Reuel Gomez

I know I'm probably posting this on the wrong forum but I'm really interested in reading the articles included on the Die Hard Blu-Ray...except it seems to me that they aren't. I can't for the life of me find them anywhere despite the fact that they're advertised on the back o the case. Same thing goes for the full length screenplay (although I'm less interested in that)

I wonder who will be hired for the job for Josh Trank's reboot

I have a feeling the Superman/Batman film will be shot on film but only time will tell

That Super Bowl TV spot, just...wow. I know what I'm doing June 27th.

Digital will - generally - be lower in noise, and inevitably stabler. Large film formats may compete on resolution, especially with slower stocks.

 

Why?

Just curious.

Not sure how he would have a point necessarily. How would shooting on film be beneficial special effects wise? Especially considering the amount of clean up needed from celluloid scanning for proper compositing.

Clean up?

 

 

 

I think that Reuel's enthusiasm for cinema and film-making occasionally leads him to speak outside of his experience, and offer opinions about cameras he has not yet used.

Unfortunately you are correct. Although, I do think it would've made more sense had Sony included a 4:3 sensor considering how many digital films are being shot using anamorphic lenses right now.

 

presumably because Reuel prefers shooting anamorphic.

 

Though the higher DR part i don't see reason for. 14 stops is on par with film

I thought it had less than that...proves what I know...

What does the Red Epic or any other digital camera offer as far as it's performance and cost as opposed to VistaVision and other large formats when it comes to plate/VFX work?

 

in my opinion only the sony F65 currently is capaple to be a serious competitor with film. but i am actually tired of this endless discussions so i not having further comments on this haha. film is film, digital is digital. who cares. filmdirector X prefers to work digital and film director Y wants to work with film. so it is..amen :-)

If only it had a 4:3 sensor and a higher dynamic range...

Wouldn't you prefer a lighter camera if that was an option?

True

If you can handhold a Panaflex with a 500' mag, you can handhold an Alexa Studio...

 

Look, people have handheld IMAX cameras, though it's not preferable -- it's not really a question of being able to handhold the camera, it's more a question of how comfortable you want to be doing it all day long. It's also a question of weight balance and center of gravity, a mirror shutter close to the chest/shoulder area is better than a heavy lens out in front, for example.

Then I wonder why Roger Deakins and many other people had such a problem with handholding the studio to the point where they opted for the original Alexa/Plus/Plus 4:3 and/or M cameras.

Mirror shutter cameras like the Panaflex are already light enough to be handhold able

Oops, I meant a digital camera.

If you think about it, it'd be kinda cool if you could shoot digital on a big VFX show like "Man of Steel" and then in post after all the VFX shots and color grading are completed, you could just throw in some grain after the fact. And who knows, maybe Arri will eventually come out with a camera with a mirror shutter with the ability to change between an optical and electronic viewfinder like the Studio but light enough to handhold.

I think nowadays, unless you're shooting a period piece and using older lenses and grading to match some sort of older film stock or film, it makes no sense to say you're shooting film for that "retro" look which I feel doesn't exist. It's grain. It's the color rendition. It's the roll off into the highlights. That's the "film look" that I feel in a couple of years will be surpassed by digital systems, at least the last two things I mentioned. Maybe some film emulation technology will find some way to match film exactly, even going to far to exactly match specific film stocks like those from Kodak and Fuji. But for now, if you want that true film look...film is the way to go.

When 200+ million dollar movies choose the Alexa over 35mm I guess that tells us something. They are choosing the Alexa for its quality, not to save money.

 

I still love the look of film. The Alexa certainly provides a beautiful image for a super low cost. I was particularly impressed with what I got out of the Alexa in low light situations. Kids in a cave at night with just a camp fire to light their faces...perfect and not a hint of video noise, truly amazing. The embers that passed through the flame streaked as if the camera was rolling film through at 24fps.

 

Now I have a GoPro Hero 3 for my quad copter and that is impressing me as well!

 

R,

You mean 200+ million dollar productions like Star Trek Into Darkness, Fast & Furious 6, Man of Steel, The Lone Ranger, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Star Wars: Episode 7?

And now it's being released in 2016, which sucks...

If it has the brand name visible you get into licensing-- and while I'm no expert-- if it's "unique" enough you may get into murky waters too. But if you, say, have someone wearing a pair of jeans which are Levis, you're ok. If they're wearing a tee-shirt which says "levis" on it, you'll need a license/clearance.

What if someone is wearing a pair of Nike or Converse? If the logo is big enough and clearly visible and/or the design is unique enough, would that make a difference?

It gets trickier though with designer clothes with obvious labels because then you get into clearance or licensing issues.

As in designer clothes, do you mean any old brand like say Levi or Nike or something like Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein?

Depends on the clothes. Some of them will be custom, some of them will be purchased. There is no catchall answer to it. I would say the more "period" the film the more likely they were "built," specifically.

What about films based in the modern day here in America? Do the majority of those films buy their clothes or make them?

One thing that I've always wondered is if clothes (not counting shoes) are made in house by the costume designer and wardrobe department or bought off the racks at stores. I don't mean just suits or dresses or costumes but everyday clothing like t-shirts or jeans.

Well damn...

I do not care too much about digital. It looks like crap. I stay with film. I do not want to follow that motion picture degradation

I hope film decides to stick around for a couple more decades.

The trailer looks really good, but I'm kinda disappointed James Franco isn't in this one in even a cameo. But whatever. Fletcher Camera's website says that they used Arri Alexa M cameras with Leica Summilux-C's and Fujinon Premier zooms (not sure if its one of the regular zooms or the Cabrio zooms). Not sure what rigs they used though.

Being able to "zoom thru" means that it holds focus as you zoom on the lens; with some of these attachments, you can't do in-camera zooming, you have to set the focal length and then focus the lens.

 

Anamorphic streak filters create a horizontal line around points of light. See:

 

http://www.optefex.com/streak-filters

Do you think it'd be a better investment to get the adapter or the filter?