Gabe Spangler

Let's not forget the loss of light and the extra storage space needed ... or the faster processors on digital cameras ... or the fact that is just plain looks dumb. Film is NOT reality – it's FICTION. People want a fantasy world, something UNrealistic, a world NOT like reality that they can slip into for 90-120 minutes. Yeah ... not happening. Go make some more kids movies, Cameron & Lucas.

Adrian, you are wrong on a couple things. – You can use cine lenses. The CP.2 lenses from Zeiss are made for the Canons. Also, you can have a DSLR modified to accept any PL mount lens. – You can over-crank to 60 fps on most DSLRs. – Having a laptop and hard drives on set is not mandatory; it's just that most people feel they have to because they read too many magazines and forums. Plus, you are only listing the disadvantages. The advantages are you don't have to process the film or have it DI'd. You can see your footage right away. Small/cheap cameras afford the opportunity to use multiple cameras and to put the camera in small/tight places. Film is awesome, looks awesome, etc. But it's not the end-all-be-all. Neither is the new digital revolution.

Antti, those examples are the exception, not the rule. And I said "visually boring," not simply "boring." It's all about story and content. Technical stuff is always secondary.

I agree, David. I am not a Guillermo del Toro fan anyway. He's way overhyped, IMO. The only film of his that I really enjoyed was Cronos, one of his earlier films. He needs to get back to that style. He's falling into the Hollywood trap recently of thinking he has to make giagantic, big, huge films. And by the way, Tom Cruise would be incentive for me NOT to see the film. Any why del Toro like Ron Perlman so much is beyond me.

Excellent video, Phil. And I couldn't agree more. I shoot neutral with sharpness and contrast turned all the way down, which is still too sharp sometimes, and the color saturation is close to where I like it. This allows me to make small moves, not big ones, in the grading, keeping the image together as much as possible. It always shocks me when people want to shoot super-flat or super-contrasy in-camera. Middle of the road is the way to go.

The Academy has its own website, of the the first things that comes up when you search "Academy" or "academy awards" or "oscars."

www.google.com

David is totally right, Ryan, in all regards. Also, good luck shooting wide open on a 5D. Your depth of field will be skinnier than fly hairs.

Otis, I couldn't agree more. For some reason people think, because they have a supremely color-correctable image, they should correct the hell out of it. I have seen some nice, natural looking footage from Reds just massacred in post. The option is there to grade the image to a more natural look, but 90% of the time it's the opposite that occurs – going with jarring colors and an artificially sharp image. This current trend makes me sick. I wish the film mentality of getting it as close as possible in-camera and making only small tweaks later was used more often.

If you have a $500 palmcorder and a work light from Home Depot, you are a DP.

The old split screen technique is always a possibility. Shoot a locked-off shot twice, once with the foreground subject in focus and then again with the background subject in focus, making sure they stay in their parts of the frame and do not overlap, then combine the two halves of the images in post. I suspect this was done in major film projects more because there was a conscious decision to have, seemingly, the whole image in focus, instead of racking between two characters, in low light situations that demanded a wider f-stop. But I also suspect it was at times a stylistic choice. Of course, anyone who knows what to look for can spot it immediately. Doesn't stop me from liking it if done well.

I agree. No need for the mirror bounce. Experiment with the different lenses, getting the right punch and spread you want. And you are correct, the haze is what will make the rays of light visible. If you want warm, you may have to gel the light with like a 1/4 CTO and/or white balance a little warmer. Good luck with your shoot.

I owned an XH A1 for two years and now own a 7D. My 7D slays the XH A1 in low light, absolutely slays it. Even at 0dB gain on the XH A1, the image was noisy. The 7D is great up to 1250 iso and the noise is less obnoxious-looking. Definitely get a T2i or a 60D. Some 1/4" or 1/3" camcorders may be able to shoot in low light, but the image is terrible, in my opinion.

Use Highlight Tone Priority. Other than that, it's like Hal said, it's called lighting. If you do end up with clipped whites, a Proc Amp filter in post at about a -0.5 will make them look less obnoxious.

"Have I completely miss understood this whole thing?" YES.