Ruairi Robinson

Perhaps you should try to help him, instead of trying to undermine him. He may be inexperienced, and have a hard time explaining what he wants, but it doesn't look like you are doing much to make life easier for him. Btw calling him a "director" like that is incredibly disrespectful. I'm sure he'd love to know you were going online saying stuff like this about him. R.

The public are "screaming" for more 65mm content? Really? I mean I wish this were true...

Didn't think Baraka was soft and grainy!

Blessed is he whose job is also his hobby. Until he burns out. R.

So tell me - which has better resolution. A red camera doused in petrol and set on fire, operated by a corpse wearing a tutu, or 15 5D cameras with their lens caps on, shooting from space?

You can upgrade the sensor. So yeah, it leaves them in a pretty ok position.

I was the one that responded. Purely in jest, I hope no offense was taken. (I don't know, because your response was removed!) I guess the point is, if anyone talked like this about their red camera, they would be dismissed as fanboys. But it's okay to talk about film in such glowing terms. Anywayz. Back to work. R.

Here is the quote:

The Entire movie was not made in NZ. They had a mocap studio in LA and several other vfx venders contributed significant portions of the work (ILM etc.) It is true that the majority was done in NZ though.

What did you think of the CGI work in United 93? There were 483 VFX shots in that film. Which ones stand out? R.

This is my favorite single shot in any movie. True story!

Of course, you aren't referring to the many, many shots in many many films that were CG, but you didn't know it. You are of course referring to BAD CGI. Right? Or are you going to claim you can ALWAYS tell. R.

Perhaps you should consider checking your facts before speaking. R.

They used the F23 as well. R.

But it's still acting. R.

Btw I'm referring specifically, and exclusively to the field of CG here. In case thats not explicitly clear.

okay if you want my opinion*. A book is a book whether its written on parchment with a quill, typed on a typewriter, or spoken into a computer with speech recognition software and is typed out. Cinematography is still cinematography - if it's photographed on film cameras, shot on video, or generated on computer. The same aesthetic decisions come into play. People that try to dismiss or marginalize the contribution of an entire industry of incredibly talented professionals out of a lack of education about the process really, really, really annoys me. Cinematography is not limited to photography. There you go. R. *subject to change without prior notice. No warranties expressed or implied. Batteries not included. All models over 18 years of age.

No, you haven't a clue because you are talking about stuff you aren't well informed about. That's why. R.

Wowsers, you haven't a clue. R.

It's interesting you feel the need to defend live action cinematography by demeaning visual effects as "cartoons" A statement that is utterly ignorant of the process. Simply put, you don't know what you are talking about here. Lets go to remedial class: CGI uses Lights lenses filters and... "camera movements." In fact, in the case of Avatar, camera movements that were generated, on set, by Cameron operating a camera. Like for real. With his hands, and everything. Yours Sincerely, R.

Pal is not limited to 4:2:0 so I'm not sure what bearing that comparison has on anything...

"poop"??? Ugh. I did not, and would not ever use that word in any sentence, ever. I would rather expletives be replaced with "XXXX" than have my words automatically altered. R.

Because NTSC looks poop. Always has. Always will. films shot at 24fps are retargetted 1:1 frames to 25pfs. Meaning the sound has to be speeded up by a factor of 4%. In practical terms, this has much less of a noticeable negative effect than the visual stuttering seen in material encoded at 29.97fps for ntsc via pulldown. And the awful colors in NTSC. So in practice, in PAL. the resolution is higher, and the motion looks more accurate to the source material. And the colours are more natural. But they both look like mush compared with progressive 1080p HD. R.

I hate to break it to you man, but 2001 a space Odyssey is actually NOT based on a true story. It is, believe it or not, a work of fiction. For one thing, they set it in the future. R.