Max Jacoby

I know this is just semantics, but the term 'overseas' does not mean much in a forum like this one, where there are users from all over the world.

I really enjoyed your post, Pete! Sorry, I mean Boguskitty... :D

Seems to me like you are all about 'estimation'. The fact that most of the time you are either merely repeating rumors or offering another ludicrous attempt to compare cameras solely based on manufacturer's specs makes your post pretty useless to me. I seriously doubt that you have ever used the Varicam or any other professional camera.

So far I have only worked 6 day weeks...

I remember that photo. Whenever some says they shot with Primo Anamorphics, in most cases they used some other lenses as well. Especially since the Primos go only up to 100m (which in anamorphic is not that long a lens), so for telephoto lenses one needs to choose a different model. Most people's lens of choice would probably be the E-Series 180mm, which is great for close-ups.

Maybe :D

Yep, the whole film was an incredible bore. I also found the lighting and camera work uninspired. While watching the fightscenes, just like in 'Troy' I was constantly whishing that Ridley Scott had shot this. In regards to accent, I found it very funny that on the Saxon side the father was Swedish (Stellan Skarsgard) but the son (Til Schweiger) German...

I was at Arri today for camera tests and I asked about that credit. They didn't know anything about that. Funnily enough they had a picture of the shoot where you can see 5 cameras: 5 Arricams and 1 Moviecam SL...

I don't think a dvd is the best way to compare the sharpness of lenses, since the resolution of the format is too limited. The theatre screen is much more telling, especially for differences between anamorphic and Super35. When they started shooting 'Lord of the Rings' the Ultraprimes were not yet available, so they had to use Zeiss Standards and Superspeeds. When the UltraPrimes got available, they switched to them progessively. Andrew Lesnies favourite lens turned out to be the UP 40mm.

The look of '24' is itself inspired by Michael Mann's work (especially 'The Insider'). :D

Best read the AC article then. Especially for close-ups at night where noise would have been distracting on faces, they had to bring up the light levels so that it looked overlit on the monitor but pefect in the filmout. I agree with Jason, there is surely a difference between a monitor and a filmout.

At the end of that movie there was a 'Cameras by Panavision' credit, yet when I was at Arri Munich last October, they said that Slawomir Idziak didn't want to work with Panavision, but only with Arri. That's why Arri Rental send them some 15 35mm Arri cameras (and 3 Super16 cameras). Also on the credits there is someone credit as 'Arri Camera Technician'. So what gives? Did they subrent their equipment to Panavision? Or did this Panavision credit get only on there because of the reshoot?

The noise just wasn't as visible on the monitor than on the film out.

Quite frankly I wouldn't bother with anything Robert Rodriguey has to say. His comments on the past about HD anf film are completely worthless.

I don't understand this statement. What did you expect to see? Me neither. What does the look of the inside of a camera have to do with how it performs? The Arricams are pretty much the best cameras out there (along with the Panavision Milleniums).

I just read that article. Very informative. Especially the fact that they were shooting in such low light levels and cranking up the gain on the camera so much that they couldn't judge the lighting by the look of the HD monitor anymore. What still looked good on the monitor didn't look good on the film out anymore. Looks like all the people who think that having an HD monitor allows them to light by themselves and not use a Dop better rethink their approach.

I have also found that most people who claim that 'film is dead' have never shot on film and have very little actual production experience. Most of the time it seems to be based on the wishful thinking that one day their cheap little video camera will give a good enough picture so they won't have to feel bad anymore about not being able to shoot on film.

You are talking of Walter Murch, who happens to be one of the best and most respected editors/sound editors in the business. He is not just a 'sound guy', but a real artist.

By their own admittance, Arri missed the boat on anamorphic in the 90s. They thought most people would shoot 3 perf instead. But they are determined to get back into the anamorphic rental game. Arri is getting together with Elite in St. Petersbourg to produce a newer, lighter version of Elites.

I think it was shot on the F900.

Was that last year? If it was, you made the right decision. I worked on that shoot and it wasn't too pleasant. Also the film itself turned out to be garbage (as everyone expected btw).

There are both anamorphic and spherical Primos. It is possible to turn spherical lenses into anamorhic ones (Joe Dunton and Technovision do that), but this is labour intensive and is a permanent operation. The only exeption are zoom lenses where one can put a small anamorphic elements at the back to turn them into anamorphic lenses (as opposed to primes where the anamorphic element is either at the front or in the middle of the lens. Despite all this anamorphic still gives you the best picture quality. Most of these lenses are not necessarily slower than spherical lenses, but one needs to close them down by at least 2 stops to get the best performance out of them. Personally I love the look of anamorphic, especially the flares. Although technically speaking it is a 'flaw', if used well I find that it adds to the look, it creates a certain texture. 'In Apocalypse Now' for instance Storaro was looking for flares because it supported his approach of the lighting of the film which was the superimposition of one culture onto another. The same it true for 'Alien' where the flares added to the run down and gritty look of the spaceship.

I'm not David, but basically 3 perf saves you 25% on stock and all the savings that go with it. On top of that your magazines will last longer, so you will need to reload less. There is no drawback to 3 perf really.

I work in Luxembourg. There is a tax shelter law that attracts a lot of medium budget features ($5-20 Million) that wouldn't get made otherwise. Although we usually carry 3 cameras, 2 of those are sync sound cameras (mostly Arricams) and the 435 only comes out for high speed/stunt work.

Luc Besson does not DP his films. He does operate them, but he is a lousy geared head operator I'm told...