Max Jacoby

I recall. I think 'The Thin Red Line' was much better though. Not just the cinematography, but the film as a whole. But hey, a film about bringing the last son home to his mother, that must have gotten the Academy's hearts all warm and fuzzy.

You want to purchase some Arri cameras? Do you have some spare millions lying around?

I still wonder why it didn't get the Oscar for best cinematography that year.

Surely you must be mistaken, Redcode is completely new and innovative and blows any existing compression out of the water ;)

And what does 4000-5000 cameras sold actually mean? For one that number is way too high (as Red themselves say), but then again you never seemed to care about accuracy. Furthermore even if there are a around 2000 Reds sold, that does not mean that everyone is shooting on them now and 2000 film cameras are suddenly out of a job, now does it? It is not the sheer number sold that should be indicative of its acceptance by the industry, but the percentage of film jobs that it replaces. I hope that it is not too hard for you to get your head around that. Well if there are only a dozen D20/D21s made, they seem to get used all the time, on proper budgeted productions. I've certainly read more in the trade papers and magazines about the D20 being used than the Red. And Jumper being Number 1 at the Box office what please does that have to do with anything? The film wasn't a success by the way, it did not even 80M in North America.

But unless you use it as an effect it (as Spinotti seems to have done according to David), it is just very distracting to most people. I've had friends who have nothing to do with the filmindustry complain about the smearing in Collateral for instance.

That seems to be an issue with all 3 Chip cameras. You can also see it on the shot of the woman looking out of the window. The shutters in the foreground exhibit this magenta/green fringing as well. Are these things hard to get rid of? I mean can software do it by itself or do you need to have a human operator who checks every single shot?

Considering that the studios and independent distributors release over 500 films each year in the US, the number shooting digitally (and on your beloved Red specifically) is still very small I'm afraid. It's simple math really. Side by side? Pardon me, but the amount of Red footage actually in Jumper is very small. Of course we all know that you have a vested interest in Red and keep on pushing it, but don't think that people here are stupid enough to believe the numbers you like to quote.

You can calculate the depth of field yourself. Here are some 35mm equivalents of 65mm lenses: 18mm : 40mm 24mm : 50mm 28mm : 60mm 35mm : 80mm 110mm:50mm 150mm:75mm 250mm:115m As you can see 65mm as a tad less than half the depth of field of 35mm.

I don't know the exact number, but my point is that for such a big number of cameras available the amount that is actually used on proper budgeted projects (i.e. anything that has enough money to shoot on whatever format they like) is still small. The Red is mostly replacing HVX and the likes, not 35mm cameras. Really, the only digital camera that is established on Hollywood films as a main camera is the Genesis, with the Arri D21 probably getting there also. Viper is not really used (only by Mann and Fincher it seems), same for the Red and the Dalsa.

Hey I like the 2B, I've used it myself. It's a good cheap MOS/crash camera. I've even used it in one of those huge blimps from the 60s...

Tom, remind me again, in that White Men vs Indians conflict, who ended up having the last word?

I've been on some shoots that were not very nice while on them, but in retrospect proved to be quite funny. Like that film with Dolph Lundgren... Worked once with an idiotic Italian steadicam operator who didn't like me (I didn't kiss his ass which he expected everyone to do), that wasn't too pleasant, although what hurts more is that the production company went bankrupt and still owe me and a lot of people money, money which we'll never see.

Hey Stephen What modern zooms have you noticed this with?

I'm not surprised, because in this month's ICG magazine article there was no mention of Red either, just good old 35mm.

They are the exception of the rule I'm afraid. Of the several thousand Red cameras, only a small percentage are used on what you like to call A-budget productions. I don't see any rental houses or labs closing down because of Red, now matter how much you wish for that. In fact the contrary is true, I know several rental places who are busier than ever renting 35mm gear. Haha, more expensive than that Arri 2B you have kicking around maybe, but I'm talking about sync-sound cameras that people use to actually shoot features with. Just quickly scanning my Arri Rental catalogue, Arricams go for 1250 Euros a day, 535s and Moviecams for 800 a day, even the ubiquitous 435 for 750. And those are 2003 prices. Cinegate have exactly the same prices if you'd actually bothered to check. Red is so cheap that it would be ridiculous and quite dishonest to charge as much as a 35mm camera.

Check with Arri Media, they have 2 perf movements for their Arricams ( as well as 435 and 235 if I recall correctly)

Sounds interesting Michael! I'll look into this once we're closer to production.

I'm with Paul on this. 3:1 is not workable if you want a good film. Even if you cover each scene in one shot that is very simple, it will still put an incredible strain on the crew and actors not to screw up and ruin the take. That is not a good working atmosphere, especially for actors. I wouldn't do a feature for less than 10:1 and even that is not a lot. Cover a scene with a master and 2 closer shots on each actor only allows you to do each shot 3 times for instance. Especially if you have dialogue, you want to run the scene all the way through (even though you'll cut into it), because it helps the actors get into the flow of the scene and give you better performances. If you really don't have the money for 35mm, shoot Super16. It will allow you a bigger shooting ratio and that will benefit your film more than a bigger format.

However these digital cameras (well only one really, the Red) are not exactly replacing 35mm cameras. These cameras are bought by people who cannot afford to shoot on 35mm film. I don't see any rental houses chucking out their Arricams, or even BLs and Moviecams for Reds...

I don't think everything Malick touches is gold. Like his 'Jesus meet the Devil in the desert' script for instance.

Let's first see how much of the footage ends up in the actual film. With Malick you never know, just ask Lukas Haas, Viggo Mortensen, Jason Patric, Bill Pullman, Mickey Rourke, Martin Sheen, Billy Bob Thornton et al. I agree with DJ Joffa, as much as I love Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, The New World was nothing to write home about. Unfortunately Malick doesn't get it right all the time, but then again, who does?

Gosh, so all this info was already available in this very forum BEFORE Joe asked his question ;)

That's exactly my problem with IMAX for narrative cinema: there is no composition. The camera just points at the action, but you cannot really play with off screen/on screen which is an essential tool for storytelling.

So are you up for the 5+ hours cut then?