Tom Lowe

Matt, have you heard about the new Arri? They are saying it will get a significant boost in DR. In fact, that's the main selling point. http://www.arridigital.com/teaser

Well, for starters, we all grew up watching 24p film projected at theaters, and we associate that with magical memories, etc, so it's only natural to want to mimic that to some extent. There is much to admire about film. I think the idea would be to take the best of what film offers and incorporate it into digital. That way, you get some of the benefits of film (greater DR, for example) with all the benefits of digital (clean, high-ASA imagery, instant playback, full-def onset monitoring, full-frame "Vista Vision " sensor, RAW, etc.) Like it or not, digital will replace film soon. You can bitch and moan about it, or you can head over to Reduser or talk to your Sony, Canon, Arri, or Panasonic rep and start bitching and moaning to THEM about the features you want. As far as I know, there is no major cinema camera company on earth that is even working on new chemical film camera designs. They are only working on designing digital cameras. That tells you something right there.

Oh yeah, all those "low end" DPs like Lubezki, Mullen, Semler, Miranda, Beebe, Toll, Prieto...

Camera looks are subjective. Cameras are the tools of artists. And there are no higher artists in the art form of motion pictures than Terrence Malick and Emmanuel Lubezki. It is not a logical fallacy to point out that they used Red One for portions of Malick's upcoming epic, "The Tree of Life." It's a fact. If you want to talk more facts, let's talk about the stunning rise of digital cinematography in the television series world. Many of us here predicted it. Some of us here said it wouldn't happen for "decades." If you want to make informed speculations about the future of feature films, look at both stills and television in terms of the rapid replacement of film with digital. To somehow argue that motion picture features will be immune to the rise of digital is an argument that will be lost, and lost very soon.

LMAO. No one cares about Terrence Malick.. on a cinematography forum??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

The same old guys bitching and moaning and decrying digital imaging. How long before you guys finally throw in the towel and embrace the future? :lol: We can obviously see digital sweeping through the TV world with breathtaking speed. Even a year ago most of the digital deniers here would have scoffed at the idea. The same thing happened with digital still cameras. One minute everyone is shooting film, and then you wake up one day and realize that digital has completely swept the entire industry. Guess what? Feature films are next, and it's going to happen MUCH faster than most realize. My bet was that by Jan 2011, more feature films would be shooting (in production) with digital rather than with chemical film. I may or not win, but it looks like I will be close. I have it on good authority that Red One shots will make final cut on Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life." If digital is good enough for Terrence Freekin Malick, I'm sure it's good enough for James Murdo.. I mean, Keith Walters.

This could definitely be one of your bigger-grossing films, David. Seems to be a lot of buzz. But heck, there was buzz even back when you were filming, I remember. Paparazzi and whatnot.

LMAO, what happened here? Someone edited your post?? You guys have way better eyes than I do for this type of thing. I didn't mind the Genesis shots at all. I think the political stuff on Genesis was supposed to look "polished, clean and phony" - just like Washington DC.

Hahaha. Nice. :lol:

I thought the photography was superb. Rodrigo used film cameras for all the newspaper/Crowe shots, and Genesis HD cameras for all the politics/Affleck/DC stuff, to give them that "clean, polished" look. This was more than some gimmick. It actually worked out perfectly and subtly. "Public Enemies" tried to mix various cameras and formats, and the whole thing was a mess. But "State of Play" is first-class cinematography.

I enjoyed this movie far more than the disastrous "District 9." At least this movie knew it was a cartoon, and had some fun stuff in it.

Malick himself would be impressed. Looks great, Max. Please keep us informed about festivals or releases here in the states.

LMAO, you guys are still so hung up on Red, it's funny.

I thought this movie sucked major balls. The shaky-cam literally made me sick halfway through the film. I was looking around for a barf bag. The story sucked, the picture was ugly, I didn't care about the characters or story... I just wanted it to end.

WTF.... give it a few years before you go ranking it with those films. I thought the movie was good, but about 20-30 minutes too long. I also wanted to see some more "Natsy Killing". We never really got to see the Basterds in action... the story was moving off into so many other directions. This was a million times better than Grindhouse, but only about 35% as good as Pulp Fiction. I think one of the problem for Tarantino is that he may never be able to top "Pulp Fiction."

I bet some of the people dissing this trailer are going to change their tune significantly once the film comes out.

These interviews do not surprise me, but they are a pleasure to watch. They confirm my belief that Malick is in a world and a league of his own -- at the very apex of living cinema directors. I remember listening to an interview with Hans Zimmer, who said that the first time he sat down with Malick, he was stunned to learn that Malick knew even more about classical music and composers than he, Zimmer, did! Malick is a certified genius, plain and simple.

My guess is, that unlike most trailers, which give away the farm and reveal all the best elements and shots of the movie, that Cameron is showing some restraint here with this 2D trailer. My bet is that this trailer is nothing but the tip of the iceberg in terms of the awesomeness we will all behold in December in 3D. I have been waiting for DECADES for a good Sci-Fi movie that deals with outer space and alien worlds. The last good one was back in the 1970s/80s - Star Wars - so I am incredibly excited about this!

Thanks. FYI, Malick was shooting pickups in LA last month for "Tree of Life," and he was shooting on a Red One package. ;) Since Kurosawa and Kubrick passed away, I don't think anyone can dispute that Malick is the high king of cinema -- a true artist who is deeply revered and who is closely tied to film -- including anamorphic and even 65mm. If Malick is shooting some shots in digital, that tells you something. Of course, he's also shooting many scenes on 15-perf IMAX cameras. Stephen, lol, you are going to have a meal of those words about FF35 in the not-too-distant future, my friend. You better get some worcestershire sauce ready. :lol: :lol: In terms of ASA/ISO rating, let's keep in mind that Jannard is likely to make large gains in sensitivity with the next-gen Mysterium X sensor. The sensor we are talking about for FF35, however, is yet another generation forward, a third-gen sensor called Monstro. My guess is that sensitivity will be increased significantly over what today's motion cameras are shooting. The performance we are witnessing from the Nikon D3X and Canon 5D2 are harbingers of what is coming.

Well, even if we assume that FF35 and 35mm anamorphic film are in the same ballpark in terms of DOF, then why are all these people complaining that it will be "impossible" to shoot on FF35 cinema because of the DOF? It seems like a bunch of negative nancies who are just looking for excuses to try to dismiss digital FF35. But believe me, they will not be able to dismiss FF35 for long. In fact, that train has already left the station, though some people here don't seem to understand it or recognize it yet. They will, soon enough.

Are you being serious? I just mentioned that in 2006 Canon was redlined at ISO 800, so of course an upstart like Red is not going to match them or beat them by some massive margin right out of the gate. Obviously, there is a reliable and steady a lag between developments with stills vs developments with motion. Isn't that apparent? It's taking longer for the switch to digital. It will take longer for the switch to RAW. It will take longer for the rise in ASA/ISO sensitivity. Everything just take longer with motion, but rest assured, it is all happening slowly but surely. I'm surprised that someone as astute as you are, John, is arguing the opposite.

Um, with the APS-C Canon 350D DSLR I bought in late 2006, I could shoot at a maximum of ISO 800 before noise became a problem. In late 2008 I bought a full-frame 5D Mark II and can now comfortably shoot at ISO 3200. So there you have it.

Or you could simply increase the ASA of the camera. Why are you not mentioning that?

Afraid you're going to miss focus? :lol: But anyway, isn't 35mm anamorphic even less DOF than FF35 spherical? Somehow, productions manage to deal with anamorphic.

Well, why do nearly all serious photographers shoot on full-frame or larger format still cameras? Why don't they shoot on APS-C "cropped" body cameras, which are similar in size to S35? Why you ask? Because of quality. You say S35 is "good enough," but I disagree. If you were to ask most serious cinematographers if they would like to shoot their next big picture on 65mm, I bet nearly all of them would jump at the chance. So now digital is making something similar a possibility, with digital FF35 "Vista Vision." To me, that's a very positive development.