Jump to content

Milo Sekulovich

Basic Member
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Milo Sekulovich

  1. Brian, Bravo....could not have said it better myself.
  2. Frankly. that's some serious,serious nitpicking. You can tear every movie ever made to shreds finding inconsistencies.
  3. The big guys like Technicolor, Deluxe and Fotokem out in Hollywood will still be around for a very long time.....
  4. Why can't you do this in the daytime? It would be so much easier.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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'.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Hi guys, How expensive is the TV license that people in the UK have to pay for? I take it that this money is used to pour into programming production? Perhaps I'm wrong? Remember the days of there only being BBC 1 and 2? Or was there also a 3? Milo
  17. Brit comrades, It seems like the controversy with the Beeb has died down? Phil, do you have any idea how much HD stuff is being shot in the UK? Mind you, I'm not complaining about stuff still being shot on film-I'm a die hard film shooter and love it that way. But I'm not privy to what the HD shooting situation is in the UK. Milo
  18. Hi, Could some of our Brit comrades in the UK shed some light on the current situation in the UK in regards to how many BBC dramas are being shot in Super 16 vs. HD? There was of course the hissy fit the engineers were having about grain and compression issues. I saw a historical drama here on PBS from the BBC and I could tell it was definitely Super 16. I'm sure it was shot over a year ago with the delay in programming. Also, is Dr. Who still being shot on Digital Betacam?? Phil Rhodes? Andy Alderslade? John Holland? Stuart Brereton? Best regards, Milo Sekulovich
  19. Greetings all, I greatly enjoy the look of many Geoff Unsworth movies. Especially where he uses that "diffused look" in films from the 70's. I love that almost dreamlike quality that some of his movies have, along with many other European movies from the mid to late seventies. That seemed to be in vogue back then, and you just don't see that look today. Does anyone know what diffusion filters Unsworth used? It looked like a double fog filter to me in some of his movies, with maybe a low con filter as well. What would an equivalent filter be that Tiffen would make that could approximate that look? It's a pity that 5254 and 5247 aren't made anymore! Regards, Milo Sekulovich
  20. [ John, Very happy for you!! A meeting like that is a once in a lifetime event! Especially in such an informal setting. The real sadness of the situation is that the conversation was spent talking about HD cameras.......ugh......and Peter's fondness for them......not how filmstock and cine lens technology have never been better, and how HD can't compare to film.......:) All the best, Milo Sekulovich
  21. Hi, Can someone tell me what would be good fairly inexpensive still lenses from Canon or Nikon to use that could fit on an Arri 2C that has a B mount and Standard mount? I know I'd need an adapter. Thanks guys. Milo Sekulovich
  22. This is simply horrible news. He wasn't that old, and he was still active. I agree with John Holland. Why wasn't Laszlo doing high profile first rate movies in the last 20 years? He was an extraordinary talent. It seems that all the major films are shot by all the same flavor of the month names these days. He was an inspiration to me,and there are some shots in the feature I've been shooting that were inspired by him. We never want our heroes and inspirations to die. We want them to live forever and perform their art without end. It's so hard to reconcile this........ Bless you Laszlo. Your brilliance will live forever. Milo Sekulovich
  23. Greetings to all of you, I've read the posts regarding the new Indiana Jones production and anamorphic lenses. I cannot state this more succinctly. It's simply astonishing how in this day and age of 500 ASA stocks, efficient HMI lighting, and extremely high quality anamorphic lenses that you don't see more anamorphic movies made. I've read posts in the past from David Mullen about how his experience had shown him that in the end it wasn't overly difficult to shoot anamorphic. Richard Crudo ASC made a similar statement awhile ago in AC magazine,yet quite a few DP's shy away from the format. There were simply SO MANY anamorphic movies shot in the 1970's on 5254 and 5247- 100 ASA stocks!! Just to get a 2.8/4 was formidable yet they did it time and time again. Remember the number of Bond movies shot in anamorphic? It just sort of makes one feel that there is a 'wimp factor' going on, in which productions take the easy way out. I mean , if Dave Mullen can shoot an 'independant ', lower budgeted movie for the Polish brothers in anamorphic, surely bigger films could do it without a problem. One wonders how many DP's these days,even ASC members have actually had experience shooting anamorphic. Best regards, Milo Sekulovich
  24. Hi again, It's me your friendly avalanche instigator who has reappeared. I've read all the subsequent posts and all I can say is UNBELIEVABLE. It's as if a country has done everything it can to deconstruct an industry. As a man who is shooting a feature on 35mm with cobbled together money (sans any sort of arts grant) I simply cannot fathom why a country would make the route of film financing from private sources (i.e.relatives,friends,investors) illegal as Phil stated. I've never heard of such bullshit as being asked what "ethnicity" one is when applying for a film grant. The Eady Levy was a brilliant concept. Can someone enlighten me as to why Mrs. Thatcher did away with it? I can easily see why one would have an easier time in the US making a feature "independently" as compared to the UK. The cost of things in the UK is a prime example. I visited the UK in the summer of '95 (abnormally hot summer!) and found out very quickly how expensive things were. I also rented a car and drove from Gatwick to London. Yes, I actually drove a car around London. Although I stayed in a reasonably priced B&B near Hyde Park, I was mortified by the cost of things. Tony Brown is indeed a lucky man to have come up in the era that he did! My condolences to you brave souls there in the UK who admirably trudge away despite a grim infertile film industry. All the best, Milo
  25. Greetings, Since I'm the one responsible for this avalanche of responses,I felt compelled to show my face again. I'm in the US, and love many (primarly older) British films. I wasn't purposely trying to knock the British film industry. Rather,I wanted to be enlightened as to the reasons why the situation is so bleak. The funding paradigm it seems is a huge culprit. How many of you are aware of the following scenario having taking place in the last few years in the UK: 1. A director/producer/screenwriter/cinematographer(any of those) wishes to make a feature. Goes on fund raising mission,borrows from friends,relatives, gets dentists,doctors.a person of wealth to invest. Say 50-100,000 pounds raised. Feature shot on Super 16. Film slated just for direct to video distribution either just in the UK or a few other regions. Financing is not dependant on any sort of grant. I realise that this is a bit of a generalisation,but the reason I mention it is that this scenario is played out on a regular basis here in the US. I myself am shooting my own feature in 35mm-short ends,small crew,no pay etc. Andy raised an interesting point-is there really such a dearth of shooting on Super 16 in the UK? I see a certain absurdity in approaching a film granting institution with a possibly good marketable project only to be rejected for those very reasons-then watch them grant thousands of pounds to things that will most certainly not see the light of day! Regards, Milo
×
×
  • Create New...