Ruairi Robinson

I'm just going to put these two statements back to back for archival purposes. High-larious. How's that working out for ya, out of curiosity? R.

End shot of Electra Glide in Blue is pretty spectacular... (Conrad Hall shot it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doH3AHUWN4...feature=related

Since the decision to shoot on red rather than film is something that faces directors and producers in the real world of production, I would say this is the perfect place to have those discussions, since those interested can lean on the experience of other professionals who have gone through it and had good (or bad) experiences. What is not helpful, is people who have no experience of either ranting and raving about digital will "never" be as good as film, or film is dead, when both extremes are obviously horseshit. R.

Stutter during pans? Film does that too with a 180 degree shutter angle. The issue is when they try and shoot stuff in low light and open it up to 360 degrees to get an extra stop, and the motion suddenly looks like video. See every 7th shot in Apocalypto. Or that nighttime scene in Forbidden Kingdom. R.

Worked for Sergio Leone when he made Once Upon a Time in America. They even had the children whistle the main theme in that iconic scene under the Manhattan Bridge. Sequences can be designed around the music as well as vice-versa. Personally I greatly favour the idea of designing the central themes in advance of filming. You can play them on set to get the right tone for the scene. Of course it's a massive luxury these days in the *real world* of filmmaking, when music costs so much to compose/record... R.

Not surprised to hear it - that track is amazing. R.

"Broadcast quality" doesn't mean much any more. R.

I think it's funny that so many people are complaining about the images being "slight soft" viewed at 100% when not a single person doing the complaining can even view the images full size at 1:1 pixels on their monitor. They have to zoom in to do their whining. Full screen on my 46" 1080p monitor, the images from this camera look amazing. R.

I'm an Oscar loser! Ladies, form an orderly queue. R.

I saw someone punch a bus once. The bus wasn't hurt. R.

Yes, members of the academy, technical experts as they all are, tend to get all worked up about this sort of thing. There's protesters outside Warner Bros right now chanting "Down with DI!" Also they have banners saying "traditional photochem is slightly sharper and the colours are marginally more naturalistic if you don't push them too far, as directors tend to when they have the tools to do secondary colour corrections" I can see it becoming a catchphrase already. R.

How are we to know this wasn't shot slightly out of focus, or on shitty lenses which can't resolve 4k anyway? The fact that the person who did the test is not standing by it with their real name does not exactly inspire confidence in the accuracy and objectivity of this test. R.

I guess I could have been clearer. I meant "had already hit the lens" as just what that says. I didn't mean that it necessarily hit it, on camera, in the take that was used. I just assumed it had hit the lens, but they kept shooting, and didn't use the portion where the lens actually got dirty. But otherwise the shot was good... I'll ask the editor then next time I see him. And I gotta go see the movie again anyway, I only saw it the once... Well worth a second viewing. And a third. And many more after that. R.

User error :P

There will be blood is a lush period piece :)

If Robert Elswitt doesn't win there will be blood.

Mpeg2 compression throws away information within the frames, not whole frames themselves. So yes, you are watching 25, or 29.97 individual frames per second.

You might as well be asking "how come nobody wants to see their favourite movies put through a painterly effects filter?" I want to see movies as they were intended to look, not what some engineer in a lab thought would "jazz" the pictures up. R.

I saw someone try to punch a bus once. The bus wasn't hurt.

Ridley Scott swears by it. He specifically argues that it's better for working with actors. R.

Handheld WAS used sparingly in Cloverfield. It was only used for shots where it was appropriate to be handheld, i.e. in the case of Cloverfield: every single shot.

You would imagine that if the premise of the movie is: "found footage from a non-professional cameraman as he and his friends try to stay alive while capturing footage of giant monster destroying the city" that would be enough qualify as a story that specifically calls for this style. Unless you think you could find the time to set up a crane while a 300 foot tall monster was chasing you down the street :) You mean the giant 300 foot tall monster they had in Blair witch? or the device of the found footage Blair witch ripped off from Cannibal Holocaust...? R.

Probably an artifact of simulating the look of "non-professional cameraman trying to keep focus while giant monster destroys the city"

I have never seen a rear projection tv that didn't look poop. I have never seen a tv in any store that wasnt set up poop. The only way to get a good picture out of these things is to go in and turn off all of the enhancements that supposedly "jazz" up the picture. This 120HZ motion guesstimate crap is a joke. all you want is the cleanest possible signal, so the image on screen looks like it's actually supposed to.

I'm surprised to hear that...!