GregBest

Everyone enjoys movies in their own way and there's nothing wrong with that. 2D has been around since its inception, and, for the most part, that is how it has always been because there was nothing else. THAT was all there was. Yes, they messed with Red/Blue 3D, and although it messed up colors something fierce, you gotta admit, that must have been an interesting technology to people in theaters back then. The newer 3D colors and brightness are compensated for and it works well. James Cameron did his part to get people back into the theaters by updating and bringing us something amazing. Many 3D and their 2D versions are released every year. A lot of people don't care for 3D but there must be enough to hog screens, take in money, and keep more movies coming out. Where I am going is: people have escaped into a "movie" as a fantasy fictional escapism but GENEREALLY, what they watch are pictures of a reality they can relate to: people, trees, birds, cars, etc --- in the past "That's the way we have always done things" means movies with soft focus, grain, flickery 24fps, color skewing and fading, wear and tare... that way it's always been. Future generations will most likely embrace all these changes for the extra bling it provides: sweet color, smooth action, clearer detail, maybe even 3D or Virtual Reality -- and THAT will become the norm. Then, making a 2D movie will be cool for its unique factor like vinyl albums. Or Nolan going out of his way to create an alternative presentation - that (in the future) will no longer make any sense, having to dig out old old projectors just to watch it. Right now, droves of tribes are being reconditioned into enjoying High Frame Rates by their new television's "Motion Correction" systems that are on by default when they opened the box. They won't think twice when movies cross into HFR territory. Current generations don't enjoy it. Recently watched TOP GUN in 3D and, to me, it just bad a decent film all the more indepth. You could FEEL the distance of the 5 planes circling and chasing ICEMAN down! It was epic thrilling. I'd still love to see every movie in 3D - even Romance flicks - TITANIC looked amazing. My next TV will definitely be curved 4k or 8k with 3D and HFR motion correction. Can't wait to experience what the future brings!!

LOVE the new 3D. See everything I can in it. Would love it if ALL movies were filmed in it. (I can see me being the "Bad Cop" around here) Maybe I'm wrong but I always felt the biggest reason movies used "moving pictures" was to present us with experience close to our reality and about it, so we can relate and enjoy the presentation before us? A visual theater of sites and sounds we recognize and relate to in our real world... thus the FILMING part as opposed to hand drawn or computer cartoons.... that experience, TO ME, is getting better and better with more detailed, realistic pictures, higher frames rates, and the new 3D. For me, the 3D is not about sticking swords in my face - I don't even bother with those - but it is about expanding the immersion into a "real world" and living there with those people on the screen. 3D is just another step closer. Some day, virtual reality will be the new theater, and the masses will be all over that, why not enjoy the 3D experience now if you can? I will admit, I am not one with vision problems where the 3D causes headaches etc and I TOTALLY understand it doesn't work out well for them... I doubt they will ever stop making 2D versions because of the huge market space for that... but, for me, I really enjoy 3D simply for the increased depth, realism and immersion into the STORY. If the story sucks, 3D won't help it. PS Hated Avatar. Only watched it once, just can't sit through it again. It is a great achievment, looks great and all, was nice 3D to a point, but the story was so lacking for me... the STORY actually made the 3D forgettable to me. NEVER have I want to go back to "that place" again. Man, I wish it had a story because I've enjoyed most of Cameron's stuff.

Oh, I'm all about that. I do everything solo right now, try everything, and use my comedy sandbox to test and experiment with anything I feel like doing. Next shoot will be all dark night time testing look, lighting, lenses, green screen etc. hahahaha and I do still have the alpha lurking underneath... pushing forward and it will help whenever I do get to work with live people. :)

Bravo!! I, too, would LOVE IT if all films were IMAX! That would be amazing. But, movies do have to make money to keep being made (sadly) and IMAX can't take over since the masses won't pay. You and I will gladly pay for that experience - I'm driving 280 miles to KC to catch Intersellar at an IMAX on release day to show my support, maybe I'll go twice - because we love that grand experience. But, the people that fund movies, general audiences seem to pay for sequals, and regurgitated blue people in 3D and remakes over and over and over. Projection and theaters are setup to profit ...oh, and show some entertainment too :D So, what can WE do to turn the tide since, I believe, most general audiences won't see the need for $16 tickets because the format is different? And there is no reversing the "I'll wait a month for this brand new movie to be on Netflick" trend. I don't know what the answer is. Ima LOVE "Intersellar" because: a) sci-fi & 2) Nolan. The format never factored in to my interest, but I will see it in the best form I possibly can, because I can afford to: $50 gas, $18 ticket? :)

good points as well Rajavel. I do believe film will be around for a long time - probably forever - and Mr. Nolan certainly doesn't need to change his ways, but I do see the movie/film industry going digital exactly the same way the audio world did two decades ago: lots of push back, lots of frustration, lots of BAD audio mixes as they slowly figured out how to do it right.... just growing pains. Digital recorded audio revolutionized quality, and reduced prices more than 10x, and provided a huge growth of creativity tools (FX, track counts etc) that simply could not exist in the analog world (how the increase of creative tools caused the DECREASE of creativity is a whole other topic!) I see the same transition happening now, in the exact same way. And there is nothing wrong with either way. Both options will continue to exist - there are still companies that can make your vinyl record - but digital will arrive some day, same way CDs did, then MP3 (not that we love those, just an example). I see the "Arrival" thing as an interesting dichotomy: ARRIVED for WHOM? Film makers or the VIEWERS? For viewers, it has long since arrived, nobody notices or minds either way.... they just pay and enjoy the movie. Film makers will never be happy because there will always be something better coming along. The best we got now, is good enough until next week, when something better comes along. :) I just saw something PUNNY: ARRIved well it was funny to me. :) I got -2 for my perspective and opinion? hmmmm.... making a rep fast here, I see :D

Awesome wisdom there, David, love your words. And yes, rings true one is always learning and getting better. What I run into is the images don't look sharp enough or colorful enough compared to peers and commercial work. So, I suspect I will over color, over sharpen, then get used to it and over color and over sharpen again. Even after having done so, or after being told it is TOO sharp or TOO clear (which I don't even understand how that can be possible) I think it still doesn't look sharp or colorful as the next guy.... even when I am looking at SCOPES to try to stay in line. Do you suffer from that, and maybe have some guideline for how to keep things reeled in to sane levels?

I'll be direct: I come from the side of "advancement is good", so bring on the digital. There is NOTHING WRONG with film to me, and many wonderful things from its workflow that assisted in making better movies like improved acting via cost of getting takes right, 10 minute spools forcing breaks, etc, but like he said, "it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years".... isn't it about time for some growth? Even as a child, I don't think I ever >LIKED< 24 frames per second watching movies... it felt like that was just the way things were done: all burred and smeary. Now that we have the means and the costs are down, isn't it time to ratchet up the quality because we can? If digital is really so much more expensive, why is Hollywood doing so much of it? It is growing exponentially every year, and film camera makers are retooling, and film manufacturing plants are closing... Nolan makes great movies, I respect his talents tons, and LOVE his movies. But, any of his movies could have been just as good filmed digitally. You can still site the cost of getting takes right, and still only load 10 minutes of RAM if you want, it was the writing and story that makes them great, not film. Film was film for 100 years because it was the only option. Now, there are new options and people are driving them to new heights. I'm on board with higher frames rates - I don't care if it doesn't look like the old days.... I'm ready for the new days pushed by people like Douglas Trumbull http://douglastrumbull.com/videos , James Cameron http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cinemacon-james-cameron-demos-the-future-of-cinema-at-60-fps/ , and Peter Jackson http://screenrant.com/peter-jackson-hobbit-48-fps-controversy/ I'm not anti-film, not hating, I guess I have no feeling one way or the other having grown up enjoying nothing but real film until digital dropped in, not wanting to start the old senseless DIGI VS FILM thing, I just feel change is coming, and I enjoy changes when they are good. And I'm used to being the only one in the room on this side of the fence. These changes always happen and there is always kicking and screaming during the transition. CDs DO sound better than vinyl - that is a PHYSICS truth, personal preferences aside, but there is still vinyl around (and coming back when the niche market yelps profitability), and people went to MP3s leaving CDs behind, but there are still CDs. People will consume digital movies without thinking twice, but film will still stick around. Actually, most do movies digitall now: netflix over the net, on phones, pads, computers etc Nothing changing is stagnation, and that isn't good.

I am having trouble seeing any of my work as having any quality. I'm not saying it DOES or doesn't, what I mean is my stuff ALWAYS looks inferior to me... even compared to home movies shot on iPhones. It is not some inferiority complex, oh no. I think highly of myself in life, am proud and comfortable with who I am, am a retired Alpha Male type (not "retired" from job, retired from being an alpha), but VISUALS are new to me, visuals I have created. It is possibly the tool I was using - Canon T3i - which claimed to be HD but never really was, was my visual downfall and all my filmings seemed just less detailed looking. -- I do realize there are dozens of other things that go into great looking video like lighting, set design etc, so it is not that.... it is like it is JUST the QUALITY or DETAIL that I never seen to get right. I just got a 4k GH4 and the detail is FINALLY where I expected HD to be... never the less, I wonder if my eye will still be too self critical? I'm not even sure if that is a valid description. I used to mix audio, and it was very simple for me to put mixes up against commercial records and HEAR if I'd gotten it right or still work to be done. But, in this VISUAL realm, I feel I can't really subjectively do that. Or at least not yet. Long story short: how long does it take to develop an eye that is honest about your own work? Truth told, I never wanted to be a camera guy, but it seemed to be the right direction for me to do what I wanted: learn to write, then shoot movies, and tell entertaining stories. I'd rather leave the cameras to those who are great with them. Still, I am puzzled that I can not seem to SEE objectively where I am able to do so in other mediums. What is your experience and/or advice on visual growth and acceptance. I do like to strive to get better in things, but if I was filming with million dollars of gear, with a pro crew, next to Steven Spielberg, would I still think things look bad? Additionally, I do think I can see quality over not quality. There are various local short films I've watched that look like basic home movies and I can tell they are not that good, and that some of my stuff is a pinch above that, and I can look at big budget movies and tell which ones had an exception crew and which just phoned it in, but I'd like to be able to look at my stuff and KNOW that it is good or great or not, so that I can improve. Is that too much to ask? :D

Thanks again David, and Adrian. It's great to get others experienced opinions on stuff. :)

Anymore feedback here? (Sorry, not sure how busy this forum is being newbie here)

Thanks for the feedback, David. I did pick the time as "approaching golden hour", and wanted the flashing sunlight coming through, fitting the time of day in the script and location. The sun to always come from his left. I'm okay with it - just inexperienced to know of better ways I could have done this.

[i hope this is allowed and the right place to do this] I'm new at cameras (3 years part time hobby) and especially lighting. The scene: a moving convertible, top down, bright daytime afternoon sun, going for splashes of light between the trees, note the reflective sunglasses. This frame is from a partially shaded part, strait from camera, shot "flat", no correction or grading yet. Camera is moving from left to right in front of the driver. The whole shot will be 1 to 1.5 seconds - one of a dozen fast cut quick driving shots. It was shot at 4k, to be finished in 4k. What could or should have been done to "improve" the lighting? What would have made it better? Any and all feedback appreciated. Thanks!

aaaah... sprinkles! I'll take it! :D

Awesome, thanks guys! I look forward to reading a ton of old posts, as well as posting the occasional question. This stuff is SOOO FUN!

Is this place professionals only, or is it accepting of new, interested, hobby, indie, no budget types? I've shot nothing real yet, but, I want to read, watch and learn from better people that I might enhance my presentations. Got my first camera a couple years ago, and can't get enough of it now! I don't want to ask low end questions if this if more for pros.... I can just sit back and read and absorb. :) So, let me know where/how I can fit. I kinda looked around, but didn't find a WELCOME NEWBIE section. Thanks - Greg If curious, "TEEN COP", is just my sandbox and learning vehicle: https://vimeo.com/user8076271 I'm a weekend hobbyist.