Tom Lowe

If the studios want to stop piracy, it's very simple. Offer high-quality, super-fast downloads of movies legally for 5 bucks. Done deal. But unfortunately, the studios would rather rake customers over the coals for an additional $27 for a Bluray, after most of them already paid $10 - $20 to see it at the theater. I have no sympathy for the studios, mainly because they are stupid, clueless and greedy. The record industry is the same way. Instead of adapting to new technology, their answer is to drag college kids and soccer moms into court and ruin their lives.

I don't think we can blame Spinotti at all. This seems to be all Mann's doing.

David, I liked the movie very much, in SPITE OF the photography. The story, the characters, the acting, etc, were leaps and bounds above the typical trash Hollywood has been churning out. While I greatly respect Mann as a director, I do not agree with his format and camera choices for this picture. It's as simple as that. I liked the movie in spite of his camera choices. I understand what Mann was trying to do, I respect him as a director, but I feel that he failed in terms of camera choices, that's all.

The bottom line is this: if the choice of cameras pulls audience members out of the story in a negative way, it's a failure.

Did we see the same picture? :lol: In terms of cameras and format, I thought the look of the picture was a disaster. The nice shots you liked with shallow DOF were probably shot on 35mm film, or maybe the F23 or F950. But there were dozens of blown-out shots, and even worse -- severe purple and green banding around the edges of windows in buildings and cars. Over and over again the picture was screaming "VIDEO!" Mann used the Sony EX1 and some other, smaller, HDV-style cameras, which produced disgraceful results, and were a terrible distraction. Rodrigo Prieto was able to successfully mix film and digital in State of Play, but in that movie, he specifically used film for the old-school newsroom and news reporting scenes, and the Genesis for the ultra-clean and polished world of politics in Washington. In State of Play, the difference between film and digital was subtle, almost subliminal. It served a clear purpose and worked very well. But Mann's mixture of five or six different cameras and formats on Public Enemies resulted in terrible distractions from the story, at least for me. Mann should have chosen one camera -- Gensis, F23, Red One, D21 -- and stuck with it. Now.... leaving aside the technical issues, I really loved this film... it's my favorite of the year so far, I think. The shootout at the cabin was epic. ;)

Much of "The New World" was shot backlit in the afternoon. Probably using some bounce on this particular shot:

Phil, so this would be an adapter for a FF35mm lens, or a 1.33x anamorphic lens itself? Does such a lens exist for full-frame 35mm? Do you think a 1.33x or 1.50 squeeze could kill some of the moire patten artifacts? If you have a 1.50 or a 1.33 adapter, could you try shooting some brick walls, for example, then shoot the same wall with a regular still lens, and see if the artifacts can be contained by squeezing the image? I am dying to figure out a way to kill this stupid moire nonsense. It's ruined several good shots for me. Thanks, Phil!!

To me, magic hour could also include the time just before the sun sets or just after it rises. At that point, the light is usually very warm and beautiful for shooting - even in direct light. Although technically, yes, David is right that it is supposed to refer to the glow of the sky right after sunset, at "dusk." To throw another monkey wrench into this, there is another sort of "unmagic hour" when you are in the mountains, for example, when the sun has not technically set, but the light levels have dropped due to the mountains blocking. I don't know what this type of lighting condition is called, but it can be very tricky to shoot in. Here is an example that actually turned out pretty good on an HVX shoot: But often this light can seem cool and dull in the mountains once the sun has disappeared. This type of light can last for like 2 hours depending on how tall the mountains are.

I would seriously consider film. Digital cameras suck for forests and jungles. Too bad the 5D2 cannot shoot 24p. :(

I assume we are talking about using anamorphics for 1080p HD video mode shooting here? Phil, what type of anamorphic lens could be used to cover the entire FF35mm 16x9 sensor area of the 5D2 in video mode, and then result in a 2.40 scope aspect ratio when unsqueezed? I suppose there would be a slight resolution gain on that. I wonder if shooting anamorphic might also help to eliminate some of the moire pattern bullsh#t the 5D2 produces in video mode?

Did Braveheart also shoot on Primos?

Another option, similar to twixtor, would be the pixel-motion frame interpolation "timewarp" effect with After Effects. Haven't tried it with 5D2 footage yet. It really depends on what the footage is, too. Some types of footage are easier to interpolate than others.

I would also love to know this type of information. Did AC do an article? Any other magazine articles or interviews maybe? I think I saw a video posted here with Doyle, but I cannot recall if it was for In the Mood, or 2046.

The movie was funny. But the timelapse shots in the opening were really bad.

I will take the knowledge of Graeme Nattress over James Murdoch any day.

The new firmware is very nice! Rumors are that 24p is coming later. I hope it's true.

I don't know what to think about this whole IMAX fiasco. On the one hand, I feel that IMAX is debasing and dishonoring their good name with these half-ass "IMAX Lite" screens. On the other hand, if I can pay a couple bucks more to get a far superior experience at one of these theaters for a movie I really, really want to see but that is not being offered on any real IMAX screens, perhaps it would be worth it. I guess I will reserve judgement until I can see a screening at one of these theaters. Are these IMAX Lite screens equipped for 3D?

We have a whole forum dedicated to timelapse now at timescapes.org. The easiest solution would be a simple multi-axis telescope mount, like the "MiLapse" system. The inventor of MiLapse, Jay, is an admin at Timescapes and can certainly help you: http://timescapes.org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=24

So, David, with a shot like the one above, do you have to kind of explain to the actors and crew what you are doing with the split filter? Is everyone on set, more or less, aware of what type of shot this is -- that it's "special" or whatever? Or do you just say, "Stand here and don't move too much"?

I cannot even tell where the split is exactly on a lot of these. Do these types of shots need to be static, with the camera locked off?

Aside from seconding "Barry Lyndon" and Terrence Malick's works, I will also recommend "In the Mood for Love" by Wong Kar Wai. Absolutely brilliant cinematography.

This sounds about right. Or replace with the Bluray with a data DVD with your HD clips as 720p and possibly 1080p. The likelihood that someone can play a 720p Quicktime MOV on their computer is more than the chance that they will have a Bluray player in their office.

Right now the best bet would probably be to send them a data DVD and tell them to pop it into their PC or Mac and watch it.

Notable for one of the best endings ever. When the babe is dancing and the old judge is tapping his foot....lol. Then she pulls off an amazing routine and gets accepted at the dance school. She runs out of the building and the boyfriend is waiting there with the Porsche and the pitbull wearing a ribbon... "WHAT A FEELING!" :lol:

I'm unimpressed.