Milo Sekulovich

Brian, Bravo....could not have said it better myself.

Frankly. that's some serious,serious nitpicking. You can tear every movie ever made to shreds finding inconsistencies.

The big guys like Technicolor, Deluxe and Fotokem out in Hollywood will still be around for a very long time.....

Why can't you do this in the daytime? It would be so much easier.

Hi, Yeah, basically the lower the number the lower the granularity. Here's an interesting comparison. I have an old spec sheet of Kodak 5254 (given to me by dear John Pytlak). That stock was 100 ASA. But the RMS granularity for it was 7. 5212, the current Kodak 100 ASA stock is around 2.5! So the current 500 ASA stocks at RMS 3.5 have much less granularity than a 100 ASA stock of 35-40 years ago. I've shot all of Kodak's stocks on 35mm and something like 5219 viewed on a television has no apparent grain. Regards, Milo Sekulovich Cinematographer

Hi, John's right. Arri 2C, Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9 zoom. As for primes I'm thinking more like Angenieux, Cooke, or Kinoptik. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the zoom for the entire movie. And of course shot on glorious 5254. 5251 was discontinued in 1968. Regards, Milo Sekulovich Cinematogapher

This is absolute bull**** and is the sort of misinformation being s**t out by a good many people in the digital/HD realm. Milo Sekulovich DP

Well, of course I had my doubts as I've never even heard of this ludicrous technology and the fact that Gene Siskel passed away some time ago. But ridiculous things are being announced all the time, like shooting major features with still cameras..... Quite an elaborate "joke" to write and post on one's website. Some people just have too much time on their hands... But seriously, I've heard similar criticisms of major motion pictures regarding framing, acting and so forth by layman film reviewers, 'scholars' and so forth. Like Coppola said 'Everyone on a movie set thinks they can make the movie better than the director'.

Greetings all, I was perusing the widescreen museum and saw this and couldn't believe my eyes. Now some a-hole decides that Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur suffer from poor compositions and need re-framing. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/flikfx/default.htm This supposed technology "fixes" the poor compositions And it's all explained in an arrogant know it all manner. Who the hell is behind this??? It's a growing trend-armchair hack film reviewers, curators and 'scholars' who have never shot a frame and now they know better than David Lean and Freddie Young. Unbelievable!! Milo Sekulovich

Hi, I've seen this as well....and it's been proven all the time that shooting HD or Red does not necessarily save time or money. What irks me most are all the productions that have the budget to shoot 35mm film but don't. Quite often they say it's for 'aesthetic reasons' And yet one can see that they're just trying to emulate film. Then just shoot film in the first place! I mean, why would you want to deal with an inferior capture medium? Why would you want to worry all the time about blown out highlights on exteriors, limited dynamic range and crappy skintones?? And then try to fix all that in post?? And although there are good DP's shooting HD, I have to say the standard of most of the guys I know who shoot mainly HD or Red is low. Most of these guys have never shot film and they're lazy. I mean, you CAN'T afford to be lazy shooting a feature on film. And those of us who've shot features on film know what I'm talking about. And video villages have been a problem for a long time. How often do you see a director and DP standing right next to the camera watching the actors in the scene right in front of them? Regards, Milo Sekulovich

In contrast to his complaint of glitches with Red, I have a 40 year old Arriflex 2C that I've shot in bitter cold weather time and time again with no problems that produces images that Red cannot compare to. People seem to forget these days about the sheer ruggedness of film cameras. You wouldn't put a Red right next to the machine guns on a fighter plane like the Arri 35's were meant to. And with all these problems with a camera that has difficulty performing properly 'out of the box', that's supposed to be a revolution?? Milo

Let's get this straight. There's nothing digital that can even COME CLOSE to 15 perf 70mm presentation. Repeat-NOTHING DIGITAL COMES CLOSE. And 35mm film projection being poor??? Generally, the quality of 35mm film projection is superb and has been the standard for decades. This is my problem with the entire "digital revolution" and digital fanboys, and just adds credence to my belief that WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING BACKWARDS WITH IMAGE QUALITY. And IMAX are now charlatans. They've jumped on the digital bandwagon thinking that people will equate "digital" with state of the art as a marketing gimmick and will obsolete "that old antiquated format known as film". The facts are simple. The 15 perf 65mm acquisition format and 70mm IMAX film projection format IS THE ULTIMATE DE FACTO STANDARD OF IMAGE QUALITY. Until digital can outperform it on every level there is no debate. Hell, HD/Red can't even outperform 35mm film as an acquisition format! And art has nothing to do with this. It's all about money. And I hope it bites them in the ass. Milo Sekulovich

Like Tony Brown, I'm speechless also at this thread. This is something that's my biggest bone of contention with these digital fanboys and the "revolution." Shoot 35mm quality with no crew, bypass film and the skill to shoot film at any cost, resort to easier and more ignorant ways to try to equal film, proclaim the death of film, and so on. The clip looks like video to me. And come on, the screen is small. You can't judge that accurately. Even well shot MiniDV can look decent at that size. But enlarge it to a computer screen size or a TV then we'll see what it's made of. The majority of features are still shot on film. There's a reason why Hollywood is not shooting exclusively RED, HD, and so on. ARRI HAD RECORD SALES OF THEIR FILM CAMERAS LAST YEAR! Enough said. Milo

That's not really a fair comparison and not the best way to judge as those pictures are small, and at that point comparing even something like very good MiniDV and film can blur. But magnify it and make it the size of a computer monitor at least and there's a world of difference....make it the size of a TV or a theater screen and then digital's weaknesses reveals itself. The other thing is to add motion. Motion creates other issues to deal with and so you just can't use a still image that small as a realistic comparison. Film is still king. 90% of all major features are still being shot on film. And Arriflex just had RECORD sales of their motion picture cameras. Milo Sekulovch

Greetings all, I thought this might be an interesting topic that hasn't been discussed very often. In addition to techniques, I thought that other relevant things such as etiquette, personal experiences, and actor/actress observations might also be of worth. I've done several nude/sex scene shoots and they never seem to be easy, for a variety of reasons. Milo