Andrew Reid

So Hollywood sees VFX artists as 'cheap labour'? Maybe. It's all about money. Why blow something up for XX amount when you can do it for slightly less.   Life of Pi did well at The Oscars. What sickened me was cutting the VFX guys speech off. They're allowed to suck the ass of the academy but when it comes to their own rights, and their very survival it is... Jaws theme.

Joaquin Phoenix on the Oscars - "Pitting people against each other...It's the stupidest thing in the whole world. It was one of the most uncomfortable periods of my life, when Walk the Line was going through all the awards stuff. I never want to have that experience again."   This year, Oscars host said he hoped Joaquin was 'on his meds'. Very sensitive considering his brother River Phoenix died from a drug overdose.   Rain, Leaf, River, Liberty and Summer - you live up to your names. Seth you live up to yours.

Yes it made me feel a bit uncomfortable too, realising that a good part of our advanced western civilisation is built on suffering and human sacrifice.   I felt the film was holding up a bit of a mirror to the audience. I didn't feel guilty for the slave trade but I felt guilty having been born into a privileged country and a privileged society relative to the people who had to suffer to build such a thing in the first place.   We're still abusing the poor today in order to get our iPhones made cheaper.   This kind of shit never ends.   Django really brings that home to roost. Whilst the upper class imperialists in the film are chinking the Chinaware and having a jolly good old time, the slaves are out in the fields dying and suffering so that the English can put sugar in their tea back home. That's history.   If anything Tarantino's portrayal of history is 100% HONEST. Brutally honest. That is why I liked it.

Man... this guy.   That 'fancy pants writing' won an Oscar.   So what if most of the white people in the film are racist. That's the story. It's his creative license to do it this way.   Regardless, the issue of slavery is impossible to deal with without showing the brutality white people carried out in the name of business. You'd be ignoring a whole chunk of history if you DIDN'T show it.   What you're forgetting is that Samuel L Jackson's character in this is a black guy, who happens to be one of the worst racists in it!!   The biggest supporting role in the film, if not the lead role, is Dr Schultz - a white guy - and his character is an icon of fairness and principals.   The wrongdoing of the racist characters in this film ACTUALLY HAPPENED in history. It isn't painting 'the entire white race' as ignorant and evil at all, because the 'entire white race' didn't run the slave trade. A very small sub-section of it did. Seems you don't understand that!? Read a history text book and you'll read far more extreme race wars than Tarantino depicts here.   It is a massive and powerful statement this film makes against racism.   And don't forget that slavery isn't just about race - it's a class war waged by the rich on the poor and it still happens today.

  Me too. I also have a 16mm anamorphic baby Iscorama which would go nicely on this. It is c-mount.

The D16 Digital Bolex - pictured above in the hands of the biggest 16mm advocate of all, Darren Aronofsky Roald Christesen recently got in touch, to share some footage shot with the CCD in the upcoming Digital Bolex. He's a developing new Cinema DNG transcoding software and has been testing the sensor as part of that process. The image this camera produces is looking superb.

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/60863477[/vimeo] Discussion of the prototypes on the EOSHD Anamorphic Forum Many anamorphic lenses especially the affordable ones require the prime lens to be set to the same mark as the anamorphic on the focus barrel, making a focus rack during a shot impossible by hand and shot setup awkward. Now an ingenious electronic follow focus by Markus Houy has been created making our dual-focus anamorphic glass single focus like high end Iscoramas or LOMOs. EOSHD interviews Markus and finds out more about his plans for the device.

The lens is 23mm on the Fuji X100.   I don't mean equivalent.   I mean 35mm F2.0 on an APS-C sensor. More like equivalent to 50mm on full frame and therefore more versatile.   Wide angle for me is a special purpose lens not an all rounder.   Yet the ridiculous thing is - APS-C DSLR owners have been crying out for faster 18mm lenses for years and neither Canon or Nikon have provided one.

One of the main advantages of large sensor - shallow depth of field... So they put a wide angle 18mm on it with a relatively slow aperture. Doesn't make much sense to me.   Nice design otherwise. Just that lens is really restrictive. I'd have rather it had a 35mm F2.0.

High sensitivity has no advantages for bright light shooting. It just forces you to use very strong NDs and narrow apertures, or else the highlights look rubbish when pulled down to ISO 400 and under.   Leica discussed this with me at Photokina when I talked about a possible ISO 25 setting or a digital ND.   http://www.eoshd.com/content/9060/the-new-leica-m-as-a-filmmakers-tool-an-interview-with-leicas-jesko-von-oeynhausen   Look at the 'digital pull' image to ISO 25 for an example of the image quality problems when doing a very large pull from a high sensitivity & over exposed image.   Think of it in terms of dynamic range. At ISO 800, in bright light you're gonna get a lot of over exposure unless you shoot at a very narrow aperture, etc. etc. You can pull that raw data down to ISO 100. The camera does it with the image processor which is why it can offer the low ISOs. But to pull a native ISO of 3200 down to 100 is harder. Think of an over exposed raw still shot in daylight at ISO 3200. You can only pull it down so far in post. At ISO 3200 the exposure is going to be even brighter all else being equal - that requires even more latitude to keep hold of highlights. The roll off to highlights will become very steep when you pull the exposure down on that ISO 3200 raw, and some areas will be completely burnt.

"Sony intends to defend itself vigorously in the Red lawsuit. Sony looks forward to prevailing in court, thus vindicating the Sony engineers"   http://filmmakermagazine.com/66162-sony-responds-to-red-blackmagic-fix-and-avid-continues-to-decline/   http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-doesnt-care-about-red-and-ships-out-the-f55-and-f5/

  When you pull a sensor down from a very high native ISO of 3200 for example to 400 it is true that your lower ISOs compromise the image. I.e. dodgy highlights, banding, etc. We see this on the low light kings FS100, 1D C. This is a problem waiting for a fix. Of course what you describe with F32, high shutter speed, stack of NDs is not the answer and you're right to point the issue out. This sensor probably isn't a general purpose one!   Red Dragon is rated at 2500 native I think.   I think some stuff is already looking too plastic and too clean. I actually WANT a bit of grain. But there's no denying how excited I am about the low light possibilities.

The largest CMOS sensor, I think went into a telescope.   I too expect this to go to a very small sector of the scientific market.   All it is really is a low megapixel count full frame sensor.   There's no place for it in Canon's current DSLR or Cinema EOS line-up.   This is a shame as I'm really into the creative possibilities of ultra low light shooting.   I am currently writing a script which involves a scene shot entirely by moon light at ISO 12,800, T0.95.   Imagine being able to stage a scene on top of a mountain with the milky way as the backdrop.

This is the show where the prototype is on display in Japan from Tuesday - Security Show 2013 (www.shopbiz.jp/en/ss/)   The original press release - http://www.canon.com/news/2013/mar04e.html

Full frame 35mm 16:9 format Hyper low light sensitive - even larger pixels than 1D X sensor Prototype to be shown in Japan between 5th-8th March If you think the C300's low light sensitivity is impressive, here's Canon's new image sensor for digital cinema cameras.

  Canon know they need to do something to shore up this end of the market and DSLR video. It has been a bit of a disaster. Their overall profits have plunged 40% and that is mainly due to the low end of the market.

It is odd that we've had to wait until nearly NAB 2013 to get it.   So could be big.   If not, I'll consider it somewhat a slap in the face as clean 1080p HDMI is something that should have been there in version 1.0 and they said "the hardware couldn't do it" even though the cheaper 7D could.

Make sure sharpness is turned down to the minimum in-camera (slider all the way to the left - but select '0', not 'A').   I use the Sharpen filter. Unsharp Mask gives the same results to my eye, but Sharpen is more straightforward - just slide it up to between 20-70 depending on how much you think the shot needs.   Also make sure noise reduction is turned off in camera and that the 1080p mode selected is on High quality.   When rendering out from Premiere, I suggest to use H.264 with a VBR target of 24 and max of 44.

Full screenplay for Django Unchained http://twcguilds.com/assets/screenplay/django/screenplay.pdf

Do you realise how good value the British passport is? All these beautiful countries on our doorstep and the EU giving us free travel without a visa. The European Union also saves us a fortune in import tax when buying from within Europe and importing to the UK. Sure there are downsides. What relationship doesn't have those? But if right wing politicians had their way I'd not be living in Berlin that's for sure. UKIP is really just the same old xenophobia with a fancy 'independence' dress on.   Happy for political discussions but the anti-EU rant has nothing to do with the thread topic and the violence debate so no more please.

If society is indeed crumbling, then I still think Tarantino is pretty far down the list of those responsible.   I can only speak for where I've lived, so how about we start in the UK and the abolition of grammar schools. That closed off a vital way up the ladder for the truly talented. Then Tony Blair had the great idea of sending EVERYONE to university. The grand idea of this was to improve social mobility. It is actually destroying the country. So many people are going to university whether it is right for them or not. It is devaluing the degree and the WHOLE system and quad-troubling the cost of it for the student. Most students who go to University now in the UK are guaranteed a good social life for 2 years then a massive debt problem and absolutely no job at all. They will mostly be stuck working in retail or admin roles, for the rest of their lives. Well done Mr Education, Education, Education.   He has created a huge section of student population who do no quality work and put socialising at the top of the list of importance to such an extreme degree that they may as well still be at high school. We should send some people into the workplace at 18 and put them on a wage. Only then will they have a responsibility to themselves to actually work for a living. At university most don't FEEL the responsibility to work and succeed. It is all too easy, dismissed and taken for granted. It is just 'what you do'. It's normal. It used to be the EXCEPTION.   Also neither universities or schools inspire their students enough. Most leave not knowing what they want to do for a living. Some are completely dispassionate about everything. Some lack a constructive interest, so sit around doing nothing instead - well maybe some shopping and drinking every day.   The schools meanwhile - long time since I've been - but they seem to get more dumbed down by the year and there's a real discipline problem. Some kids after school on public transport are basically feral and answer to nobody. Many of the teachers are good and trying their best but a lot are more immature than the pupils. There's a causality to it and a lack of rigour, a dumbing down. I played cricket in my Geography lessons. The Spanish teacher spent a good three quarters of the lesson telling us silly jokes. This dumbing down is a result of intelligence being less valued by British society than it used to be. People now seen as being snooty and superior when in actual fact it's a vital quality of any civilisation if it wants to progress and be competitive and great. The dumbing down is also happening at our institutions, like the BBC, which frankly just aren't great any more.   And consumerism. This is a big one. It has replaced sport and socialising as our biggest past-time. It fills an empty void in peoples lives because so many people are left unfulfilled by a lack of opportunities and genuinely enjoyable social situations. Instead of doing things that are satisfying, social and constructive - helping someone out with a project, having a conversation, building something, making art, using your skills, joining a band, using your education - flocks of people have taken to spending their leisure time accumulating useless shit that they are brainwashed into thinking they want and need. It's so anti-social and selfish.   Consumerism effects everyone in fact not just the materialistic and bored. Through a hyper capitalist system our cities and towns have had all the real life and most non-commercial activities lobotomised and replaced with retail chains and bars. Then people wonder why they lack self control, are in debt, and constantly wanting a new iPhone. Our communities are becoming hideous. It's a mark of how powerful consumerism is and how all consuming regardless of your education or intelligence it effects us all. Absolutely nothing is being done to stop it and everything to encourage it.   In Berlin they are literally performing a cultural massacre in the name of consumerism. The open spaces where people meet, where artists drink in the sunshine, paint a wall, set up a studio, make films, form bands, etc. etc. are being concreted over by satanist commercial enterprises that won't be happy until our cities are replaced entirely with one concrete & glass dystopia after another in the name of personal gain, profit and greed.   Then there's parenting and peer pressure - Family and friends have a far bigger influence than a film director, or even the whole of popular culture put together. Frankly some people should need a license to have children. It isn't a human right, it's a privilege. There's a generation of bad parents passing their flaws and criminal behaviour down generations before it gets righted, at great cost to the rest of society.   So in the end what do you have?   People as a commodity, people with the wrong values. They don't value each other, and you get anti-social behaviour on a grand scale. Nothing to do with the movies, although I am sure they add a stylistic flare to the skull cracking and name calling.   The same violence which would take place regardless of whether Tarantino made Reservoir Dogs or Mary Poppins.   On some of the other issues you might have a point Mark!

  Don't you think this would be just a little bit patronising? How about the audience makes up their own mind rather than their hands being held?   Are you saying that all films should do this?   Some films are educational and enlightening of course they are. Yes we are better of for those. Better off for the quality and the information. I've enjoyed a better education through television and film than I have through school. (Though that doesn't say much for the school system in the UK).   The best documentaries shine a light.   But fiction is fiction and when it comes to morality - sometimes the good guys lose.   Sometimes the violence is glorified.   Sometimes the director's position is on the side of the bad guys and in some pieces good characters are not always the right thing for the movie.   This film Killer Joe is an interesting example - where all the characters are absolutely reprehensible human beings - and from what Sean seems to be saying, without spoiling the plot too much, it turns around and puts a mirror up to the audience. You - yes you! You're sick for enjoying what these sickos did.   What a great Hitchcock-esq thing that is! It has more moral impact than any good vs evil story.   I have not seen it yet so cannot be sure if that is the case though.   I do agree with some of your points Mark but I think the main area I differ is still on the subject of Tarantino himself. His films are very clear when it comes to who is moral and who is amoral, especially Django. A tale of bounty hunters being rewarded for murder is OK in this film and you will see why when you watch it. Furthermore the violence is comic book style as was the case with Kill Bill, it isn't photo realistic like in Saw. It isn't gritty and it isn't believable. The gunshot wounds and blood in Django are firmly old school Spaghetti Western, almost amateur... comical... And the bad guys are so despicable they deserve what they get.   I recently witnessed a talk by a director at the Berlinale film festival here in Berlin... He was an American dude who'd gone to Indonesia and basically glorified a load of real life murderers for the communist regime. They'd murdered and maimed on a horrific scale in the name of the authorities and as far as I know they're all free men. He'd invited them to enact their murders in his film. Bizzarely the director talked about these people as friends, happy they'd made his film (kerching) possible. He refused under direct questioning from the audience to have a moral position on these people - these REAL LIFE murderers. The murders themselves - they love the film!   Yes Tarantino shoots violence in a glorious way and characterises some extremely cool and sexy villains. But it is all part of the theatrics. The difference between Tarantino and the director I mentioned above? His film is no fiction. It is when it is real life you have to worry. In the end fiction, culture and real actions in real life are separate no matter how many corrupting memes or violent films are floating around in peoples minds. It is PEOPLE who kill people, not films or video games. How would the real victims of these men have felt about them being given a glossy platform in this film? If the director came here and got real members of the IRA to enact their killings on BBC 1, whilst giving no moral position or even buddying up to them, I'd love to see what the public reaction would be.   But because this is Indonesia, a poor country with a troubled past to be abused and exploited, he feels he can get away with it - and probably can.

Killer Joe for those who don't know is by the director of The Exorcist, William Friedkin is now a 77 year old guy. As if extreme violence was somehow unique to this generation of filmmakers? Violence was pretty bad during Friedkin's upbringing. WWII and Vietnam and a very violent society with less equal rights as we have now. That generation didn't end up sending us to the dogs, rather they look like angels compared to how most young people are painted as villains today.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzRa3GAqNBY   Not seen the film but it looks interesting.   Though the trailer has a bad case of BANGING STEEL DOORS from the sound FX library.   In Iceland there's an effort underway to ban all pornography (online and in print).   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society   Is this really a world we wanna live in?   Experience shows that if something is repressed, it goes underground and becomes a much bigger problem.   The mainstream actually makes it more insipid, more watered down - as soon as something is banned it is seen as being more potent somehow.

Interesting comment from the actors round table from Matt Damon, Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx (Django Unchained), John Hawkes (Lincoln), Richard Gere. and Alan Arkin (Argo). I've embedded it if you want to watch the whole thing (highly recommended) but if you click the link you go straight to 44m 50s which is the point they begin to debate violence in movies and its effect.   www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTi634iZ7o8&t=43m50s   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTi634iZ7o8&t=43m50s   What Arkin says is that it isn't the violence itself that is the problem, rather people's reaction to it. When people in a theatre are revelling in it, it shows a lack of moral code, a lack of values.   It also brings that violence out of the screen somehow - you become part of their values system. It's the same thing when an audience laughs at a joke that you don't get. You can't identify with these people, can't emphasise and that is frightening when it is 100 vs 1. "Hey - you're laughing at amorality, you're laughing whooping at this trash?!" I have had this experience myself many times in a cinema.   He also says that when it is shown dispassionately - it scares the hell out of him. I.e when a film shows a violent act with no consequence, no commentary and no judgement.   A lot of mainstream films do this - and yes it is indeed worrying. I know one trailer that just consists of a lot of nastiness, and ends with the sound of someone getting their head blown off by a shotgun. "Movie out August". Crowd whoops. I sit there thinking - what the hell!? That is just nasty, and people - they're embracing it!   So where I agree with Mark on the forum here is with the films that use violence in exactly this way - like some kind of disposable visual FX. Where I disagree with Mark is on Tarantino and that filmmakers should still have the creative license to hold a mirror up to life and show how it actually is, the good and the bad - and that sometimes the bad wins out.   In the recent Hansel & Gretel (Witch Hunters) by the way - which is an awful bloody film - they use violence against woman almost as a background visual FX. This is completely different to the way Tarantino is handling it. The Human Centipede is another example of a filmmaker who lacks a moral code in his work. It is done to grab attention and profit. Filmmakers do have responsibilities to the audience in terms of quality - but I still wouldn't go as far as saying they needed to be responsible for people's reaction to violence and the weird way in which some will revel in the wrong things and take the wrong influence from it. As I said, filmmakers have a creative license to tell a story however way it goes whether it has any morality in it or not, they shouldn't change to suit society or to conform.   As far as the trash goes - yes, I think it's bad for culture, bad for society. But you still can't censor it. It is impossible in the age of the net.

Interesting comment from Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) on Twitter   https://twitter.com/TheDstauff/status/307661130384408576