Jump to content

Anton Papich

Basic Member
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Anton Papich

  • Birthday 08/07/1982

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Vinkovci, Croatia, Europe

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/analoganton
  1. Go to www.apug.org and ask that question. I'm pretty sure someone will know answer to your question.
  2. When I wrote that, I wanted to make distinction between DSL( R )'s and camcorders, since in my opinion, DSL( R )'s because of their capabilites have more cinema aestethics then camcorders. Eh Vincent, if that could be so easy. I see you are writing from LA, center of film industry. Now imagine if you would live in some relatively poor central european country where developing of Super8 is literally science fiction ( I don't know anyone who develops this, and I doubt ordinary photo store would do that ) and telecine of 10 mins of Super8 is made in amateur way in MPEG format on DVD. Anything better, well, you can always go to Austria. I mean, if topic opener has conditions ( that means money ) to experiment with 8 mm/16 mm I will always say go for it, since I'm also a film fan.
  3. Nope, but you can have it with adapter. Better thing is to have audio separately recorded. That's why I said for cinematography, not video. :)
  4. Nope. I would say GH2 outperforms AGF 100/101, considering videos I saw. At best, they are the same. Both come with same kit for example - I want to point this out to show you why I said that GH2 is for video. Also, check Panasonic press release: http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/popup/pressrelease/gh2.html#1 It is just still camera with very good video performance. That Panasonic kit lens is designed exclusively for video. Does Canon has something similar in their DSLR range of models? Although, GH2 is DSL, not DSLR.
  5. Panasonic GH2. With no doubt. I will buy myself one, when I get some money. That little thing can accept almost any lens ever made. With Canon that is not so possible. Also, keep in mind that GH2 is made exclusively for cinematography ( I would rather say that, then video ), unlike Canon, which is made for still photography. Just to give you a glimpse what GH2 can do ( considering aestethics ):
  6. Oh, man, they stole a lot of equipment! Where did it happen exactly and how?
  7. Not all of them. Lumix GH2 isn't. Well, on the other hand, that one isn't DSLR.
  8. Don't know about you guys, but this video is number one for aestethics ( most important thing for me ) in home digital videos that I have seen. It was shot on Lumix GH2. P.S. OK, maybe scenery is not best looking, but that is not important. :)
  9. Well, don't get me wrong, I'm not professional cinematographer ( nor amateur one ), I'm just amateur photographer. But, I simply don't see how can film be cheaper option for movie in general. I'm not talking about production etc, and If I understood you good, you're talking about professional production where some company will buy you film. I'm talking from perspective of amateur cinematographer.
  10. Well, you can carry couple of extra battery packs and lot of CF cards. I mean, in your pocket you can put, how much, kinda fifty or more CF cards. Still don't see film as cheaper option.
  11. Well, you're not nobody from nowhere if you have film school in your area ( I have only one in my country and that is film college ) and if you can buy yourself endless hard drives. :) Uh, I really hate myself for writing this, but I disagree. As much as I love film I have to say it is expensive, at least in cinematography ( in analog photography, which I use exclusively is much cheaper ). I mean, how much money would I need if I want to make 30 minutes documentary on Super16? And now think about that, how much money would I need if I do the same with DSLR, for example, 5D? I would be happy if you prove me that I'm wrong. Bear in mind that I don't have neither Super16 camera nor 5D.
  12. Hi Anthony, and thanks for reply! I hope you were nicely surprised. :) By practicals you mean available light, If I understood you good? Yes, I really like that lighting and especially those Christmas decoration lights, I would be very happy if I could find out exact wattage of light bulbs or brand he used. Thank you for your remarks, I appreciate them! Yes, that thing bothered me. I have DVD and I know it is little grainier and you have good point there. Ektar was with me at that moment, and I didn't know that the hotel ( that was taken in hotel ) would have that kind of lights. The moment I saw them, I had to try to take some atmosphere from there. Room I was in, had three of those lamps, beautiful, like in the movie in which every room has, kinda, at least five of those lamps. I was excited about that, because I watched film four days earlier ( this was taken on 5th January 2011 ), as I watch it every year in Christmas/New Year time. If I go to that hotel next time, I will definitely bring some 400 ASA professional films with me. You think picture itself is maybe oversatureted? And when you mention blue filter, do you think that I have too mach orange/red cast ( carpet was red, so it gave also some reddish tones to it ). Also, this is not out of the scanner version offcourse, I added lot yellow in color balance in Photoshop. Yes, offcourse. I shoot 120 mostly, more then 135. I also have one roll of 400H in fridge, so I will definitely try it. Do you have maybe some of your examples of this what you mentioned?
  13. NHF, Bruce, it's just a discussion. I'm glad that you still shoot film. ;)
  14. It should be even bigger. You have rapidshare and similar sites for that. JPG is highly compressible format if you're into this comparisons. And you forgot one thing. Resolution of film is limited by resolution of your film scanner. As it would be with higher speed setting on your sensor. Sure Bruce, same goes for you. ;)
×
×
  • Create New...