georg lamshöft

I'll try to catch up with all the movies I missed and got some "oscar-buzz". I just saw "Das weiße Band" / "The White Ribbon" by Michael Haneke and photographed by Christian Berger. It was a quite expensive movie by German standards (~€12m) and I liked the not very known aspect of small-village society before WW1 (and a portray of the youth which later was responsible for the holocaust) with some interesting scenes. But it wasn't a very exciting movie, too busy avoiding classic dramaturgy. Acting, cinematography and production design was ok but not more. First I thought the academy appreciates a very classic cinematography with "2D-B/W" in contrast to "colour-3D" ;-) But as I later found out, it wasn't classic at all: they shot it on color stock, made a DI and turned it B/W while heavily manipulating the "look". And this is all what they came up with 15 years after Kaminskis' "Schindlers List" (real B/W)? What have I missed?

I've tried to find comparable movies but I always end up with other JC-projects. Aliens or T2 shared a certain structure with Avatar. When they were released there was a lot of whining (well, that's an exaggeration, most of the audience and critics liked them - just like Avatar) about special-effects as an excuse for a good story - now they're classics, even with outdated effects. I'm not sure how he could have changed the story, fine it's pretty straight-ahead and already so packed that it takes nearly 3h (the DC which isn't limited by Imax-runtime very likely incorporates significant details from the the script: a better understanding of the earth today, Jake's current situation before the flight to Pandora, Sigourney Weaver's background with the natives and the school, the first violent conflict and Selfridge's conflict with Quaritch and his unleashed security thinking...). I'm not sure how another story element or subtext would have fit into it, without ruining the whole experience!? He could have made a pure drama about interracial conflicts and diplomacy - but that would have been another movie. I think every character had a clear motivation and the main character goes through an understandable development. No born hero, no evil "I want to rule the world" enemy, not a romance with dozen times "I love you" (once in the whole movie?) and an already strong subtext about identity. You'll hate Avatar's story? Then you'll have to hate Star Wars (the Original) and nearly 99% of all movies which share classic dramaturgy as well. We had a 3 1/2min trailer which exactly showed all significant story elements, I think that was a mistake. A similar teaser would have made "Dances with the wolves" equally predictable. It 's easy accessible and exciting, but not stupid. The references to our past and current conflicts are too present. Just like Quaritch goes wild after his people are in danger and he reacts the only way he is used and trained to - he and his security company are "Blackwater". The humans are mostly greedy but they're not as evil as it seems, they don't understand the natives, they don't understand this world because they never get close to it (only the scientific team + avatars do and see it from a different perspective). I think JC could have made a much simpler Titanic-successor or he could have used a more regular topic to discuss these topics. Ho chose a CGI-world of blue aliens and six-legged freaks to make a contemporary statement implemented into an adventure- Seriously, who could have done it better? Was it even tried before? I'm eager to see "Inception" because it will propably exactly deliver what "Avatar" could not (but didn't intended to): a thriller (who was it? what's going on?) with various layers perfectly entangled into each other combined with a huge budget. And I also enjoy movies like "up in the air". But I think marketing, hype, effects and box-office results make it too simple to push "Avatar" into the stupid studio-blockbuster-category, which it is clearly not. Co writers? Like in TF2 or 2012 or basically every other studio-blockbuster? Worked well...

"the script sucks" I've read this statement various times in the forums and I'm not convinced by it. It's not a masterpiece in character development or full of witty and wise dialogues (although it was more than just appropriate for an adventure-movie) and therefore "not even" nominated for a script-Oscar. But it pushes the envelope: it mixes several traditional elements with present and timeless topics and projects them on a fantastic sci-fi adventure with weird CGI-aliens that feel more "human" and closer to our emotions at the end of the journey than our very own world. It's sci-fi, action, romance, fairy-tale, drama at once. I'm not sure if anybody but JC could have pulled something similar off - most storytellers already struggle with the very basic elements. He risked much and gained a lot. Best script? No. Best story? No. Best (memorable, unique, important...) overall experience this year? I think so. Others might disagree, but it's not just another CGI-demo, that's too simple. "Up in the air" is my favourite adapted-script-movie this year and I'm still fascinated that it also doesn't take the easy way (not another war/social/biopic-drama) but I think it's unfair to compare these two movies in one category like "best picture" - they're just too different, they even function differently. @Adrian Sierkowski We discussed that in the other Avatar-thread. It was "cinematographed", even the CGI (simul-cam, virtual cam) - but I doubt that Mauro Fiore did all that (Vince Pace, JC?).

@George Ebersole I don't know what changed my perception, I only saw parts of it on my TV and the whole thing in IMAX 3D 70mm - nothing in between. Maybe it's my age and I'm unable to realize my "addiction/adaption to CGI" ;) but I would say that's not the case. I HATED the new green-screen Star Wars - stuff, I prefer the ones made before I was even born, I love big "real" sets like in "Titanic" or Dante Ferretis' work for "Gangs of New York", I even blame JC for using HD instead of 35/65mm film - but for me, Avatar was really a major breakthrough in CGI. Not just the technical aspect, but the artistic aspect of it and the implementation within the storytelling - my "old" :rolleyes: father saw it with me and agreed - he never played a single computer games besides sokoban :lol: I don't think it's always the best solution (and that seems to be the opinion of JC himself). It makes me a bit sad to see that everybody is just talking about the CGI-effects as some kind of gimmick, the box-office-results and why a movie which is seen by so many people cannot be good otherwise... :unsure: I don't know much about the exact limitations and possibilities of todays robotic sfx-technology, but since Stan Winston (see what he has done in JCs previous movies :blink: ) himself (and his Studio) worked on Avatar but nearly all FX we see in the final film is CGI it's hard to believe that it could have been achieved with "puppets"/"robots". Maybwe it's a trade-off, giving an Ikran (the dragons) the last touch of real-world structure by using a real puppet but taking away it's movability!?

I agree, I wasn't sure if JC went nuts and became another George Lucas after seeing the first teasers of Avatar... But in the IMAX, in 3D, on the big screen, within the story all these concerns were simply blown away. I'm not sure how close to "perfection" ("photo-reality") the CGI actually was, you propably cannot even tell how it would look like if it would be real. But that wasn't the point, it felt alive and true in a storytelling-way - cig-characters actually transported emotion with acting!? JC likes many kinds of SFX-work, not just CGI, Stan Winston (and his studio) still played a major role in "Avatar" and about 40% of the film was shot with real people, cameras and sets - I think it could have been cheaper to "melt" this two worlds together by doing it all CGI. But for me this was the trick, how "fluently" real shots and CGI worked together and in the end the CGI-world of Pandora and it's characters felt more welcoming and real than "our" real-world! I don't think much of the CGI-work in Avatar could have been achieved in this quality with make-up, puppets or other "conventional" effects, I think it was a conscious decision. If I understood JC correctly, "Battle Angel" might have mostly real sets with CGI-characters interacting with real actors.

@Karl Borowski It's my fault, I came up with 35mm, again :unsure: and Mr. James wanted to give an answer, although money isn't really an issue with "Avatar" (he is even the producer, owner and CEO of the production company!), not a few 100k$ for film stock and DI. For some reason, Cameron loves this HD-stuff, but at the same time complains about it's restrictions (wants 4k/48p, would prefer 2k/48p over 4k/24p but chooses the camera technology that only allows 1080p/24)!? I didn't had much trouble with the low fps, but they had to keep the CGI-movements rather unsharp to keep the experience "smooth".

Vince Pace is the guy for the "technical" photography-stuff, he was involved into underwater-shots since Abyss and seems to play a major role in Avatar - but we always see JC operating the camera!? I agree, it doesn't make much sense to give cinematography-awards as long as it isn't clear who is responsible for cinematography here!? But haven't many movies earned prices because of nice landscape-shots done by the 2nd unit or great images because of production design? It's team-work and sometimes hard to tell apart. F950, F23... I simply don't know what the point of these cameras in such a project is!? JC wants to handheld (he hated the 200kg 70mm-rig used on T2:3D) the camera, he wants 3D, he wants highest IQ possible (I assume reosolution, DR...) and 48fps. Isn't it simple just to couple two lightweight 3perf 35mm cameras (235, Arricam Lite, Penelope) to a 3D rig? He can pay for a superior DI (4k oversampled) he can even get rid of the grain with todays tools. And when the F/X or studio-guys don't want to render 4k/48fps he makes a 2k/24p-master first and after the first billion $ ( :P ) he blackmails them to make glorious real 4k 3D @ 48fps at any cost! I would kill to see Avatar this way in an IMAX! Now we get a Blu-Ray with basically the same IQ (let's say 95%) of the cinematic-version just months later!? I thought he loves cinema!? I simply don't get it why technology-berserks like him choose mediocre technology, that's like Michael Schuhmacher coming back to F1 with a Go-Kart - he will certainly drive better with it than any of us, but he will also compromise his skills/results by technology!

Basically all lenses from Leica since 1987 (2,8/100Apo) set new standards - I would expect nothing less than MP-quality in a much smaller & lighter barrel. The look of Zeiss & Leica - lenses is different, but they're usually too "perfect" to show distinctive characteristics like they did in the 60s. To me it's important that they diversify the lens design & manufacturing compartment, enhancing production scale again and keeping highest quality lens production alive despite it's cost. Too much mediocre stuff is floating around and especially "rebranding" (Panasonic/Minolta made "Leica", Sony/Cosina made "Zeiss"), that's true.

Last one for today: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fdtimes/42046...57622921414829/ The size difference is impressive.

http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2009/12...mystery-primes/

About two years ago the rumor was started that Leica is coming back to the cine-lens market. For those who don't know: Leitz Canada developed and manufactured Panavision Primo lenses as well as the optics for the IMAX-projector (they sold the company called ELCAN several years ago and brought their lens-production back to Germany). Their flagship-lenses were always manufactered in Wetzlar/Solms since over 160 years. Several new technologies were incorporated over the last decades, especially very complex aspherical designs which are on par with comparable Zeiss-lenses (Zeiss hardly makes any consumer-lenses anymore, most of them are simpler designs for Cosina & Sony). Definitely not "just another" optic supplier! They found a new subsidiary and started their site: http://cw-sonderoptic.de I wonder if they want to surpass Master Primes (if that's possible at all!?) or want to jump on the prosumer-35mm-digital-market with higher production numbers? The rendering shows a 40mm T1.4 (the barrel says "Multi Asph" - more than one aspheric surface?) - doesn't sound cheap...

The translation would be "the mysterious treasure of troy" (about the discovery of ancient troy). It was shot by Gero Steffen, a quite experienced German DoP who has also worked on "Knockin' on heaven's door" (one of the few German movies really worth watching). According to the Making-of-images it was shot on Super16. But I don't know more about it and wasn't really interested in it when it was on TV because these German genre-productions are usually poorly made Hollywood-rip-offs - nice to hear that at least the cinematography was properly done!

Production design and setting made it propably easy to get great images in "Titanic" - but I still think the cinematography was georgeous. I think Aliens, Abyss (underwater) and T2 (the steelwork!) looked great as well. But I'm not sure if "Avatar" would fit in "best cinematography". It easily had the most amazing images of the last years. But who was it? The designers? Mauro Fiore? Or Cameron himself (the B-rolls show him with the real and virtual camera all the time)? I don't think the term "special-effects" can be applied here anymore - it's more like production designers and cinematographers used sfx/computer-tools to do their work!?

The IMAX-projection was pristine with enough contrast & brightness even with glasses! No DRM-problems, either :lol: But why wasn't the full wideness of the screen used? About 1m was left on each side!? I agree, the images didn't have the brilliance and detail of Dark Knight (also the 35mm-sequences) and at some point the "real world" felt more artificial than the CGI! But maybe that's what HD-cams are good for - making scenes where they aren't used stand out :P No seriously, the CGI was breathtaking, the biggest breakthrough since T2, no longer an effect but part of the storytelling due to CG-characters that look "real" (well, as real these fantastic creatures and scenery could look to our tiny brains). I think Mr. Zemeckis is wasting his talent on his motion-capturing-movies and many others will follow with Avatar-technology and make us realize why Mr. Cameron stands out! I wonder which technology he would use when filming something non-sci-fi like "Titanic" today? I love huge sets, masks, models but I think Cameron does that too but really had no choice for Avatar than go 60% CGI!?

Just saw it in IMAX 3D (70mm) but I'll focus on the movie itself here (having existing critics in mind), not the technical aspects: It's James Cameron, period. Besides the amazing CGI it's a real adventure with characters you care about, with a strong subtext and not just an endless CGI-show strung together. He wanted to tell this story, he wanted to show us Pandora and he used technology for this reason - not vice versa. People complain about story or dialogue, a friend of mine didn't like the "typical American Army-Stuff" in the showdown - the story attacks exactly this military-stuff, it's like complaining about Nazis in Schindlers List.... The end was action, it was good vs. evil and you shouldn't expect striking revelations or character development at this point after the first two hours (!). It isn't screwball comedy, there are no "fights with words". I think it's strange that people expect such a thing in an action-adventure, it's like complaining about a missing showdown in "Citizen Kane" or too little humor in "Apocalypse Now" - these two movies are masterpieces but they're not able (and willing) to shine on every aspect of storytelling/cinematic experience, they're still genre pieces... There was no single scene where I felt treated as stupid, no kitschy dialogue in the false moment (Titanic: "this is were we first met" while the ship is sinking). I've hoped for a little bit more character development, showing bad aspects of the native-philosophy ( ) or a glimpse of hope and reason within the bad guys (Abyss: Coffey apologizes for his behaviour when the audience already thought he is just the bad guy). But maybe Mr. Ribisis character with his inability to act (while regretting some decisions afterwards - ) outside of his shareholder-thinking (he is just a marionette) is closer to reality than we want to admit. Or what about a non-linear storytelling? But I think Mr. Cameron was fully aware of these options and we have to keep in mind that while this movie really compressed (only suggesting many aspects: ) many scenes (avoiding any redundancy) still had a run time of nearly 3 hours! Maybe a non-linear story, more characters struggling with their decisions would have caused too much distraction!? This movie never felt tiring, constantly staring at the screen enjoying an entirely new world! I think we would only be able to appreciate Mr. Camerons effort if we would have seen this combination of adventure, romance, sci-fi by anybody else, I think he made some very clever desicisions which became barely noticeable because it was done right. It was very "Cameronistic", always having the "storytelling flow" in mind - not a "edgy" movie you have to endure in cinema to appreciate it's social/historic/humnistic efforts later... But when you think about it and look closely you see many philosophical aspects ( bottom line: Open your mind, it's an adventure! The storytelling is carefully crafted and it really brings you to another world while staring at silver screen! Isn't this what movies are about? If you expect thrill ("will he make it?" "who was it?") or a christmas comedy, you're watching the wrong film - don't blame it. Was it perfect? I'm not sure. But I think it was a major breakthrough in storytelling (due to properly used technology) we wouldn't have seen from a simple studio-blockbuster (I'm sure many "Avatar-bashers" will learn to appreciate it when seeing the coming 3D-blockbusters :blink: ) - it is one memorable movie experience! Let's wait ten years, I'm sure it fits in well to his other great movies. See it in 3D (70mm if you can), frontal and quite close (6th to 8th row in IMAX to fill your view) to the screen - I will watch it again, because this isn't an experience you can recreate with buying the blu-ray a few years later! 10/10

Didn't the digital projection also failed (due to system crash, not DRM) during the London premiere with Cameron himself? I'm going to watch it in IMAX 3D - glorious 70mm-prints instead of tiny digital projectors... Many friends wanted to see it in "Digital 3D" for the same price as IMAX and I had to convince (but it's digital! they sound like Cameron himself) them otherwise (one even missed the premiere due to the DRM-crap sitting about 200m away from the IMAX were it worked perfectly...) I've heard that the polarization filters of IMAX are not up to date and that it might cause some trouble (ghost pictures) when sitting not directly in front of the screen (my tickets are about 6 seats from center - might that cause problems?)

"James Cameron has predicted that film is still economical to shoot at higher framerates but may have to be shot at 2 or 3 perf for each frame" James Cameron has trouble with film costs - I love his humour :lol: 15perf 70mm @48fps in stereo - I don't expect anything less next time, Mr. Cameron! :P I've just watched the "b-roll"-stuff and noticed that he is operating the camera on nearly every scene, makes me wonder how much freedom he gives his cinematographer - he seems to control everything!?

That's nothing new, isn't it? I wonder if most of these blockbusters even profit from color cinematography... But Cameron opened a door (due to his creativity, skill and power over the studios) - he propably made a new technology possible (and showed what it's good for) for others which extends storytelling. Most movies don't need it (and won't have it), many movies will propably suffer because it's going to be used incorrectly but I think if Avatar is really as great as critics say, it offers new possibilities for coming filmmakers - isn't that great? I don't care what some morons will do wrong with this technology. But I still wonder if he could have convinced the studio to pay another 50mio$ and give it to Arri/Panavision to develop a proper 3d-camera-system for him... :lol: Does anybody know what lenses are used on the Fusion? I just noticed that Cameron always had this "camera-technology problem": he used Super35 when no super-fast/sharp primes, filmstock and DI was available and quality was far worse than anamorphic!?

I interpret the term "game changer" a little bit different: "2001" or "Star Wars" were "game changers", they didn't change the whole film-business but defined new standards regarding what to expect from a good Sci-Fi-movie. This 3D-technology is major change in the business but I agree we will propably see a lot afwful 3D over the next years... They should develop a proper 3D-camera first so that Cameron doesn't need to compromise IQ anymore...

Isn't it quite simple to downsample 48fps->24fps (including simulation of motion blur) because you actually don't need to interpolate information but decrease it? I still can't understand why he used two simple F950-cameras when he is neither happy with their frame rate and resolution!? I think there will be a great difference in detail on the IMAX-screen between the real and the CGI-scenes!? But anyway, it's definitely the movie I'm looking most forward to this season besides "Up in the Air" (is that weird or a common combination ? Let's just say an affinity for Canadian filmmakers ;-). The first German reviews are in (from reliable sources) and they're quite optimistic, it seems to be a real Cameron: technology for the story - not story for technology. :rolleyes:

"they are almost there, quality-wise. More than half the shots, they are pretty interchangeable with most Super-35 work out there (which doesn't say much about Super-35 actually)" Yes, compared to the mediocre quality of DIs - many of them aren't even suitable for a good blu-ray-transfer... It feels almost like lowering the 35mm-quality-standard to make digital transition less noticable... :blink:

Yeah, our Roland "Spielbergle vom Schwabenländle" Emmerich... He hated crappy German movies and bacame one of the most patriotic/bland Hollywood-directors :blink: But at least he said it is his last catastrophy-movie... But I still don't understand why some directors go crazy with digital cine-cameras at this technical stage... the results are their biggest enemy... Please, PLEASE Mr. Cameron, prove all the VFX-sceptics wrong with Avatar despite using an even more primitive camera... "Bank Job" was shot on the D-20 but I agree, colors and skin tones are a huge problem with every digital cine camera while in still photography colors became more natural with digital!? One engineer explained to me that the color filters are a compromise between transparancy (=effective sensitivity) and accuracy. That would explain why a DI with the ARRISCAN (same sensor as D-20) but RGB-colors (due to LED-backlight) has no problems with colors, despite being digital.

"Bones" is also shot on it. I think the main point is the missing color mask, it isn't optimized for daylight or tungsten.

I didn't realize that this graininess was part of the concept of "Juno". Still, I have the feeling that the blu-ray doesn't do the movie justice. Well, it's not Super35, it's high-speed-stock but somehow it's not just grainy most of the time but also noisy!? At least it looks like typical scanner noise /grain alaising to me and I have the feeling that a dedicated scanner for the DI with high-resolution (oversampling) would have produced a better representation of the original and I hope UITA got a better treatment!? But that's just my amateurish perspective, maybe I'm wrong. :huh: Anyway, I'm eager to watch UITA and hope for (another :lol: ) major artistic and economic success for you and the others involved!

His new movie was shot nearly entirely on 35mm ("behind the scenes" showed 35mm-cameras even with bluescreen-work!?) - but we shouldn't mix up technical with artistic quality, some of the greatest storytellers have no clue about technology. James Cameron for example is capable of outstanding work and he cares about technology but strangely, he uses 2/3"-sensor-technology that wasn't even developed for the big screen and at the same time complains about it's technical restrictions...