Max Jacoby

That focus scale is completely useless for narrative filmmaking.

Might be right? It is the way Gary said. If you don't believe him, why not give the good people at Cooke a call so you don't have to indulge in useless speculation. I don't understand why you bring up the issue of Cooke having or not having a problem working with Red. Cooke make PL mount lenses, Red has a PL mount, that 's all there is to it. Cooke sell lenses, they do not care what camera you put them on. It's a business. And as far as Arri is concerned, this is a company that's been around for over 90 years so they must be doing something right, don't you think? If you ever have the pleasure of using their equipment and/or dealing with the company, I'm sure you'd change your tiring and uninformed tune.

Exactly. These are regular S4s with 'RED' on them. To deduct from that that Cooke is going to design a completely new set of lenses to fit a bigger sensor is beyond ridiculous.

Sorry Tom, I have to ask: have you ever even spoken to the people at Arri or Cooke?

This is of course based on actual experience, it's not just you overblown ego speaking, right Glen? ;) But yeah, let's compare a 14mm Master Prime to your 15mm Leica stills lens. You have one that opens to T1.3, right?

Gosh Paul, you have a lot of free time on your hands.

Please don't do a DI on a short that's shot on anamorphic and where all your prints will be struck from the original neg. That's the best quality you're ever going to get! If you really have to do a DI, try to do it at 4K, 2K is just nor good enough.

Although most people cannot tell the difference between film and video if you ask them, I believe that subconsciously they perceive such a difference. Sometimes I ask people I go to see a film shot on digital how they felt about the image and more often than not they said that something was odd or different.

There used to be a large format forum here some years ago, but hardly anyone posted there. Even films that shoot their VFX shots on 65mm still mostly use 35mm. Of course I'd hope that one day we'd need such a forum because large formats get used more.

I think neither CMOS nor CCD chips are replacements for film, I sincerely hope that they develop a digital technology that sees the way film sees.

Quire right. There is so much more to an image than just sharpness. If resolution was all that mattered then we'd all be shooting digital by now.

I think that can be arranged again Stephen ;)

It certainly wasn't 100 Dollars Tom! At most it was 50, but I seem to recall you never went over 20, which considering the dollar's value at the moment is a not really worth it in my eyes.

Big words from the man who himself didn't want to put more than 20 dollars on the same bet...

Indeed, it does not take a genius to predict that products in the (near) future will be better than the ones today. But since we're still in the present, all these predictions are quite worthless, because they have no impact on how me make films today.

We compared Kodak and Fuji for my feature and this was the conclusion as well, which is why we went with Fuji.

Red delivered one camera that was so buggy that it took 16 builds to get a decent image out of it. I'm sure they can deliver the specs eventually, but they are by no means ahead of the competition. The difference is that Arri as well as Panavision and other companies announce products that are ready soon, not 1 or 2 years away. By the time Red releases their cameras, which given their usual delays will be in 1 to 2 years time plus additional time to get rid of the bugs, these other cameras manufacturers will have moved beyond 1080p as well. Let's see if that footage ends up in the actual film. With Terrence Malick that is not a given.

Well put David, I don't understand why some people always seem to wish that one company/brand has to 'annihilate' or 'destroy' another. Don't these people know the advantages of diversity, and the choice and competition it creates?

There are 2 serious flaws in your reasoning here: for one neither of these Red cameras are anything but specs on a paper yet. Also you seem to presume that just because companies like Arri, Panavision and co have not announced new digital cameras yet that automatically means that they aren't working on such a development. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I always thought that shot was a recreation?

Hunger by Steve McQueen was shot in 2perf (on an Arricam I beleive). There is a 17 minute shot in there that otherwise wouldn't have been possible.

Now back to a much more pleasant conversation. The 60mm was our workhorse, it was always the fist lens on the viewfinder. Only if we couldn't do the shot with it, did we look at the 50mm or 75mm. The C-Series 60mm is an adapted 60mm Zeiss Macro lens, hence it's T2.8 stop. I haven't shot with the G-Series yet. By the way, the new Hawk V-Lites have some interesting intermediate focal lenghts, like 45mm and 55mm, which I'd love to shoot with.

Why don't you take your own advice Glen and stop being such a twat. Unlike you, I've shot 65mm 5 perf. The 765 is heavy but its shape is manageable. Panavision have 65mm MOS cameras that one can do steadicam with. As for the price, a 765 is less to rent than an Arricam, the real difference is in stock and lab costs. My line producer drew up a comparison budget, it is essentially twice as expensive than 35mm 4 perf. That includes post production and a 35mm IN. Good luck with your VV film that is about the eons between eternity and infinity. I think it is obvious to everyone of us here that the reason you did everything by yourself is that no one was stupid enough to work for a prick like you.

Hi Jarin I'll wait till the film is finished to grab a still, so far I only have DV-Cam rushes and they are not properly graded. However I've seen printed rushes of another scene that was also mainly lit with candles, with some room-tone and lite panels for catches in the background and that looks really nice on the big screen. It's amazing with todays stocks how dark you can go and still see things. I also avoid the 40mm if I can, our workhorse lenses are the 50mm and 60mm. They have some distortion but nothing distracting. Plus they are the sharpest in the set. The 75mm is the first lens where the distortion is barely noticeably anymore I find. We've been mainly using it at T2.8 even for day scenes because we love the way focus falls of, the bokeh is so nice.

From a comparison test I've seen I don't think the Primos have more barrel distortion than the Hawks, I think it really comes down to individual taste. I just saw an interior scene we shot on the 40mm and although there is some distortion, it doesn't bother me. If you're pointing the camera straight it is less noticeable than if you go low or high-angle, in these cases the lines really start bending. We shot a wide shot with each of the actors carrying candles, no additional light at all, T2.8 and you still see faces. But keep in mind that I like things to go very dark. Same here, the painterly way the out-of-focus feels is amazing.