Arni Heimir

I saw it and liked it a lot! The story could have been "tighter" but what can you expect from a Megan Fox movie. Otherwise I found it immensely enjoyable.

So I gather that you don't get a mint 35mm copy of the film as some actors have written in their contracts :)

I got to hand it to Michael Mann. Using the EX1 for a 80 million dollar production is unusual, but it could be very interesting in terms of visual texture and look.

If money is not an issue then I would go for the master primes. Its sharpness will compensate for the lesser image size over anamorphic. However, Cookes will do fine.

This quote seems a little high. I could imagine producers getting away with paying a lot less.

hi, what company are you working for?

I didn't know Zeiss had new lenses coming. Sounds exciting though. Any sources I could look at?

I feel that everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But I see real aesthetics with digital motion blur, smearing, available/low light and blown out high lights. Plus, I think that Miami Vice and Collateral were well photographed because it served the story.

I haven't posted here for a long time. But I just saw the trailer and thought it look brilliant! In fact, I think it is more interesting as a period piece because it is in HD.

Digital is certainly cheaper. But remember that you get what you pay for.

But wouldn't the 30 frames per second be a problem in post?

Wait a minute. I don't understand. Can DSLR camera shoot 24 frames per second for unlimited time?

You can never go wrong with the Arriflex 765 -- If I were shooting porn. I'd go big!

Not one of my favorite films. But I wouldn't go as far as the above statement. I kind of liked the Casino lighting in that film.

If this last statement is directed towards my previous post; that wasn't my meaning. I never meant that Batman was Bush and Cheney was Lucious Fox. What I meant was the Joker is essentially a terrorist. And Batman ignores certain civil liberties in favour of capturing the Joker.