Peter Moretti

Yaron, I see what you are saying, you don't want to transcode into another format but stay in HDV 25p. Vegas does not transcode source files at all, so it should be able to do what you need. As for Avid's MC, I thought native 25p HDV was added in 3.5. May I ask a few ?'s so I can look into this some more for you? 1) Are you using a PC? 2) What resolution is the image, 720 or 1080? 3) Does Sony HDV record 25p into 50i stream (splitting each frame across two fields) or does it record 25p as individual progressive frames?

Every professional-grade NLE can capture at least some form of 25P. But there are differences in compatability with cameras. Most NLE's have free trials; I know Avid and Vegas do. So I'd test it out.

I can answer questions about what Avid can do. But I've never used Magix, so I can't you give you any kind of a product comparison.

Stephen Bach's book "Final Cut" gives an excellent account of the making of Heavens Gate. http://www.amazon.com/Final-Cut-Making-Hea...6260&sr=1-5 IIRC, at some point people on the set were saying "Who do I have to blow to get off this film?"

It was the sound that made Heaven's Gate unwatchable for me.

There will always be a need for truly professional grade tools. I used to bicycle race, and inevitably a new bike would come out that would be as light as a professional racing bike for a fraction of the cost. It would cause a stir among the magazine readers, but there is a lot more to a racing bike than light weight. The amazing thing about a professional racing bike is that it's light, yet stiff enough to efficiently transfer energy into the drivetrain, yet flexible enough to be "comfortably" ridden over cobble stones, yet strong enough to neither break nor malfunction during a race. At a certain level, the cost of the bike is irrelevant. And at a certain level, it must be the same way with movie production cameras.

Well I certainly didn't mean that.

An artilce on Panavision in the "LA Times." http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-p...0,5682188.story

Besides the deep focus caused by stopping down a lot, very small apertures cause excessive diffraction that degrades the image. The answer to these problems is to use neutral density filters. But are ND filters truly netural? Do they really not degrade the image or change the color blanace in any way, no matter how strong the filter is? Thanks much.

Freya, Thanks so much for sharing that story. It's amazing how little things, even in popular culture, can keep us going sometimes. Peter Gabriel's song Don't Give Up and Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life come to mind immediately for me. I think life is a constant interplay between being strong enough to get to through it and being penetrable enough to actually feel what's going on. Thanks again :) !

I'm not going to read the NYT stuff until after I go see the film. Don't even know what it's about and I don't want to know. Loved what you did in Juno so much that that's enough reason for me ;).

I have to strongly agree. I've looked at footage from Letus, RedRock and Cinevate. The SGPro looks better, almost magical, IMHO.

Um Freya, that can't just be let to go by. PLEASE do tell the story. :)

Leandro, how does one get a username and password to sign-up? Thanks much :).

Jim, Your post brings up an excellent point. How much technical excellence should we rightly expect from documentaries? Do noisy blacks and shaky camera moves (both literally and figuratively) deserve a pass, or should we be more critical? Many documentary filmmakers also light, operate, run sound, etc. themselves. Due to the budgets, this may be a necessity. But in the hands of a truly gifted professional DP, would these films be much improved? Or do the practical limitations of the genre severely limit what someone like our own David Mullen could add to shooting a documentary? I am a big fan of "Lake of Fire" by Tony Kaye (who made "American History X"). And there were shots in that film that I felt only someone with Tony's genius and experience could compose. I found myself saying "That's what a documentary looks like when a 'real' filmmaker makes one." But that's probably an unfair spur of the moment utterance. And I've watched the some of works of Barbara Kopple, the Maysles brothers, Frederick Wiseman. These are clearly "real filmmakers." But perhaps when watching documentaries people relax their faculties too much? I almost feel like documentary is the elementary school Pilgrim Pageant of film genres; if you are technically critical of one you just sound like an ass... and inevitably feel like one too.

I just finished watching this documentary. It proves one thing very well, that content IS king. The shots were nothing too inspiring, the image marginally okay.... for a DVX, and the sound tinny. Yet I was captivated and moved. I felt many emotions from disgust to pity to jubilation to sadness to profound appreciation.

Holy ! Karl, chill out. I'm not suggesting anyone buy anything. Polaroid was an iconic brand that was used extensively in movie production not long ago. That is reason enough for this thread to exist. I read your whole post, which I always do with anything that I comment on. I didn't respond to the Fuji point b/c I honestly don't think productions would go back to instant film anyway. It's all pocket digitals now. But Karl, you are taking what is a public interest thread in the News & Events forum way too seriously. Don't waste your brain on proving that the Fuji Instax is a worthy replacement for Polaroid's 600 series. The topic TRULY doesn't merit your deductive skills. But "Public Enemies" does. That's the post of yours that I've been dying to read. Not to argue, but to get your impression. You gave "Knowing" a fair review and stood your ground. The instant film wars belong in the history books, but the digital film war is being shot-out at a multiplex near you. May I humbly suggest you buy a ticket? :)

Because continuity and wardrobe used Polaroids all the time.

I know I wrote that I didn't find the highlights blown-out except for in one scene. I'm sure that's not really the case. It would have been more accurate of me to say that only in one scene did I find the highlights offensively blow-out. Depeding on the time of day, angle of the sun, setting, mood, intended look, etc. highlights can be blown-out and look absolutely appropriate. Bryan Carroll also made it clear that he and Mann wanted to make the shooting experience as much as they could like shooting flim. And they wanted the look baked-in, not dependent upon post like Mann's Viper Filmscribe experience was. There were a lot of concerns that had to be weighed. I really liked the look, FTMP. It was the (lack of) interaction between Bale and Depp where I felt the film fell short.

Tobias, The film was mostly shot on a Sony F23 recording to HDCAM-SR. That's a far cry from HDV or low end. As for the dialogue mix, I agree that some of the voices sounded disconnected from their locations.

Both, it would give you the most latitude for criticizing with bluntedness. ;) But seriously, if you have the choice, I'd still choose film projection at a good theatre. Digital display throws another element into the mix. We're trying to evaluate the choice and technique used for acquisition not projection. JMHO.

Karl, Go watch "Public Enemies." I want read what you think after having seen the moive. Not to sound blunt or crtical, LOL :P .

Rather than retype what I heard--and risk sounding smarter or more "in the know" than I really am, I'm posting this link. The bottom two podcasts go a long way to answering ?'s about motivation. http://digitalcontentproducer.com/searchre...=public+enemies What they don't do is critique the image on the screen, which (when adequately lit) to me looked awesome and not like a videogame remake. For that look, watch "Crank 2: High Volatage." And maybe there was chromatic abberation all over the place, I didn't see it but also wasn't searching for purple fringing. I was mainly looking at the blacks, highlights and the overall color rendition. P.S. Jake, just read the article. "In the end it made total sense: video looks like reality, it's more immediate, it has a vérité surface to it. Film has this liquid kind of surface, feels like something made up." Now that's going to create a lot of Michael Mann fans around here, LOL. Not that I would think he'd care too much.

I was surprised by this, as the F23 should do well in low light from what I understand about its sensors and the camera's gamma adjustability. But I just heard that Sony's S-Log feature was not used, which I think, FWIW, was to the detriment of low light performance.

I saw a few shots that looked washed-out and I figured were from the EX-1, but they were few and I just didn't think of mentioning them while writing at 3am. Maybe the EX-1 was used in the noisy low light shots--b/c I really expected better from the F23. I'd love to read other people's impressions. The Arclight prides itself in high-quality projection, so maybe that accounts for some of the difference. Maybe I just wasn't very good at evaluating what I saw. And maybe the shallow focus stuff wasn't shot on an F23, I assumed it was and was duly impressed. I thought they shot long at a wide stop and cheated the spacing in the composition a little. But I could of course be wrong. Maybe it was S35.