Andrew Reid

I'll tell ya exactly what was wrong with Skyfall. Supposably heroic Bond dies in the first 10 minutes and reveals constant human weaknesses throughout, whilst M and Q are truly awful characters.   M is boring and po-faced.   Q is irritating, geeky and smug.   I thought Skyfall was perfectly good as entertainment but not exceptional. The whole thing just lacked charm. I think they need to return to a less po faced era of Bond. Why so serious?   Let's see some more out-there characters and some wit in the set pieces.   In the past he'd drive a submarine car through the sea and arrive on a beach. Now it is all gritty reality. Zzz. Like Call of Duty.   Part of the joy of Bond is that he's not politically correct or gritty... He has a smooth sheen and charm. So a more edgy script wouldn't go a miss either. He's become like a bland corporate assassin rather than renegade.   One final rant - it is unfashionable to try to give a hero normal human weaknesses. Nolan has done that now. We're over it. It only worked in the original super hero comics because it allows the everyman to empathise with the hero, giving him the vulnerabilities of any young person. But it has gone too far with Bond / Batman and isn't escapism any more. What was exciting about Bond in Skyfall? He was kaput for most of it. Make him truly heroic. Having him 'die' within the first 10 minutes of Skyfall was ridiculous.

  Hmm. I have the latest build but my maximum is 65MB/s. I think you have to turn live view off for the 80MB/s or some other drastic compromise.

[media]http://vimeo.com/70047921[/media] Music by official EOSHD collaborator Herdwhite The Canon 50D is a Super 35mm alternative to the 5D Mark III for raw video costing around $500 on eBay (click to search). Just how good is it as a raw shooting cinema camera? [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/10770/canon-50d-magic-lantern-raw-review]Read the full article here[/url]

BBC documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis is showing his latest film this week at the Manchester International Festival in the UK. Massive Attack provided a live sound track. I was there and although I don't usually review films on EOSHD this occasion warrants a few words. [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/10769/massive-attack-v-adam-curtis-joint-film-gig-in-manchester]Read the full article here[/url]

Yeah like Andy says return it. Looked fine in the eBay pictures. I think it got shuck violently in transit and the dust is debris from dried up element glue. Either way, dust or debris such a shame as looks like an interesting lens.

  That's an interesting one. Very nice bokeh from the samples online. Yet to use a medium format lens with my anamorphics. What film did PTA use it on?

  There's a rare Pentax K mount 85mm F1.4 but it's pricey.   There's the older M42 Asahi Super-Takumar 85mm F1.9 but I have never tried it with anamorphic.   As it turns out I am looking for a compact 85mm prime for my anamorphic lenses too now I am using full frame so much. I can highly recommend the Jupiter 12 85mm F2.0 in M42 mount. I am considering also the Samyang 85mm F1.4 and the Super-Takumar.

I think it's the other way round with FD and Zeiss. I find FD warmer.

Pentax M looks similar to Vivitar 28mm F2.0   The Vivitar has character although obviously not the sheer performance of the PK 28 2.0   Try the Olympus 24mm F2.0 - that's a nice lens.

Like the Ikonoskop, I like the image from this camera. The sensor delivers superb colour. Global shutter and XLR for $2.5k aren't to be sniffed at either. Still some hurdles to go but it is an exciting camera.

If you have a problem with pricing I suggest to look how much it costs to buy the 1-stop faster, wider lenses. If they exist!   Good luck getting that 18mm F1.4 for your NEX.   (That's a 28mm F2.0 on Speed Booster)

100% unrelated. Vivitar 28mm F2.0 for PK mount is also unrelated.

Arri recently said on the record that they had no interest in a 4K model.

The Contax Zeiss Distagon 'Hollywood' 28mm F2.0 is a classic fast wide for full frame and is incredible on Super 35mm as well. Wide open it's one of the sharpest F2.0 wide angle lenses available and it has very little distortion. The Contax Zeiss version fetches $800 on eBay but there's a $60 wolf in sheep's clothing called the Pentax PK 28mm F2.0 which has a fascinating story behind it. [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/10730/60-pentax-thats-actually-a-800-zeiss-with-optics-by-designer-of-stanley-kubricks-nasa-glass]Read the full article here[/url]

Yes, end of this month.

I advise to wait for my GH3 guide.

Looks similar to Isco's 16. 2x stretch and same glass as was supplied to another Japanese lens, the Proskar.   You can get some nice results but focus is nothing like an Iscorama.

Another famous voice to add to the argument that TV now has the upper hand.   http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE94R0HF20130528?irpc=932

  It depends on the light you have available. Both would be good but the 5D Mark III would still have the upper hand if you needed ISO 3200 at F1.4 and ISO 1600 at F0.95 on the BMCC.

I think I misinterpreted NBC's figures for Lone Ranger. Now they make even less sense.   Audience for Lone Ranger - Over 35s - 58% Families - 22% Under 18s - 16%   That is 96% of the total audience. Are they suggesting only 4% of the Lone Ranger audience are in the 18-35 group!?   In the end it comes down to sheer greed.   Instead of a movie made for us, we get a movie made for nobody.   Even a movie aimed at a specific age group, say over 35s would be more welcome. The solution is to lower the obscene budgets and segment your studio output more. I don't see why there's not more choice at the cinema. At the moment we practically only have PG action adventures.

So you hit a button and out comes another Superman.   How long do you think it will take for audiences to get bored? Think ahead. Just because there are still successful franchises doesn't mean to say there will always be.   It will be probably be an implosion measured in years rather than months, but if you starve any creative industry of creativity, it is the same as starving a power station of coal, or an Apple factory of silicon.

Spielberg recently said he felt the multiplex cinema filmmaking industry was heading for implosion, where someone making a $250m popcorn movie forgets to add a compelling reason for an audience to see it. A string of massively costly flops follow, bringing the system to its knees. The soft opening of Lone Ranger (a western with Johnny Depp by the makers of Pirates of the Caribbean) points to Spielberg being right on the money... [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/10747/signs-of-spielbergs-predicted-crash-and-burn-as-lone-ranger-bombs]Read the full article here[/url]

Unless Karate Kid counts as a pro shoot, you won't have too many problems.

That article has a paragraph that is a total joke, and yet reflects how the movie moguls today think.   "Lone Ranger" suffered in appealing mostly to older moviegoers, with 58 percent of the audience over the age of 35, including 24 percent over the age of 50 percent [sic]. Moviegoers under the age of 18 only made up 16 percent of the audience. More problematic, families only made up 22 percent of the audience."   It suffered by appealing to - 58% of the audience!?   They say moviegoers under the age of 18 made up 16% and families 22%. That's the rest save for a mysterious 4% group not cited (people with brains?). So a kids and family film like Despicable Me 2 can take $150m by appealing to 38% of the audience, yet Lone Ranger has a problem appealing to 58% of the audience. Maybe the reason it has a problem appealing to the audience, is because the audience think it's shit.

I'd like to see what happens to this ridiculous $250,000 film business model, when there's 10 of them out at the same time. What mainstream audience has time (or the will) to see 10 blockbusters in 1 month?   Relying so much on opening weekends and holidays is asking for trouble.