Max Jacoby

Use Anamorphic Lenses of course! I would hate to see all those anamorphic artifacts like horizontal flares disappear. :D

I find it a bit ironic that Sofia Coppola gets so much credit for 'directing' this movie since I was told by a person involved in the shoot that the main driving force was Lance Accord, who did way more than a cinematographer usually does. But then again choosing the right collaborators is also an important 'directing' skill. Bill Murray's speech at the Oscars regarding the shoot and the director was actually not meant to be funny...

Okay, now I finally understand what you are trying to say! Obviously increasing the size of each pixel will increase it's sensitivity. What are however the advantages of building bigger sensors? Because any increase in speed will be offset by the need to shoot at a smaller stop, so these two essentially cancel each other out. The one advantage I can think of is that with bigger pixels the space between each pixel will be proportionally reduced, thereby increasing the effiency of the sensor. Any others advantages/drawbacks?

If they did that then I'm sorry to say that this test is quite worthless. They should make film look as good as possible, not dumb it down to the level of their camera. Also I'm with Felipe on the projection issue. You cannot use digital projection to do a fair comparison, because is that case you have two unknown variables in the test: the digital camera and the digital projection. They should use film projection (with the film contact printed from the neg) to get rid of one variable, so a fair test is possible.

I'm sorry, I meant f stop. You do not need four times as much light: If you use a 4K 35mm chip with a 35mm lens at f/3.5, and a 4K 65mm chip with a 65mm lens at f/6.5 you will get the same picture. The diameter of aperture will be 10 mm in both cases so the depth of field will be the same and so will be the amount of light getting onto one pixel on the CCDs. The only difference between the two situations will be that in the first case the lens will work at f/3.5 while in the second case at f/6.5. If you want extremely good sharpness, you should choose the lens working at f/6.5. Completely independently of the size of your sensor, if you want to shoot a scene at f6.5 rather than f3.5 you need MORE LIGHT. Thta's just physics. You cannot just close your lens down 2 stops. If you are shooting outside in the sun, getting an f6.5 will not be a problem, but if you have to light a set to f6.5 rather than f3.5 that will be a big difference. You will need four times as much light to win 2 stops.

Gee David, sounds like you've been having a hard time there... I had a look at Alien today and I noticed on some shots that the corners are noticeably darker than the centre of the frame, just like you described with your 40mm C-Series. I've has the same thing on the Hawk 46-230mm zoom. Strangely enough it was on the long end (200mm plus) that the corners got dark. I mentioned this to the lens technician at Arri Munich and he said that was odd, since it mostly happens on the wider lenses.

By 'f ratio' do you mean f stop? 65mm has about half the depth of field that 35mm. The depth of field doubles with every 2 stops that you close down. So to get comaprable depth of field, you need to use four times as much light in 65mm as you would in 35mm Your proposed 100mm chip would require even more light. That is just not feasable from a budgetary point of view.

I remain very cautious of such claims. The simple fact of digitizing footage reduces its quality. Just look at any DI in your local cinema.

I don't think that's going to happen, because you will need completely new lenses (not even 65mm lenses would work on this) and your depth of field would drop so much that it would become very impractical to shoot.

What's the point of color correcting film digitally? You lose sharpness, color depth and your blacks... Just do a contact print off the original neg, for Christ's sake!

I'll make sure to mention it to the director when I meet up with him next time.

I like this: "With Genesis, the docking recorder travels on the top and rear of the camera to simulate the look and feel ?- as well as the convenience -- of the Panaflex." Is this so we won't have to feel embarassed about shooting HD? :D

I haven't seen the dvd yet. But it looked better on the big screen. When I first saw it, I was a bit disappointed though, because the rushes (taken straight from the Super35 neg) looked absolutely gorgeous. Eduardo didn't want to shoot anamorphic though, because he was worried about flares from the candles. The whole film was shot on 500 Asa stocks: 5218 for the regual interiors, 5263 for the studio interiors and 8592 for day exteriors. Eduardo never used diffusion, except for some of the close-ups in the studio (1/8 BPM or rarely a 1/4 BPM)

Yes, except that he undermined his own argument by giving the TOTAL number and not a number which took the SIZE of the population into account! That was a sensationalist, not a scientific approach to these numbers. I appreciate what Moore is trying to do. Anyone trying to prevent Bush from being reelected needs to be applauded, but his films strike me as the documentary equivalent of a Hollywood film: painting in broad strokes, going for the easy thrill.

Adam That's some really nice work there!

Same here. Really, what is the point of buying all this equipment and not even being sure it works? It just seems a really bad investment, because rental is still cheaper and gives you better quality and more reliability.This camera you are describing will become obsolete in a couple of years (if not earlier) because it starts with inferior components. You will never make your money back, because it is highly unlikely that besides your own shoots anyone will want to rent it from you, since much better gear is available.

Obviously flashing an exposed roll of film is pretty much the worst thing you can do. The next worst thing is to load the wrong filmstock. You should never let anyone hurry you while you have your hands in a changing bag. I am always pretty anal about unloading. I always tape up the can inside the changing bag (most people do it outside). If you are shortending and loading a new roll at the same time things can get a bit crowded. It is important to always know where each can is and what goes in it. Some other things you should look out for: Always checking if the mag is closed properly by pulling the lid. On some Arri mags (435 and LT) the lid can close but not completely if the lid locks are not turned all the way. This actually happened to me while I was doing tests with Eduardo Serra on 'Girl with a Pearl Earring'. Inside the mag was our only roll of the then not yet released 5218. In the end the roll was fine, nothing got flashed. Obviously I told Eduardo and he was remarkably cool about it. If you push/pull the filmstock, never forget label the can with the exposed filmstock as well. If you are using a darkroom on a truck label the on/off positions on the lightswitch. Since you are relying on power from a generator you have a way of knowing if the light is really switched off or if the generator is off. You don't want to be unloading and suddenly the light comes back on. Make sure that you always have enough filmstock for the take in your mag. If in doubt, reload. This also means labelling your short-ends correctely and always giving yourself a bit of a margin of error. You don't want to run out while an actor is giving a great performance. I worked on a shoot with Al Pacino this winter and obviously with him run outs are a big no-no. This was especially stressful since we had huge dialogue scenes and we never knew how long each take was going to be. It is unlikely that you will get blamed for scratches, that is mostly a mechanical propblem.

And he paid a lot of money for his custom build equipment: On Barry Lyndon he used an f0.7 lens of which only 2 where ever build. NASA got the other one. On top of that he had to have the lens and his Mitchell camera modified and recalibtated by Cinema Products before he could shoot with it. Even then this was a lens that you could not pull focus with during a shot, so it's application was extremely limited. I don't really understand the point of all these threats about buying your own cheap equipment and hoping that it will perform as good as professional custom build equipment. I mean, what is wrong with RENTING equipment???

There is a very good book by David E. Elkins called 'The Camera Assistant's Manual' which explains everything, including the paperwork. And I have found all the rental houses here in the UK extremely helpful when I called them up to come in and get an introduction to one of their cameras. That included jobs as well where they didn't rent out the equipment.

I recently showed the trailer of my film to a friend who makes short films on video himself. After he had seen it, he asked me what camera we had shot it on. I was a bit perplexed by the question and said: a Moviecam SL and we also had an Arri 2C. Only later did I realize that he liked the look of the film and thought the camera was responsible for that. If you work in film then it really doesn't matter what camera you use (as long at is reasonably steady), because the determinating factors for the quality and look are the lens you put on and the film stock you shoot on. Like you said, many a good film has been shot with an Arri 2C. This is however not the case for video/HD where the camera (along with the lens) determinates the kind of picture you get. And I just don't understand how people can think that a $10.000 camera will give them the same picture quality as a Viper or a F-950. There is a reason why these cameras are so much cheaper and no, it doesn't have anything to do with the goodwill of the manufacturers...

If you are referring to the fact that 'The Shining', 'Full Metal Jacket' and 'Eyes Wide Shut' are shown in open matte 1.33 ratio and not in the 1.85 of the theatrical release, it is important to note that Kubrick himself wanted the films to be shown in that aspect ratio. He framed these films in 1.33 and only had a 1.85 groundglass so as to make sure that he wouldn't cut off any important information for the theatrical release. This was revealed by his longtime assistant Leon Vitali during an interview concerning the dvd transfers.

Don't take your case for the general rule here. Yeah right! You never used your real name FROM THE BEGINNING. Which reveals more about your attitude towards this form than the other way around. Not using your real name obviously does not help your credibility at all. We have no idea of knowing who you REALLY are. And judging from your posts I seriously doubt if you have ever set foot on a professional filmset before. You fail to realize that such repeated cheaps shots against film completely undermine your credibility. You are the one who is marginalizing himself here. How do you want to know if it is the same quality if you haven't had the opportunity to test it yet, since these cameras you are talking about are not yet on the market. Once again this is a case of you undermining your own arguments by pretending you know something which you have no way of knowing. At least be honest: you do not come here to ASK QUESTIONS. In fact I cannot remember you asking a single question ever. Has it ever occured to you that if your ideas get not accepted on the HD forum, maybe the forum's members are not blame, but your ideas aren't worth anything? BY ALL MEANS DO!

Same here. The amount of useless information that people like Jukuzami post here is amazing. Shame, because the occasional interesting and informed discussions by people who actually know what they are talking about tends to get drowned in all this nonsense.

Just another example of Larry Thorpe either not having a clue what he is talking about or protecting his company's economic interests.

Personally I find the argument for a higher shooting rato in HD a bit overrated. Of course it depends on the type of film you make, but I have yet to work on a feature where we average more than 5 or 7 takes for each shot. Even Al Pacino was usually happy after that many takes. If you reguarly need more takes than that, then the problem is either bad actors or a director who cannot get good performances. To keep on shooting will most of the time not improve the performance.