Peter Moretti

Okay, here's a somewhat divisive ?. Do think that black and white is less challenging to shoot than color? I realize there are no absolutes in the world, so of course it depends. A beautiful sunset is probably very agreeable to being shot in color. But in general, do you find B&W easier? I have to say that I think it IS easier, b/c it removes one very important but hard to get right component, namely color. It's hard to create a good color palette. This is why I believe a fair amount of new shooters' material is shot in color but converted to B&W. Simply to emphasize the composition, which probably worked nicely, but also remove the color palette, which is difficult to get w/o significant production design, planning and probably $. Anyway, enough of me. I want to hear YOUR thoughts on this! :D

I think subtle camera movement is an amazing and very difficlt art to master. If you can, watch "The Virgin Suicides" and let me know if you still feel the same way about never moving the camera. Seriously, I'd love to hear your thoughts after viewing it. Thanks for considering the above. ;) :)

"Lake of Fire" and "Dark Days."

I believe there is another generational aspect at work as well: what cinematographers feel comfortable using. It seems like there are those most at home with light meters, filters and film stocks. And there are others who like waveform monitors, After Effects and RAW. I think it's fair to say that the first group is, by and large, older than the second. (There are people out there, who to their credit and as a result of hard work, can live comfortably in either camp.) But I think filmmakers (i.e. cinematographers, AC's, loaders fully competent with shooting film), are going to become harder and harder to come by. I remember reading a book on Albert Einstein in which it chronicled the debate Einstein had with Neils Bohr over quantum mechanics. Essentially, Einstein thought quantum mechanics was useful for making predictions, but it was not how things really worked, "God does not cast dice." Bohr saw uncertainty as being part of the very nature of the system. Their argument ended in a stalemate that came down to something along the lines of perspective or scope of the system. Essentially, point of view. Fast forward half a century and quantum mechanics became accepted as truth. Not b/c Einstein was necessarily wrong, but b/c he was no longer around to be proponent for his way of thinking. For someone who put the world of physics on its ear, Einstein was not so impressed with himself, as he saw what he did to Newton happening to him. He preferred to say that old theories in physics don't die as much as old physicists do. I think it will be the same way with film. Film will continue to be a technically valid way to capture images long after its practioners have dwindled below the critical mass necessary to keep the medium vibrantly alive. JMHO. P.S. Here's a link to the book, BTW: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005459Q/ref=s9_simh_gw_p129_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1MCP5SR8CXYVF0KMX178&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

So, if I'm understanding correctly, 2 perf is printed as 4 perf anamorphic for projection. If that is correct, does this add expense, degrade quality or limit the theaters that can show the release print? Thanks much.

I'm looking to pick up some more gels and am just wondering if anyone feels there is a significant difference between Rosco Cinegels and Lee Filters' gels? I'd imagine there isn't, but thought I'd ask. Thanks. :)

True, but what analogies are perfect ;). BTW, I believe stereophiles bi-amp speakers b/c the low frequencies take a lot more energy to create than do the high frequencies. Makes sense when you compare a woofer's movement to a tweeter's vibration. Apparently the energy drain caused by powering the woofer causes some type of distortion that bleeds into the high frequencies. Also the quality of the amplification need apparently differs w/ speaker driver type. Woofers need fast, clean, copious power. Solid state amps can provide just that. Tweeters need more warm smooth amplification (hope I'm not anthropomorphizing too much) and tube amps provide just that. How this all relates to the Alexa, I'm not sure.

Maybe you're on to something there John, not surprising ;). As many stereophile setups use two amplifiers, one for the tweeters and one for the woofers, a.k.a. bi-amping.

Daivd, BTW, I'm curious as to your take on "The Lives of Others," in reference to anamorphic photography.

In this video, which believe it or not I actually like, you can see the ring light reflection clear as day in the talent's sunglasses. It's so ubiquitous, I think most viewers will think it's some kind of "cool effect." http://www.vevo.com/watch/far-east-movement/like-a-g6/USUV71001090 Why do I like this video, BTW, esp. since it has a lot of what I usually disagreeable? Jump cuts (well they're in most videos now), fake interlaced lines, no discernible dance choreography, lead singers acting gangster, composited images coming to life, slow motion. Yet it somehow all works, partly b/c it doesn't take itself too seriously. But, anyway, I thought the ring light reflection was just so egregious that it was funny and actually worked.

Actually, it's almost always called "The Revelation" or "Revelation." No "the Book Of." :P

BTW, I think it is more than a little unfair to compare Malick to many other filmmakers, simply b/c he gets to work in his own world and on his own schedule--and this has caused problems for those who've teamed up with him. To me, part of being a pro is being able to work well with others and deliver on time and w/in the constraints of a production. That said, I very much admire Terrance Malick's work. He actually strikes as being of similar ilk to Michael Cimino--but less destructive.

Okay, I just watched the trailer again you Youtube. And you guys are right, my memory couldn't even be accurate for 16 hours, :o. So what is it that makes these shots so effective? Looking at this over and over, two things come to mind. One is a subtle movement of the camera, which I tend to like. (But even still frames look very good.) The other is a very nice color composition; everything looks natural but in a poetic more than realistic way. There is no color that in the frame that takes away from what's going on. An example would be an orange tube on Sean Penn's desk, that might look appropriate on a busy desk, but it would hurt the composition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlYYreuK8vo Any thoughts?

I'm wondering if anyone wants to chime in on what may be some of the signature aspects of Terrance Malick's "look," so to speak? I saw the "Tree of Life" trailer during the previews before "Black Swan" last night. It was clear to me and by the responses (gasps and "wows") of the other people who were also in the theater at 10+ pm that that trailer was visually heads and shoulders above everything else we just previewed. Looking back on it, it seems that Terrance favored setting up farther away and using longer lenses to create a distorted perspective with almost a lack of a vanishing point. Don't know if this accurate or not. Would love to hear other people's perspective on this (no pun intended). ;)

Brian, I agree that the dancing is the weakest part of the film. We believe she did a great job b/c we are told to believe it and b/c her eyes glow orange/red. If you want to see great dance performances, check out "Center Stage." Yes, it's pretty cheesy, but the dancing is excellent, as two the leads were professional ballet dancers.

I have to say that I loved the cinematography of this film. Just the work with mirrors alone, was very impressive. And the subtlety oppressive, claustrophobic feeling in the apartment was perfectly executed.

I just read the same article and have the exact same? Anyone? :)

I thought the actress who played Mattie Ross did an outstanding job. I also very much liked Barry Pepper as Ned Pepper and Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney, although their parts were small. I felt Matt Damon did a very good job of NOT being Matt Damon, but the repercussion of this is a rather wooden performance. I like Jeff Bridges, but I also felt that Rooster being a drunkard and crafty and the overall physical comedy took away from his relationship with the girl. So I have to say that I found John Wayne's performance as Rooster more moving.

I just saw the movie yesterday at the ArcLight theater in Sherman Oaks, CA (which does a very nice job of projecting) and I thought the EXACT same thing. There was definitely a strong green color cast in the scene when Rooster is first riding with the snake bitten Mattie on the horse. It was as if it were being digitally projected and the green channel went wonky for about a minute. But this was film projection. But I was amazed. And I have no explanation for it, except maybe it was somehow stylistically connected to Mattie being ill?

Red is offering a $100,000 reward. http://205.234.135.241/forum/showthread.php?t=53561

Holy Crist man, just pay up. Yes, digi will beat out film at some future date, just not quite now. Really, all the hemming and hawing is painful to watch. An internet bet is a fun idea, but to see someone actually not be willing to pay and search for a stupid out just illustrates why such things rarely workout well. I'd much rather watch your outtake footage of innately noble wild horses than watch what's on display here.

Yes they can... but no way is an F900 cheaper than a Red. http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-HDWF900R/ http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633399-REG/Sony_HDWF900RPAC1D_HDW_F900R_CineAlta_24P_HDCAM.html

Come on Vincent, Peter Jackson and his crew hardly qualify as "new cinematographers and directors." Are you proposing that sixty-takes P.J. & Co. shoot a 3-D, effects laden feature on film?

So this would seem to indicate that you can use PL glass on B4 cameras. I did not know that. I always thought the long back focus on 2/3rd's cameras prevented the use of PL glass w/ a straight mechanical adapter. But I could very well be mistaken.

Does anyone know what the flange focal distance is for B4 mount lenses? I've searched the web pretty exhustively but have yet to find the number. I believe it is significantly longer than PL's 52mm. Thanks much!