Max Jacoby

Nice to see that you're still your usual charming self Glen ;)

That's the one whose name I couldn't recall anymore.

Oh indeed, I didn't read the second link! I was under the impression that the idea was trying to get a shot with everything in focus and then blurring the selected areas afterwards.

The union in the US is quite strong though. Last year a friend was not allowed to be the hair and make-up designer on a union project because she was not a member (and not based in the US either), although she had worked with the director already and even has one of these gold statues that Hollywood hands out each year. She could only have done the film as an actor's personal, which she didn't want to do.

I haven't seen the film, but it's a comedy so they probably kept the cameras rolling and improvised. Some Hollywood films have a complete disregard for the money spend on filmstock. A friend did a big film where they kept the cameras rolling while the director would speak to the actors, sometimes for 2-3 minutes at a time.

Shooting over a million feet is a lot, but not unheard of. They did it on Charlies's Angels (they had loads of slow-mo) and Kubrick for Eyes Wide Shut. I recenlty read an article on a film where they shot over 2 Million, but I cannot remember anymore which one it was.

Sorry, but I think your theory is ridiculous. Bigger sensors do not offer more depth of field, but less! The reason Red offer bigger sensors is simply because they want to spread out into the stills photography market as well. They might as well try to amortize their development costs by making bigger sizes of the same sensor, such as the ones used in medium format photography and above.

Damn right. Nothing is more unconvincing and annoying than someone who goes on and on how great he is, despite having nothing to back his talk up.

You forgot the most brilliant of them all: Glen Alexander. Never met a VV shot he could not load, slate, operate, grip & focus-pull all by himself. ;)

Bill Russell was always incredibly nervous before each game, frequently throwing up as well. But his teammates knew that the more nervous he was, he better he played. Hence the 11 championships he won in 13 years. People who never question themselves and think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread do not get very far in any field.

Glen is saying that he didn't shoot on Fuji, Kodak or Agfa, but a German stock that has never been used for cinema. And he is right, many Luxembourgers speak French with an accent, but they are not nearly as bad as he is at German ;) Myself I don't like French at all, I had some traumatic encounters with French Grammar in school and much prefer English and German.

Glen's German is indeed hilarious.

Oh please, this is just a bunch of bullshit. 35mm has so much resolution that even if you strike a print from an IN it still looks good in the cinema. Obviously not as good as a print from the ON, but still a much better image than anything shot on digital. And going by your argument, one had better shoot on film, because if you start with an HD image that has less resolution than film to begin with, in the cinemas nothing will be left. And really, I don't think Robert Rodriguez is a reference when it comes to knowing what looks good. He's been raving about HDCam for years but his films look like poop.

Talk to Arri in Munich or London, that's where they have sales offices.

Are you kidding???? Considering that Red only plan to release their FF35 cameras in the winter of 2009 (which with the inevitable delay means 2010 really) I don't think your prediction has no chance at all of happening.

Oh sorry, my mistake, I meant Technovision, not scope.

I saw some trailers for it during last night's Cowboys game. Troy Aikman liked it.

As far as I know the film was shot in 35mm anamorphic.

Indeed he says in another post that the anamorphic lenses used in HK are Techniscope (Cooke) lenses.

According to David Bordwell, Johnny To and other HK directors shoot on Techniscope

Futuristic? That word always reminds me of how they imagined the future in the 50s. Either way, I was not referring to the cameras themselves, but to your tendency of avoiding arguments based on concrete, real-world knowledge by saying either: 1) Time will tell 2) We shall see 3) Watch and see 4) Let's see what happens Which as far as I'm concerned are merely euphemisms for: I don't have a clue.

Feel free to contact me if you're ever in need of colorful German insults ;)

There you go hiding in the future again Tom.

It is actually 'Verpiss dich' ;)

Maybe they'll end up locking the focus at the hyperfocal distance and stage everything in long shots, thereby creating a new filmmaking trend ;)