Max Jacoby

I think porn directors are much more gutsy than other director's, because they tend to work with really long shots, none of the cut-cut-cut ADD crap one sees nowadays in the cinema or television. Porn should be an inspiration to us all.

Hasn't it always been there?

Don't mean to be a smartass, but Knocked Up was shot on film. If one could make video cameras look like film there'd be no point in shooting film anymore, would it?

I would be fine with looking at the first six months of releases in 2011 and going off that - since a lot of those releases would have been shot in 2010.

Sounds easier to prove, but remember, only films that have been produced by the studios themselves, not their subsidies or acquired later count. Your initial challenge was 'major-studio films', so I want to be absolutely clear on that. The average budget of those is probably around 70M or 80M I think, so 10M is a useless figure, I bet there won't be a major studio release that is under that. I think we should put the limit on 50M, after all the purpose of your bet is to prove that acceptance of digital by major studios, not by low budget films

Films that feature a mix of digital and film (think Collateral) won't be counted, unless one of the formats was used in a very limited capacity (highspeed or background elements, etc...)

There are six major studios by the way: Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, Warner & Disney.

Oh and we'll simply COUNT the films of each format and the one with the highest number determines the winner, there's no need for you to try to get your head around percentages.

Tom of course I accept your bet. If you lose, pay me $50. The way things are going in 2010 I stand to win about 5 Euros. However in the unlikely event that I should lose, I will put up more money and treat you to a restaurant of my choice.

Now if only you will explain to me how you plan to determine what films qualify, as I said previously basing it on what films are shooting by a certain date is almost impossible to determine.

Obviously major studio means films financed directly by these studios, not by one of their subsidies (as in under the 20th Century Fox label, not Fox Searchlight or Fox Faith or of those) or whose distribution rights are acquired later.

Let's do over 100M that's more fun.

When it comes to restaurants, El Bulli or The Fat Duck are the obvious choices. But getting a reservation there is quite hard.

$20 is too low, where's the fun in that? I'd rather play for a tasting menu in the restaurant of my choice.

But I think the parameters of the bet are a bit vague. What qualifies as major studio? And how do you want to know what films are shooting by the end of 2010? Why not the films released over a defined period, that is much easier to determine.

Yep, me too!

I don't see why one would exclude the other.

The ultimate film slayer according to a thread on RedUser.

Maybe Tom would like to chime in here.

FYI, impossible to do a sequel....

Since when was that ever an obstacle to making a sequel?

I don't see how a camera with a fixed zoom lens that's a very slow T2.8 can be competition for a camera that takes DigiPrimes nearly 2 stops faster and whose dynamic range is already better than the Red One.

They probably added them in post. Fincher does that quite a lot.

Narina was shot Super 35mm, not anamorphic.

Just looks really underexposed to me , get hold of the neg and check . Is it thin or dark-ish ?

If it's indeed underexposed, then one culprit might be the zoom lens. I noticed that you said you were zoomed in for these shots, well most zoom lenses do not have a constant t stop (despite what iris ring says), as one zooms in, they get darker.

Hi David

How long is this shoot?

There's plenty more flares in this scene, I merely picked the most obvious one.

I am however struggling with Hi def images in general. They seem extremely harsh in their natural state and I'm keen to start testing soon to find a way to soften the overall image, be that by lens choice, filtration or post.

Knowing you Tony, you'll probably pull out some old Cooke Speed Panchros to see what they look like ;)

I've been watching The Reckless Moment by Max Ophüls and there are some interesting flares that look just like anamorphic ones, except that they are vertical.

Anyone know what could be the origin of them? I don't think it's the lens, so maybe a lack of rem jet coating and a reflective pressure plate?

What's so unreasonable about expecting a film to have a story that actually works and characters that one can engage with? Only the Joker was interesting, yes, you need a good villain, but if your main character is a dork (who speaks with a silly voice when in drag) the whole film is let down. None of the relationships actually engage on an emotional level, one merely understands what the filmmakers wanted to bring across on an intellectual level. Take for instance the scene where Bale bumps into Eckhart and Gyllenhal at the restaurant. There is ZERO emotional connection between the actors. Watching this I know what the scene is meant to be about, but at no point do I feel it. Same goes for the opening heist, it is so boring I nearly felly asleep. Compare this to the bank robbery in Heat, which is truly edge of your seat stuff and you know that Nolan still has a long way to go before he reaches the Hollywood heights of Michael Mann.

But we still got a long way to go.

I saw the film today and was very impressed by the overall sharpness. Not just the IMAX scenes (although they stoodd out), but also the 35mm anamorphic looked incredibly crisp. The projection was top notch too, easily one of the sharpest films I've ever seen.

Unfortunately the film itself is not very good and waaaaay too long.

Indeed, the AC article on 'The Departed' mentions the lenses.

Maximum aperture: f/3.5.

Hmm, I'll check with Zeiss to get a little speed upgrade there.

In any case, I didn't mind the bokeh at all, just the fact that the depth of field was too shallow, and it was rather jarring when they cut from 35mm DOF to IMAX and they mad such a huge difference in stop, even moreso than you'd see cutting from a normal to a zoom closeup.

I'm surprised that people notice such a huge depth-of-field difference, 65mm and 35mm anamorphic are not that far apart. Certainly there is a bigger difference between anamorphic and spherical. But probably the increased resolution makes the depth-of-field more pronounced and the fall-off is likely faster too.