Vincent Sweeney

Even if Bono did, they are overly complicated to deal with, or at least that was the case a couple years ago. For example, we were going to have them transfer some S16 and they had a very strange system in place for dealing with hard drives, and customers in general in my opinion. They insisted on "mac/PC" tests that aren't relevant anymore, acting as if a portable drive is some radical, new technology. It's as if they are stuck in 2003. They also mislead as to what U16 is in my opinion. At one point a graphic they posted depicted a larger than S16 frame, etc. U16 can be a very cool alternative but for anything other than short pieces or ad work, a real S16 camera/post is the only way to go for the sake of predictability, practicality and efficiency, which all rule on a cost sensitive schedule.

Just trust the known fact that you don't want to be a part of any shoot that thinks they don't need a DP, and move on from them to better things. Replacing a DP with gear is kind of like trying to replace a chef prepared meal with a frozen dinner. The position of both people are as safe as ever.

I think it really needs to be edited by someone else. It is way too long, pacing and music edits scream amateur. The color transition doesn't work for me either. Some more subtle camera movement would have added value. Nice otherwise. Collaborate; you can't and shouldn't do it all.

Lots more already posted about it here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=48789

The LA Times had this article about the film: Terrence Malick's coming-of-age epic "The Tree of Life" has been shrouded in mystery since news of it surfaced in 2005. So it's fitting that the first thing cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki says about the film is that, well, there's not much he can say about the film. "It's very hard to talk about this movie because almost anything I say will reduce it and make it seem prosaic and simplistic," he said. But then the veteran cinematographer, whose credits include "Children of Men" and "Ali" and who collaborated with Malick on his "The New World," goes on to say plenty, comparing the May 27 release to, among other things, a symphony and a novel. Malick's partly autobiographical tale centers on a boy growing up in the Midwest caught between the conflicting world views of his mother (Jessica Chastain) and father ( Brad Pitt) and a subsequent crisis he faces as an adult ( Sean Penn). Intercut with this story are grand images of nature, particularly elemental items like water and fire, as well as the cosmos. Lubezki didn't shoot the more abstract moments (though NASA was among the organizations that collaborated with the production). But even the traditional scenes with actors were filmed in a highly unorthodox way. Whereas most movies use what's known as "coverage" — cameras stationed in different places, with the idea of conveying a scene as you might experience it in real life — "Tree of Life" eschewed those conventions. "Photography is not used to illustrate dialogue or a performance," said Lubezki, who goes by the name "Chivo." "We're using it to capture emotion so that the movie is very experiential. It's meant to trigger tons of memories, like a scent or a perfume, or like when you go into a house and it smells maybe like chocolate, and it takes you to your past." If that sounds esoteric and even a little weird, it should. Despite decades of experience, Lubezki acknowledges that "Tree of Life" was "like no set I ever worked on." "Once you think you got the formula," he said, "you realized there is no formula." But ultimately, he said, that unorthodoxy will pay off for filmgoers. "The movie is like great music. It doesn't move you the way a normal movie does. It moves you from a very primordial place in your brain."

Not true. Contact your regional sales rep and start a relationship with them. Meet up in person if possible and especially if you are going to order a good bit of film. You will get a good deal off of retail but half is a fantasy. It's a company that needs to make money like any of them.

Do you work for Canon "david"? It is horrible for many motion applications and has lots of DoF pitfalls actually. He was asking about a class anyway. To the first poster, I'd recommend looking for a working DP in the area who has used one lately and seeing if you can get some personal training from them. I'd be very skeptical of any general class offered other than the ones from experts like Bloom, but his are rare.

Everyone has heard this ad-infinitum. If it were realistic, the Sound of Music could have been on 16mm, Baraka on Super8, There Will be Blood on a DVX and Black Swan on an F35. If so, would these films be any different? Don't be afraid of something because it isn't part of what's being frantically sold today.

Using words like "Barrier" and "Legacy" sounds like marketing carryover from some digital-only company's regretful campaign. With some experience you will find that the rest of what goes into making a production happen is a much larger barrier than the technology is, by far actually. And the "old way" is a poor choice of words. This way you refer to works for many projects for reasons that don't need to be gone into here again, but trust that the choices of many artists are made with great education and understanding of the available technology as a whole. Oh, what's that full name that you forgot to enter?

Did The Fighter look degraded to you, compared to anything else that is out right now? Yes all films are, for the most part, printed 4-perf so theaters that use film to project, which are most, will be able to show it. I'm not sure about the final exact expense of printing anamorphic but it couldn't be much different since you are still using the same amount of print stock. You use half the film for shooting (compared to 4), the cameras are easier to work with and 400 ft. loads are light and last 9 minutes. That is much cheaper for sure on the production side. If you want sterile images free from grain use an Alexa or red.

Are you sure you got what you paid for there? That's one of the worst "HD" transfers I have seen. I don't think either is a camera issue. I'm sure one of the lab owners here will be able to tell more.

Look into their products for a good start. http://www.lensbaby.com

(You meant focal length). No one can know which ones except for you and the DP you are working with. Get with him and figure it out from there based on locations and shots you want to do. If you don't know and are going to buy anyway, get a wider zoom. You will need to get still lenses for that kind of money though. I think using the word "crop" confuses people and really doesn't apply when talking about lenses anymore.

Yes, buy the Dec. AC magazine. From this and interviews, it seems that Si2K was used for most of it but 35mm was used as well, along small digital cams for some shots, one being a Nikon DSLR if I recall correctly. Slumdog was similar with Si2k and 35mm mixed.

http://contact-di.com I have worked with them before and he can make you a low-budget DCP. Getting a chain to show your film is almost impossible though and this is usually who has projectors in place worthy of making a DCP for.

Add "Enter the Void" to my examples of very recent S16 films with a 2.4 crop.

Watch Black Swan or The Wrestler, since they are examples that are easy to access. They were shot Super 16 with a 2.4 matte. This is done often, it is very practical, can look great and gives you lots of room to tweak your frame up and down. The same thing is done with 35mm often too. I don't understand fully when you asked about the lab extracting the 2.4. If you are posting with HD files, you will get a normal 16:9 HD 1080 frame to work with that can be easily matted from there.

There is just no way to know or guess at this. Luck, beyond the talent, matters so much. Countless talented DP's, writers, actors and directors go unnoticed because they never happen to meet the right director, producer or agent, or their best work didn't get picked up for distribution for whatever reason, or that big festival just couldn't fit the movie into the schedule for some reason, or they might have simply missed a friggin phone call and the list goes on.

Check this out! Sound of Music 65mm resto. I just saw the Bluray, AMAZING. Get it.

Check this out! Sound of Music 65mm resto. Just saw the Bluray, AMAZING. Sorry, its sort of a double post but its great and fits in.

I think Aaton is a little ahead of that game with their 6K CCD Dalsa system. Wasn't it officially working recently?

I feel like a lot of people moved past the film "romanticism" thing some time ago and are now mostly influenced by what is simply shown to them. For those in the producing chair, standing up against a decrease in quality isn't any more romantic a feeling than signing the checks to do what feels best.

FX guys I have worked with before usually ask for tiff's

I guess with 20 stops available, the colorist's job will become that much more important, esp. for rushed shoots. I have yet to see an HDR still with a human face in it that looked acceptable, which makes me wonder what trends will come along soon.

Is a DR range beyond 15-16 stops really that usable anymore? Obviously I can see where it might be useful in some certain shot that a film may encounter but after a while, things look too unnatural and thus, likely distracting. The HDR race seems less useful from here on out compared to things like ergonomics, color depth, highlight roll-off appeal, focus assisting improvements, etc.