frederico parreira

http://www.fredkelemen.com/html/interviews/text_turinhorse.htm interviw with the cinematographer. no topics on this masterpiece? there is one now.

very interesting! appears to be top notch considering promised value/price

new camera. shoots in black and white. http://www.ikonoskop.com/a-cam-dii-pancromatic/a-cam-dii-pancromatic/

thank you all! well, i really like this camera. however, if the bolex d16 becomes a reality, the ikonoskp price stops making sense. i hope they try to stay competitive. i like their design and viewfinder placement and all that.

people are shooting on the ikonoskop or what? i really want to see some new footage, serious work being done with this camera. anyone?

yes i have read the article. good stuff. still, not convinced about the lens. but for about 4000, i think it's one more option to consider, nowadays. panasonic af 101 is also in this price range, maybe this performs better. other than this, what else is there until the 20 000 of canon c300 and sony f3? ikonoskop, wich is about 13 000 for the all package? i would love to grab one, but 4000 is soooo much better than 13 000, isnt it? :P

ahah, cool. but not on the forum, so my face is clean, i did not 'repost' :D

i found weird no one posted this yet. http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL102132 http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/jvc_gy-hmq10_4k_camcorder (around 5000 euros)

thank you, both of you. fred

so one cannot name himself an artist, thats not legitimate, u say, but one can name himself a businessman, that is ok? man, for sure some directores (and all the other places needed to make a film) are not artists, but some are. doesnt matter what they call themselves, but it matters the APPROACH they take on what they do. so, to consider film a product, that certainly shapes up your approach. very well. i am not into that. that was not the approach of my favourite filmakers, and that is not the approach of my favourite painters, and that is not the approach of my favourite musicians, photographers, etc. just to imagine someone call a canvas by bacon or caravaggio or whatever a 'product' is strange for me. obviously, artists 'sell' their art, so u can call it a product, yes. but that is a constraint, not a point of view, for many. its one thing to start something, just to earn money and make a living(a product), another thing is to use artistic means to express yourself, and THEN sell it (because u give art an economic value). either way, no labels required. each one does it the way he wants, yes?

hello, i have a short film coming up and we need to have a tree agitated by wind. it's a big tree, and my question is: what is the best way to do it? DO wind machines do the trick? thanks in advance. fred

60 years ago people couldnt choose, they HAD to shoot film, and yet, in spite of having no option, great movies were made. so, if film dies, we will have great films to watch, still. obviously film will not vanish, its just gonna cost much more :P and? whatever man. mad props for deakins, who knows a great picture is not about resolution, or numbers or any of that rubbish.

assuming a DP allways has better results then a director Dping is a mistake, i think. most of the times, he probably does. other times, he doesnt.

@ chris walker i understand your point, but isn´t the most important thing the film itself? as in: if the director being the DP gets better results (or the results he wants to get) than having another person doing the job, why shouldn't he?

thanks saul ;)

as far as i know, hdv 1440x1080 will be displayed 1920x1080 in a dvd player. nonetheless, when i start a new project, that will use mostly hdv footage, should i create a hdv 1440 one, or a 1920x1080 one? and if the answer is the first option, when i render and export the movie, should i do it in 1440x1080, or 1920x1080? thanks in advance

i think we all agree there is craftsmanship in the making of virtual cinematography. ok. my only point is: IF there are differences between a real actor and a animated character, what differences are those? and isnt cinematography constrained by the same differences? is it the same art, or a different one? i completely agree DP's should claim the territory. but things have to be clarified.

i dont feel the virtuality of it is an issue. for me, it the principles are the same, physical or virtual is the same. however there are 2 categories to distinguish films/animation films. if this happens, why not do the same with cinematography? and what about acting? why does not a virtual character qualify for a best actor/actress award? why wasnt the old man in UP nominated together with the other 'real' actors? maybe because there is a difference between something you do on a set, and something you do on a computer... differences on several levels, so if you want to put everything in the same bag, do it. but be consistent...

if they have a 'best animation film' category, why not create a 'best animation film cinematography' ?

many many excelent films. but i have to point one that no one talked about, and is, for me, an absolute masterpiece: Mystic River

hello i am creating this topic because there is a lot of information around, but i think some points nead clearing. HD is arond to stay, and workflow and affordability are said to be the greatest advantages, comparing it with film. However, one reads the multiple topics on the matter, or one reads the daily prices of shooting with digital and the various workflows, and wonders... Surfing the Arri website, we see that is more expensive to shoot with D 21 than to shoot on 16mm. Reading the topic where M. David Mullen talks about his problems with Red's workflow, and the way the production houses are dealing with the problems, and others, i start to question, and having no doubts that HD is in our future, what does it mean right now? What does it offer? For really low budget projects, prosumer cameras are doing a somewhat good job, and offering excelent workflows, and footage you can edit on your above average computer. And when you want to shoot with cinema cameras, on bigger (still small, for u.s.a standards) productions? What are RED or D 21 or F23 (etc) really offering? I am under the impression that, considering the 'experiences' still occuring, the lack of experience, both from the cinematographers and the production houses, and even the prices and weird workflows, shooting on digital is a headhache and as expensive as super 16, or even 35mm. Am i wrong? Who has insight on this? thanks

hello, please share your 'likes' in here. im looking from groups or companys abroad, and i think this is a good point to start the search. thanks

i think we are reaching a point where digital has to find his own language. for me, the main problem, as a movie goer and also as a professional, is that people tend do shoot with digital using the 'film' techniques. thats not good, because trying to 'imitate' is never a good policy. i've seen movies shot in digital, exploring it in a good way, that i just loved, so i cant agree that digital is a weak medium. its simply different than film, and therefore has to be treated differently. so, i agree that digital has to learn to stand on his own. we, contemporary filmmakers, have to see all this different possibilities as a way of conveying different sensations. not different ways of conveying the same. my point of view...

maybe the guy wants actually rules that were, and are not anymore, etc. nice quotes are not needed, maybe. for example: irreversible. the movie starts with soooooo many rules being broken, lights frontal to the camera, terrible camera movement, the lights in the street are (sodium) yellow, etc. as the film goes and goes, everything starts to be more 'normal'. my 2 cents

karl: i m really not interested in defending slumdog, i just dont agree, at all, with your aproach to the merits of a film/cinematography, and i found this to be an interesting discussion. u said back there that not only camera, lenses, etc, are imprtant, but also, and most important, lighting, composition, camera movement. right? well, i feel that all these aspects are ways to get to a particular experience. it is, in fact, this experience that matters. and cinematographers and general public may respond to the same things, beeing an expert doenst make u 'insensible', does it? sometimes, to make a new, fresh, incredible experience, u need tons of gear and hours and hours of lighting. sometimes, u need a good idea, or a good concept, and ur ready to roll. this doesnt mean one is better than the other. of course planning, lighting, etc, the 'normal' way, is usually prefered, because its more flexible, it gives u more power, more control. but sometimes, u need to go the other way. because, in the end, what matters is what u see on the screen, and what u feel about it. no?