Matt Goldberg

For some reason, this 'campaign' tactic kind of reminds me when Jesse Ventura ran for governor of Minnesota. And he won, of course. I'll admit, Red certainly has an image, but it is incredibly exciting anticipating such a breakthrough camera. I also like to think of Red as what Happy Gilmore was to golf. I've also said from the start that upon release, I don't think anyone will truly know the scope of this camera for quite some time, and how it can be used in so many ways.

Is there any footage, additional information, etc. available pertaining to Pace and Cameron's 3D camera for "Avatar"? Sounds like an exciting concept-- two attached 950s. Thanks in advance, -Matt

Has anyone used it yet? Or seen footage?

Any information on the DI, if it was used? Costumes, hair style, and production design certainly had an impact on the look of this film-- those elements justified manipulating film and giving it a tarnished, somewhat old-stock look, though it still looked like a blend of that and newer stocks that went through a modern digital grading process. I wasn't in tune to that very much as I was captivated by Forest's performance. Though the fast editing and heavy 70's-influenced film look certainly complemented his performance and the film overall-- exciting but dark film.

This is a topic based on specs and current footage available. I agree with you, Walter, for the most part, so this is just somewhat safe speculation on the soon-to-be (hopefully) Red camera. In LA, I can see the body of the camera renting @ $395-$495. With add-on peripherals, add about $100 or so for a full-fledged Red with Prime lens, storage and possible 2nd battery ~ $400-$500/day. Software and digital capture presents another issue-- will a rental house allow for some type of Red footage-to-computer capture? That's my big question in regards to rental thus far. I think there's a possibility for some form of open source software system that will allow "Red renters" to capture or transfer Red footage to their computers. Week rentals, for Red body (including battery, power-in, and basic storage) I would not be surprised if houses post deals for under $1200/week or $4000/month, which sounds phenomenal.

Wasn't the film on the front cover of the last AC? I forgot, but if it is in there, they may have specs on lenses, camera bodies, stock, DI, etc. Saw the film last Saturday and was deeply impressed by the color schematic. Color shifting to produce mood swings in film is such a viable tool, and del Toro & Co. really used it well to differentiate the main character's dream-like fantasy world with amber and golden warm tones, and the almost entirely blue tints of the real war outside of her control. It certainly had an impact on the mood and emotional intensity. Great film-- classic villain, great visuals, and very well shot.

Saw the film yesterday. It reminded me a lot of "Eyes Wide Shut". Both films I thought had several parallels in plot development, namely in pace, which was untraditionally slow for a commercial release. I'm referring to plot development, and not the structures of both (one is non-linear). Overall, I didn't feel very much impacted by the film. I was looking for nostalgia and motivation, which were two things this film didn't have. I concluded that the filmmaker/s were trying to focus more on the form of film. The narrative was singular and 'god-like', looking at all characters from one view, and that is what made this film deeply singular and fresh for film-going audiences that may appreciate more higher-art films out there, namely (but not subsequently) indies. I'm still a bit overwhelmed that it won at the Golden Globes, but I think one of the reasons it did is because of how original the idea was, and how it stepped over current boundaries of traditional, narrative filmmaking that ceases most of the elements of a commercial production.

Do you know if there was a steadicam operator on his earlier films El Mariachi and Desperado? Or even if steadicams were utilized at all? I agree, mastering steadicam takes a lot of time and practice to overcome. I have thought about RR's use of steadicam in his more recent films often, and I think that often his shots are being steadicamed by himself, but are not very long (~2 seconds or less). That may be one way to describe his style. That also may be one of the reasons his films have a rough-cut look with shots that do not feel complete, with less to choose from in the cutting room, but that is probably just a trademark of his films.

They have a behind-the-scenes already available? Where did you see this?

You may want to see a restoration specialist. Ascent has a subdivision north of LA who may do something like this, or at least take a look. Contacting film historians and preservationists may point you in the right direction as well. Typically, when a studio or client needs to restore an old film without the neg, it may take some time and other methodology, but I think it can be done to a certain degree. Going print to video will probably involve some intermediary steps. If it's a newer film on a particularly newer print stock, this type of transfer will probably render a different look for the film.

I saw the film today. Some of the shots felt interlaced and 'non-converted', almost in high-speed fashion. At the same time, some of the shots felt s35, depending on the composition. Bottom line-- the video-like look felt present in some places, and in others (i.e. most of the film) it felt as though it was shot on 35mm or even better. This may have not been recognized to the untrained eye, though, and I only have one perspective. It was also well edited and I really enjoyed the music complementing. It was also the most violent film I think I have ever seen.

These are not the cheapest prices, Vedran. Most of the time, cheapest is in L.A., due to competition and exposure. Another reason for the difference may be from stock and service availability, as well as local economy. Try shopping for film lab work in Los Angeles, New York, or Italy. Hope that helps. -Matt

Well said. But as can be seen from either people's own third-person accounts or direct use with Genesis, the Genesis/film differences are much debated and considered. On my own side, without ever using the camera and interpreting current Genesis films to celluloid films, I'm satisfied with the Genesis' internal processing and gamma curves deployed to achieve desired results. Nonetheless, I still take into account the way both acquisition formats are structured-- simply said, one is via celluloid and the other as video signal. These are the main differences when comparing both formats of acquisition-- it's just that Genesis uses video technology to render a film-like image, that often is appreciated and the main aesthetic excuse of using it as an alternative to film. On the flip side, I felt that Superman Returns wouldn't have been the same film if shot on 35, 65 or 16 mm film. I can appreciate if it was also used a maneuvre to handle the visual effects easier as 4:4:4 HD RGB files rather than 2k or 4k rasters, but ultimately, it provided a 'cleaner' and pasteller look, which may or may not have been significantly attributed to impactful DI. To think if they shot Superman Returns on film, it is certainly very possible to consider that it would have looked very different.

Thanks for the link, Francesco. From the movies I saw this year shot on the Genesis camera (Superman, Flyboys, and Click), I honestly couldn't tell much of a difference both on DVD and in the theater when it came to distinguishing Genesis from 35mm film. When I saw Flyboys in the theater (don't remember screen size), it seemed cleaner and pastel-- but I think that was probably from compositing work and look-driven DI. Compare that to Miami Vice (shot mostly on the Viper), and those are obviously different looks. Most of the time, though, I hate to draw conclusions just from grain, DOF, rez and color fidelity when it comes digital vs. film, as so much of a movie's look can be manipulated in post. I saw the Apocalypto trailer last week in the theater, and tried to catch anything that stood out that told me 'this is video', and couldn't tell the difference. Less for some of the scenes in Flyboys and Superman (mainly VFX shots), as of today I think that the Genesis replicates a 35mm film-look very well. As for non-technical aspects of the film, it will be fascinating to track the financial performance of this film, considering all the variables it has to work with-- Gibson's current reputability, ultra-gore, and just the imaginative idea behind it.

It comes out Dec. 8 (at least in the Midwest U.S.), but from what I've heard there have been some advanced screenings. Anyone seen it yet? Just curious to hear first impressions-- story, graphic content, cinematography, etc.