Revolutionizing the Industry!!!....!

[Simon Wyss]

I cannot help understanding that a purely psychological thing is on. They dream of the BNCR on the Worrall on the Universal tire wheel crane, see the counter weight ?

[Serge Teulon]

Last I heard the 5D mkII only did 30 fps. Perhaps specs have changed?

 

 

Thats the US version, over here its 25fps.

[alfredoparra]

Im pissed! I bought one of these setups and every time i take it out I get surrounded by S.W.A.T. its so heavy I slipped my L4 disk

[Michael K Bergstrom]

Just just on the off chance that this was fake I checked it out, and horrors!

 

http://store.zacuto.com/new-products/

 

Why? That's all I can think of.

[Chad Stockfleth]

I think the camera and lens cost 1500-2000 dollars. The matte box and tinker-toys cost over $5000. The wedding memories- priceless ;)

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

 

How much do you think that Op's day rate is? I'd like to hire her. ;)

[Jay Taylor]

I get it, the whole thing about the ad is to show how trendy and hot film making is. I mean, look at the current state of the industry. Everyone and their mothers want to be filmmakers, Hollywood style, to boot. Hell, at this rate I will have to go back to food service, but that is cause I was never a good looking DP anyway.

 

Hey Saul,

 

I've been getting the same impression. A lot of people don't really seem to be interested in filmmaking, so much as they are in having the filmmaker "image". It's this weird status thing, "I'm so freakin' cool. I make movies. Isn't that rad!?"

 

These people shoot with these silly little consumer digital cameras, and put these ridiculous adapters on them, and buy these cheap-o brand matte boxes, and none of them ever bother with any sort of lighting.

 

They have these insane camera rigs, 8 feet long, makes the entire thing look like a missile.

 

It all feels so phony, ya know?

 

And of course these movies they make are all based around trying to be cool. Usually some movies about drug deals, or criminals, or hip hop zombie ninjas. Enough already! We get it! You love Quentin Tarantino!

 

Ahh, feels nice to get that off my chest!

 

 

Jay

[Nicholas Shields]

God forbid tools come out that allow young upcoming filmmakers get a chance to make the vision a reality. The snobbery in this forum knows no bounds. I'm surprised any of you have time to surf with all that "work" (read corporate video)!

 

Nick Shields

[Jay Taylor]

God forbid tools come out that allow young upcoming filmmakers get a chance to make the vision a reality. The snobbery in this forum knows no bounds. I'm surprised any of you have time to surf with all that "work" (read corporate video)!

 

Nick Shields

 

Nick,

 

I have no problem with affordable tools. I'm not made of money! What I'm bothered by is this attempt at giving filmmaking this "trendy" image. A lot of people seem to be more drawn to this image, then to the idea of bringing any vision to life.

 

Haven't you noticed how many people seem more obsessed with the specs of their camera then how to get the lighting for a certain scene just right? For a lot of people it's more about using the latest equipment, then doing something meaningful with it.

 

Not taking a jab at people who can't afford super professional gear. I'm one of them!

 

 

Jay

[Chris Keth]

God forbid tools come out that allow young upcoming filmmakers get a chance to make the vision a reality. The snobbery in this forum knows no bounds. I'm surprised any of you have time to surf with all that "work" (read corporate video)!

 

Nick Shields

 

I do this for a living. I'm not doing it as a hobby or for fun, though I do enjoy it. When cameras come out that pretend to be real movie cameras and I have to use it at some point because someone thinks it's cool and cutting edge, it's a pain in the ass. Still cameras are not movie cameras and they can not seriously do the same jobs as them. They can only be a lesser imitation.

 

I would be in complete support if these DSLRs had anything that any one of the real, working movie cameras don't have. They don't.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Chris Keth

[Patrick Neary]

I would be in complete support if these DSLRs had anything that any one of the real, working movie cameras don't have. They don't.

 

so that kind of begs the question- just what exactly is a "real working movie camera" anymore? :)

[Chris Keth]

so that kind of begs the question- just what exactly is a "real working movie camera" anymore? :)

 

To me, it's a camera that does everything you need on set without loads of extra crap, in a form factor that is appropriate and convenient. The DSLR thing lacks the latter.

[Jay Taylor]

so that kind of begs the question- just what exactly is a "real working movie camera" anymore? :)

 

Hey Patrick,

 

Well, how about a camera designed for movies? :D

 

 

Jay

[Chris Keth]

Hey Patrick,

 

Well, how about a camera designed for movies? :D

 

 

Jay

 

That would be a good start. It doesn't seem right that for such a big money industry, we should be using cameras because "they can also shoot video" in excess of their true purpose.

 

We have equipment designed specifically to fill our needs. We don't need to cobble together these makeshift solutions to problems that have long-ago been solved.

[klas persson]

Well, even though the one pictured seems awkward, heavy and pretty silly you'd need some sort of rig for hand held with one of those guys. And you'd need follow focus. What's the problem? Yeah, of course there is cameras made for motion but at a much higher price. The Canon is much cheaper.

 

And you, Jay guy. "These people shoot with these silly little consumer digital cameras, and put these ridiculous adapters on them" What's wrong with you? Aren't these kind of solutions great? You may think these consumer cams are silly, but you have to start somewhere, don't you? You can't just go and rent a 35mm package and buy some film if you havn't got the money. Adapters are a great tool.

 

And about those "fake" filmmakers that are "trendy" and what not. Do you really think a lot of people will get through the hassle there is to make a movie just to be cool?! That's just bs. Phony... bah!

 

Don't mean to offend anyone, but this thread just made me furious.

Edited November 15, 2008 by klas persson

[Saul Rodgar]

God forbid tools come out that allow young upcoming filmmakers get a chance to make the vision a reality. The snobbery in this forum knows no bounds. I'm surprised any of you have time to surf with all that "work" (read corporate video)!

 

Nick Shields

 

And about those "fake" filmmakers that are "trendy" and what not. Do you really think a lot of people will get through the hassle there is to make a movie just to be cool?! That's just bs. Phony... bah!

klas persson

 

 

Really, it is nice to empower people to follow their vision -but it becomes silly to make it this "cool, hip, trendy" thing. Sort of like the green movement was co-opted and now it is very trendy, and VERY profitable . . . I guess it is not so bad when it comes to environmental awareness. But film making, and everything else really, is really more than having the tools to do it, and looking hot doing it. Maybe people should try making math cool instead.

 

Anyone who sells a $5k still cum motion picture camera rig (to use on under $3k cameras) to film makers by pandering to them its hip, cool factor is not really empowering them, but merely using a crass marketing ploy to make some big money.

 

So some digital film makers are offended that some of us film diehards are not ready to sell our souls to newly minted digital technology. The RED debate still rages on. Surely these technologies have their place in the food chain, but if anyone wants my respect (and that of most film heads in this forum) then actual film (read acetate) cinematography must be mastered in addition to digital cinematography.

 

It is easy for digital film makers to brag about the cinematography they achieve with purely digital technology. Like I said before, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE TOOLS. A digital-only cameraman is as versatile as an automatic transmission-only race car driver.

 

So please, spare me the drama. If you guys want to belong to (and be respected in) the greater group of cameramen I recommend you go load some film on a camera and shoot it - and learn to shoot it right- as most of us have learned (and will continue to) through many years of hardship.

 

When you master the art of acetate cinematography, then you will know it is not as easy as the ads make it seem. And it is a way of life, not something that people get in just because a cool ad caught their eye. And maybe, you will feel the rage when someone comes along who brags about becoming a filmmaker by virtue of buying a cool hip piece of equipment.

 

Anyway, gotta catch some sleep because I don't want to feel like a zombie at my non corporate-video shoot tomorrow morning.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Chris Keth]

Don't mean to offend anyone, but this thread just made me furious.

 

Sorry to make you furious but I truly believe that the right tool for the job should be used.

 

Does one try to saw a board in two with a knife? Why not? A knife and a saw both cut stuff.

 

Well, a stills camera and a movie camera both take pictures...

 

I'm just saying that the right tool should be used. If you can't afford the right tool, fine. Use something else. I just don't like this company marketing like this and making it seem as if this is a satisfactory setup.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Chris Keth

[Jay Taylor]

And you, Jay guy. "These people shoot with these silly little consumer digital cameras, and put these ridiculous adapters on them" What's wrong with you? Aren't these kind of solutions great? You may think these consumer cams are silly, but you have to start somewhere, don't you? You can't just go and rent a 35mm package and buy some film if you havn't got the money. Adapters are a great tool.

 

And about those "fake" filmmakers that are "trendy" and what not. Do you really think a lot of people will get through the hassle there is to make a movie just to be cool?! That's just bs. Phony... bah!

 

Don't mean to offend anyone, but this thread just made me furious.

 

Hey Klas,

 

If someone doesn't have the money to rent a camera, how do they have the money to buy a Canon 5D for $3000, plus all these shoulder mounts, matte box's, adaptors, around $2000 each? Not to mention lenses, a fairly beefy computer, hard drives, and some editing software?

 

And of course there's people who make movies simply to be hip and trendy. Of course, they don't last very long because they soon realize how hard it is.

 

There's some teenage boys who live on my street who just suddenly one day decided to buy skateboards, and get a camera and video tape it. Did they do this because they seriously wanted to document their attempts, or because they saw the same thing on MTV? After a couple weeks they gave up. Haven't seen them skateboarding since.

 

I get the same impression seeing a lot of films people are making these days. They all want that super shallow dof, slow motion, etc. Are those the kinds of things essential to telling a good story? Hell no, but then again, I never get the feeling they're interested in telling a good story. They're interested in super shallow dof, and slow motion! All style, no substance. Because it's "cool".

 

But just to make it clear, there's nothing wrong with using consumer cameras, and adaptors, or whatever. All I'm saying is the impression I'm getting from this generation of "filmmakers" is that their intentions are simply to attain some sort of filmmaker image. It's considered hip to be an artist, to be "deep", or at least give people the impression that you're deep.

 

 

Jay

[Stephen Williams]

God forbid tools come out that allow young upcoming filmmakers get a chance to make the vision a reality. The snobbery in this forum knows no bounds. I'm surprised any of you have time to surf with all that "work" (read corporate video)!

 

Nick Shields

 

Hi Nick,

 

I shoot commercials, I will be shooting 8 days on 35mm this month, that provides me with an adequate income & gives me 22 days to do what I want, no corporate video but possibly a couple of days shooting 2nd Unit with a Panavision Millenium.

 

Stephen

[Serge Teulon]

Hi Nick,

 

I shoot commercials, I will be shooting 8 days on 35mm this month, that provides me with an adequate income & gives me 22 days to do what I want, no corporate video but possibly a couple of days shooting 2nd Unit with a Panavision Millenium.

 

Stephen

 

 

Quite right....nothing like it

 

[Rhys Day]

poop advertisement, but I think they mean the DSLR cameras are revolutionary, because they now take incredible 35 mm video...down side is the limited 30 fps on the E5 mark II, and rolling shutter issues when panning too quickly.... also it's impractical to use a still camera body to shoot video, hence zacuto and redrock making rail systems for shoulder stabilisation etc, what's wrong with that??.... and at around $3000 for the camera body, how is that not revolutionary? personally though I'm looking forward to the new scarlet/epic range, but that's a year away from release.

 

Redrocks version of the new DSLR rails system

 

This forum seems to be full of **(obscenity removed)** heads... I don't get why so many people on here get pissed off about others using 35 mm rigs in the digital realm, just sounds like jealousy to me, the idea of normal people now being able to afford and shoot professional looking video because your still stuck in the past with your outdated camera rigs (probably still using film?) trying to justify it with 'skill is more important'. Skill is more important, but get off your **(obscenity removed)**ing high horse, if you think 35 mm in the digital world is just a trend, you're wrong buddy, it's the present/future.

[Simon Wyss]

This forum seems to be full of **(obscenity removed)** heads... I don't get why so many people on here get pissed off about others using 35 mm rigs in the digital realm, just sounds like jealousy to me, the idea of normal people now being able to afford and shoot professional looking video because your still stuck in the past with your outdated camera rigs (probably still using film?) trying to justify it with 'skill is more important'. Skill is more important, but get off your **(obscenity removed)**ing high horse, if you think 35 mm in the digital world is just a trend, you're wrong buddy, it's the present/future.

What concerns me: I'm not jealous. It's rather anxiety that I have to discuss matters with people who are not in touch with the past. But I'm not in the digital realm and know only very little about data compression and things like that. I have perforated chemical film in my hands.

[David Auner aac]

 

Oh no! I thought the RED hype was bad, now it's going to be the BLUE hype! :D

And no, I am not jealous of anybody for using any kind of camera/rig (well, 15 perf, maybe :D). But the point is that most people here are working professionals whom I admire for their skill, knowledge and down-to-earthness. As for being stuck in the past, have a look at what a skilled DP like David Mullen can do with a RED. Then compare that stuff to the crap all the "now, since I have a camera I am a camera professional"-people shoot out there with the same tool. And then take a look at what some people here do with S8 or even Pixelvision. Using cameras is all about using the right tool for a specific job. And I don't want my tools to be unwieldy, cumbersome and at worst, unreliable!

 

Regards, Dave

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi all

 

it's very interesting to see this add and compare it with the way RED push theire new concept, a still cam that does motion picture in one hand and a motion picture cam that does stills as well.

 

lets say the sensor is good for motion pictures AND stills, just like FILM

 

it's also interesting to see the "conflict of generation" it's creating.

 

youth is a country where everything is possible, ok lets make a "film" or a "video" with a dslr who cares!

if the project is crap it will die by itself and if people are interested it will be succesfull.

 

The relatively cheap "sensor" technology made it possible for newbies to get a start. great!

everybody learn by making mistakes it's better to make those mistakes with a dslr rather than a millenium.

not everybody had the chance to have a father dop or producer and to grow up on a film set.

also when you are for a certain time in the industry and you experienced the tricks of the trade you ask yourself what the hell could i use this dslr cam for!

there are alredy so many differents formats to acheive the job and the camera is such a small part of making a film!

[Will Earl]

poop advertisement, but I think they mean the DSLR cameras are revolutionary, because they now take incredible 35 mm video...down side is the limited 30 fps on the E5 mark II, and rolling shutter issues when panning too quickly....

also it's impractical to use a still camera body to shoot video, hence zacuto and redrock making rail systems for shoulder stabilisation etc, what's wrong with that??.... and at around $3000 for the camera body, how is that not revolutionary?

 

There's nothing wrong with companies going out and trying to make dSLR's more usable to film making and I can understand the appeal these video-capable dSLRs have to the 'rebel' film-maker (heck I'm considering getting a 5DMk2 myself), but the thing is the Zacuto rig doesn't do that - instead it's more of an exercise in 'pimping-my-ride'. All they've done here is adapt a still camera to their existing shoulder mounts which have been designed for a completely different type of camera. Where is the viewfinder? Where is the compact form-factor? About the only thing that seems practical is the follow-focus and to some degree the matte-box. Why are they not designing a rig to compliment the dSLR instead of just popping it on an already existing and in my opinion flawed design? Handhold shoulder mounts for DV/HD cameras like the HVX and Z1 always seem to completely miss the point of having a handheld shoulder mount in the first place.

[Daniel Sheehy]

...This forum seems to be full of **(obscenity removed)** heads... I don't get why so many people on here get pissed off about others using 35 mm rigs in the digital realm, just sounds like jealousy to me, the idea of normal people now being able to afford and shoot professional looking video because your still stuck in the past with your outdated camera rigs (probably still using film?) trying to justify it with 'skill is more important'. Skill is more important, but get off your **(obscenity removed)**ing high horse, if you think 35 mm in the digital world is just a trend, you're wrong buddy, it's the present/future...

Ahh.. but that is where you are wrong.

 

Watch a carpenter wielding a hammer, and compare that to a novice with the same ($20) hammer. The difference is never in the tools, it's always in the user.

 

Buying a hammer doesn't make you a carpenter, buying a digital camera (with full '35mm' rig) doesn't make you a film maker.

Show me what you've made and my first reaction will be to the quality, rather than to the tools.

Simply being able to afford the tool is a good first step. But it remains just that, a first step.