way to go! The movie itself was underwhelming, it was the director's cut. I could see how it influenced many later epic movies - but it was simply too long and tiresome.
  13. The Trailer is finally out! (in 3D!) Wow, 65mm on Youtube :blink: I hope there will be more than one 70mm-print, otherwise it will propably end up heavily damaged in Berlin just in time to honour PTAs 100th birthday @ Berlinale 2070... ;) Or Scientology will burn all prints... :unsure:
  14. source: wired.com What new lenses? Has Panavision actually designed faster lenses for IMAX!? The fastest commercial medium-format lenses are usually f2 - no matter from which vendor!?
  15. Thanks for that link, I certainly don't agree on everything said but it contains actual comments from Ridley - so "Prometheus" actually relates to Christianity by purpose? But still, I also think it's not a well-designed story that has to revealed by hardcore-viewers but a fundamentally lacking script and cut - it's at least 10min too short, IMHO P.S. sorry for all the spelling and grammar issues in my last posts, I'm too slow typing on my touchscreen and therefore too slow for the editing function... :-()
  16. It's nice to look at compared to many other films, especially the CGI is very well made. But does it look like THE Ridley Scott movie shot with IMAX-sized cameras with a nearly unlimited budget and resources? Certainly not. It almost looked like they were too busy handling the complex technology on set and in post. To be honest, I saw it last week and can hardly remember any particular scenes anymore regarding cinematography. Tell me tomorrow what YOU thought about Prometheus? Or better let it rest a few weeks, then we discuss again if this was the movie (visually, the story is another topic within this forum) we've been all waiting for!?
  17. I personally think that the color calibration and dynamic range (more than 2 stops advantage over other cameras - that's the difference between a P&S and DSLR in the still photography world!) as well as other aspects of the Alexa are actual quite significant in the real world. Skill and masterful artistic expression has always massively affected the overall cinematographic experience. Therefore compromising the technical ambitions/developments doesn't make sense and brings us a race to the bottom. Right now, "we" (I mean people involved in one of the hundreds of 10++ mio. $ projects every year) have wonderful possibilities and we have to be very careful not to lose them because of stupid lobbyism work within the production system. I personally think that Prometheus was comprimised by shortsighted technical decisions - but nevertheless, that wasn't it's main problem, sadly...
  18. I think it was a silver screen, it wasn't too bright, just more so than the first movies.
  19. Ridley Scott mentioned it in an interview I have seen problematic (artificial skin tones, strange look...) on some Alexa-features as well, but the color rendition (affected directly by the optical filters in front of the sensor and it's sensitivity - not only software) seems much easier to handle. Both cameras have been used in high-end projects by specialists, it's not only that. It's also not the limited dynamic range, especially Prometheus was shot on strictly controlled sets - something is clearly off, that was never an issue before.
  20. Yeah, it was quite bright for an Alien-film, that's right. But it also wasn't really a horror-movie, either - despite the "abortion"-scene...
  21. It's already shown in some European countries and I have to say I wasn't really impressed. The script sucks, it answers a few questions, but generates even more. Characters are not developed properly, their behaviour remains erratic, they don't communicate - they're driven by the story, the characters don't drive the story. More and more creatures, some occassional action and a handful well-made scenes, that's it. If it wouldn't have been Ridley in the directors chair, we would blame the director... I give it a weak 7/10 And, like many of Ridleys movies, it seems rushed (especially the last segment) and I was pretty sure there is a 20-40min longer DC - but he negated that in interviews!? The technical quality wasn't too special, either. I saw it in 2D, but occasionally, the image rendering just screamed digital, not in a good way... - "Snow White and the Huntsman" looks better, IMHO. It just seems like a lot of time/talent/know-how is wasted on making it look decent. When even Mr. Ridley Scott cannot make the camera sing, who can? He could have saved money by shooting 65mm 5perf and generate far superior imagery - well, the story would still remain the same... :-( Sorry for the rant, we are used to the majority of bad movies, but this could have been great Sci-Fi but instead it was just (talent involved, budget, background...) wasted.
  22. I don't even think it's the 3D-process itself (which propably makes camera movements and focus shifts cumbersome/difficult) but the "artifical"/"waxy" look especially on faces made the CGI-imagery fit in better - just like in Avatar!? Does this make sense? I mean you see some CGI-characters and think "that's close, but still looks artifical" and then you see a real photographed face and still have this effect to a certain degree!? Am I the only one?
  23. The script/story is well known but doesn't even try to be more than it is, pretty much straightforward. The look/cinematography was very good, wished there was a 70mm-print or 4k-DCI. But even so it made "Prometheus" look like a video-game... Although, they also used a RED EPIC for F/X-shots (reflection in the mirror) - maybe Mr. Scott should have done a similar thing...
  24. Sounds like a recording speed issue of the memory card. I've heard of cards merely reaching the specs necessary for such extreme rates like Pro444 @ 60fps. Tested it with a new Sony Pro card?
  25. Just judging the skill of the director by the filmography seems risky. Ridley Scott has a very "mixed" filmography, in fact, I can hardly remember anyone capable of filming Alien, Gladiator... AND G.I.Jane, Hannibal... (who would have thought that Ratners Red Dragon is much better than Scotts Hannibal?). But a director has to rely on many other people to create a film, especially the story/script and production/studio (golden cut?), some directors are just more picky selecting scripts (Scorsese) or write their own (Cameron/Nolan) but that doesn't necessarily mean Ridley Scott is not in the same league directing-wise.
×
×
  • Create New...