Andrew Reid

Well they are two very different films. If an 8 year old is up at 10pm watching them, that is bad parenting. But the reality of the world today is that whilst SAW 5 is on the TV downstairs, some kids are upstairs on the internet watching REAL scenes of torture and sexual violence.   Yet the answer is not censorship. It is all about values and self control, taking responsibility for what you and your children value and take an interest in.   I would want my kids to be upstairs playing with a camera and making little theatre performances, not doing something unproductive.   There's absolutely no evidence that a violent popular culture creates a violent society though.   You are right that our civilisation seems to be getting more amoral - but I'd put that down to the steady discrediting of religion by scientific progress. I am not religious myself and never have been but I still think spirtuality and storytelling play a role in building strong bonds between us, which we're then less likely to want to smash to pieces by murdering or mugging someone.   We need less alienation, stronger social skills and a new religion that doesn't involve shopping. The most secular places like cities have far more crime than the small town with a church at the heart of it and whilst some of that is down to the fact there's more opportunity to commit crimes in a city and more population, in a small town you are accountable to your fellow human beings and to the church. When people aren't directly accountable for their actions you have a problem.   When someone commits a violent crime I don't believe it is because mainstream culture is too violent and they've been corrupted - it is because they're not being held accountable to society for the bad deed, and they're not even responsible to their friends or parents for it.   I think filmmakers need to be really careful here that we're not going to be held scapegoats for these people's lack of responsibility. They'd quite happily blame someone other than themselves and so would their feckless parents.

  This is one of the stranger things with anamorphic - that actually 2x anamorphic from digital 4:3 gives you 2.66:1 - it is 2.40:1 on film because the sound track takes up part of the 4:3 frame making it even squarer.   When you crop your 16:9 material to 4:3 in post it should be cropped to 1440x1080, then squeezed to 1440x540 for 2.66:1. My advice is to make a 1440x1080 template in Photoshop and drop it in behind your video track so you can crop the clip by percentages to match 1440x1080, as not all NLEs allow you to scale a clip on the timeline by giving values in pixels, stupidly.   For the final format I recommend upscaling the 1440x540 to 1920x720 and adding a film grain scan so the resolution loss from the side-crop isn't as noticeable.   Ideal situation would be to have the camera give us more than 1080 lines to play with a native 4:3 output but the manufacturers JUST DON'T GET IT

  If Tarantino is subverting the traditional ideal of good / bad then he's doing so in a fictional portrayal of life, not reality. Films are a reflection of life and subverting the norm is part of art.   If it were a literal portrayal it would be boring and it wouldn't be as artistic.   Artists have a creative license. You can't go round telling filmmakers that they have a moral influence and therefore should fundamentally alter their films, their visions and their writing based on what is best for society. That leads to totalitarianism, where the film industry is controlled by moral guardians like it is in China - where everything different or risky that gets off the ground in the TV industry is crushed or censored by the government "for corrupting the society".   Look you can't fuck with society like this.   It is an organic thing, wildlife. Just as a documentary filmmaker wouldn't interfere with nature whilst shooting a piece on a starving elephant in the Congo, you wouldn't as a filmmaker take on the role of police or teacher.   Tarantino has given us characters.   It is up to us whether we accept them as role models or not.   Django is actually a pretty good role model for a lot of people.   He hasn't reversed the role of the "good guy" so that he has become a white-guy hating gun wielding savage. It is about freeing the repressed from their shackles and about speaking out for what you believe to be right and just. Those that don't do this risk becoming Samuel L Jackson's character in Django.   Even if there was concrete evidence of filmmaking subverting an entire culture and damaging society it is impossible to police, especially in the internet age. You can censor Tarantino, not give him that oscar or that accolade on the basis that he's damaging society somehow, castigate him and not give him the title as master like I have here - but what good would that do anyway!? The most irresponsible form of culture is not Tarantino's work far from it, and sometimes 'the cure' is worse than the ailment.

  Exactly, it's a choice. The dark side will always be with the human race, the ability to be cruel or nasty is in everybody. It is up to your own values and morals which side you gravitate towards and the mere presence of violent movies doesn't swing somebody dramatically from good to evil as if they are some kind of robot, no not even kids.   If anything movies are a reflection of existing morals / values of society, hence Saw, The Hangover Pt II and Bikini Spring Break.

Well, again I don't think it is the role of cinema to be a role model for society. What would the art of cinema look like if that was the case? It'd just a be a load of preachy morality tales?   It is up to people to take responsibility for their own morals and to stop blaming bad outside influences.   I can now completely understand why Tarantino gets annoyed at having the downfall of civilisation laid at his door. It's ridiculous quite frankly!   Like this guy for instance - opening with a rather dismissively put 'congratulations on the movie', followed by 8 minutes of trying to pin a link between the ills of society and the director.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk

  Again Mark you need to see Unchained. The strong morals in the film are on the side of the good guys and the bad guys are utterly despicable. DiCaprio said his character was the most vile he'd ever played!

  I know where you're coming from with this Mark but to lay the blame at Tarantino's door is pointless.   The real issue is the unfiltered freedom of information brought about by the internet - but only when combined with a lack of values in society and parenting.   As well as every wonder, every horror is now accessible.   I personally think it should be up the person whether to open themselves up the horrors or not. The brutality, sexual violence, amorality, consumerism, vanity and worse.   It isn't the internet's role and certainly not the role of censors or the state to instil a set of values in people.   Values comes from the community and parents.   Most kids would rather not watch bloody gore and all the other horrible shit you can find out there - be it in a movie or on the internet. Making it commonplace doesn't legitimise it. Tarantino uses the N-word hundreds of times in the course of the film but it's such an integral part of the overall effect, to take it out or change the vile language would harm the characters, making the theatrical villains far less vile. Why water it down?   Tarantino is very clear with the comic parts that the joke is very much on the racists in this film. If it wasn't for the bad language and violence teachers would be showing Django in schools as a powerful and stinging condemnation of racism and discrimination. You are absolutely on the side of the good guys whilst watching this thing. It doesn't glorify the bad guys in the least bit. It completely dumps on the fascists from a great height.   Although I enjoyed it, Inglorious was pretty far from the masterpiece this is, because he didn't get the characters right. Didn't like Brad Pitt in it especially.   I think you should go and see the film Mark because only then can you really get it.   Tarantino's films all have a strong good vs evil element and a strong moral message, whereas something like Saw 5 just has a load of nasty sadistic violence for the sake of it. The real worry for society isn't Tarantino, if anything it is what kids can find readily on the internet at any time of day like Saw, Human Centipede - and MUCH worse. But again it is up to them and their particular set of values to switch off to it.   I am sure there will be yet another lost generation who doesn't, but regardless of whether the stuff is out there or not - it isn't the primary reason why they are so stuffed up in the head.

Great to finally hear a good explanation for why the two modes look different. For me the difference is subtle, and don't forget to check the look of motion cadence, since this should look nicer in the ALL-I mode.

Thanks for all the contributions. I'm really enjoying it here at the moment.

There's plenty of them out there Caleb and this is by no means a full list! Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise) Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained) Christopher Nolan (Inception, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige Memento) Paul T. Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love) Wes Craven (Scream, Nightmare On Elm Street) Baz Luhrmann (Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge) Not forgetting the legendary anamorphic work of Andrei Tarkovsky (Solaris, Stalker, Mirror) of course.   Anamorphic is still the standard for film.   That the Alexa is the only camera to shoot 4:3 for a true Cinemascope aspect ratio with 2x anamorphic is utterly absurd.   The camera manufacturers need to drop 16:9 sensors for cinema production. It isn't a cinema standard, never has and never will be.   Here's a piece on anamorphic production on Arri's website http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/learn/tutorial_anamorphic_production.html   Although the resolution benefit is less with digital than on film, it is the whole look that has captured me, it is spellbinding. I like the very wide 3.55:1 you get from a 2x lens on 16:9 actually but recently I have taken to taping up the left and right of my screen to give me composition in 4:3, then I crop that in post and do the 2x squeeze to produce 2.39:1. I'll upload some of these projects in the coming weeks.

Image credits and further reading: Django Unchained / Robert Richardson at The American Cinematographer Magazine ~ Django Unchained echoes spaghetti westerns at Kodak camera and television Learn the ropes and unholster your gun - The EOSHD Anamorphic Shooter's Guide I honestly can't remember the last time I was so gripped by a mainstream piece of cinema. For the first half I had a permanent grin etched on my face for at least an hour, and for the second half I was on the edge of the seat with the kind of tension and sheer terror that you rarely see with the pacing of most mainstream movies - Ridley Scott did it with Alien and Tarantino's completely mastered it here. The first act is like the journey of a roller coaster up the tracks and then for the 2nd half it comes rocketing down and you're terrified. Django Unchained is a towering achievement - and here's how it was shot.

http://vimeo.com/60401188 "They each have their own unique character. Which image do you prefer?" Iscorama VS Iscomorphot 8 2x VS Iscomorphot 8 1.5x by QuickHitRecord. This is a new weekly series on EOSHD. The forum is really booming at the moment. A while ago on the site I decided to redirect the article comments system into the forum and that has seen a big increase in the number of people using it not just to comment, but to add their own content. Some of it deserves to be given wider attention so the best posts will from now on be promoted to the front page.  

The Blackmagic does have a simplicity to it. Using it versus the Ikonoskop last month was a doddle in comparison. You dive into the menus far less than on a DSLR and you don't need to change ISO or shutter angle for 90% of shots. You just point the lens at stuff and focus it.   Main issues with the ergonomics are - it is quite heavy and the screen visibility isn't great. The weight distribution is on a very narrow plain and the camera is quite wide compared to a DSLR. There's no physical controls - but again you don't really need any. The Epic controls are mostly on a touch screen as well.     Here's my review   http://www.eoshd.com/content/9186/blackmagic-cinema-camera-review   Pros Cinematic overall output Under the price of a ready to shoot Scarlet it beats everything for resolution & dynamic range including Canon C300 Film like noise grain Much more latitude in the highlights than a DSLR Black detail can be pulled up more than on the FS100 and DSLRs Very high build quality with no plastic used at all (rubber and metal) DaVinci Resolve is superb editing package and colourist’s dream Responsive in-camera playback of raw Responsive touch-screen and user interface Thunderbolt and HD-SDI, no wobbly HDMI. Robust SSD port and card door Large screen negates need to use external monitor or EVF in many situations Straight forward and minimalist approach to design of both software and hardware Superb battery life with external battery solution, internal battery useful to have as a back-up Affordable media Affordable raw editing with correct GPU on a PC The camera has ‘soul’ unlike many mass produced products Cons Potentially large extra investment in lenses, hardware, etc. for some shooters No built in ND filter No Super 35mm sensor size No HDMI port for lower end external monitor / EVF options No global shutter mode, rolling shutter not the best Cinema DNG raw not as space efficient as GoPro CineForm compressed raw No 2.5K recording option other than raw (2400 x 1350 80Mbit Intra-frame H.264 would be nice option for those who only do minimal grading) Screen not articulated (difficult to see from low angle when camera is above eye-level) Narrow viewing angle of LCD panel compared to DSLRs (polarises quite easily) Poor screen visibility in strong sun light Electronic aperture control on EF lenses is fiddly – should be two buttons or a jog dial Final packaging issues – debris inside the lens mount on some cameras shipped so far Fluff and debris tends to cling to rubber on rear of camera and cannot easily be wiped clean Consider the FS100 too.   I enjoy the lighter body and it isn't as tall. The screen is articulated and the sensor is larger. It is miles better in low light and the codec is actually very good (for AVCHD). You've got slow-mo with 1080/60p and it doesn't cost much more than a Blackmagic now. Rental price I've no idea about but it shouldn't be more than the BMCC. As it is E-mount you can fit just about any lens to it. Ergonomics & menus are OK it is just that the button layout is awful. All the dials and buttons are tiny and slightly recessed into the body, so I don't recommend it for when you need to adjust stuff very quickly on the fly.

Will there be a passive Canon to M43 mount Speed Booster from Conurus until the smart adapter ships in the summer? This is something I'd love to see. I actually use Canon mount adapter rings for all my Contax Zeiss, Leica R, M42, Pentax, Olympus OM and Nikon glass and so for these lenses I don't actually need an EOS Speed Booster for Micro Four Thirds to have electronics in it :)   Although it is of course preferable and most people would buy the Smart version, I'd love to see a passive Canon mount version in March alongside the others.

Zen was the Isco CentaVision 2x anamorphic, which is basically a 2x stretch version of the normal Iscorama. The 2x anamorphic gives you the most dramatic anamorphic look but a very wide aspect ratio from a 16:9 camera. The prime lens was cheap $20 Helios 44-M 58mm F2.0, mostly stopped down to F5.6 for extra sharpness.   Plenty more info in my book if you want to get started on the anamorphic stuff.   http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide   Tarantino shot Django Unchained in anamorphic and it looks superb.

Why does that guy shoot so many shots at crazy shutter speeds like 1/700, 1/2000, etc. It looks trashy. The footage looks very clean though considering the ISOs, and there is some gold in there.

  It is a good solution.   That comment makes you look a bit silly.

Prefer the bokeh on the 2x stretch but overall the Iscorama wins it for me.   Both the 2x and the Iscorama look great. What is your mod on the Iscorama 36?

  If they did switch it off before release I hope they also lowered the price.

This decision was made before that.   More likely is that the F55 isn't in Hurlbut's hands yet and he has an agreement with Canon already. He's an Explorer of Light (like LaForet).

Yes sure. Only thing holding back the review is the sample footage. I want it to do the camera justice and that takes time to get right. I don't just want to sling up some test shots as I have done before with the GH3. That is taking some time to put together with the current shooting schedule.   BTW I'm also interested to hear from anyone in Berlin with a C100 or C300. Get in touch and come on some shoots. So few people actually own one, it is all rental stuff!

So it is a creative thing?   Well it didn't work. Please stick to the normal language from now on, cheers!

The problem I have with Leang's use of the offensive word is that he put it on print appended to one of my own articles.   I don't want to control like a hawk what goes in the forum. But this takes the biscuit it really does. If a print newspaper or magazine used such offensive words, with such vague context and a completely unclear meaning as to whether it was meant as an insult, slang, a joke or outright racism they'd offend thousands and rightly be taken to task for it.   I don't want that to happen here.

I'd expect Jews are an advocate of Tarantino's writing for the same reason the rest of us are. It's bloody good.   I really don't get the rest of your point or your excuse for using the word, to be honest.

Personally I prefer the 5D Mark III's image, but the D5200 delivers WAY more value. The image is close yet the thing costs $700!   I am planning a day light shoot yes. Though to be honest, you can tell a lot more from the low light images because of the way the tonality and lighting is. One thing that I do need to do a day light test for however is dynamic range. A tunnel test. The GH3 and 5D Mark III can both shoot flatter than the D5200 without a load of banding being visible. Generally though, I find all the DSLRs to be pretty similar when it comes to dynamic range. As soon as you grade the image they all have about 9 USABLE stops. Nobody likes the look of an ungraded flat CineStyle image, you're trading other attributes for the ability to place your 9 stops in a different spot, that's all.   The dilemma at the moment is that the BMCC is so nice in raw that it leaves all the other cameras looking a bit too digital.   I highly recommend experimenting with Film Convert and Film Stocks plugins for Premiere to give the compressed footage more grain and a more authentic film look.