RobertoSF

I rate the rumor high as well. Been waiting for this to break.

 

What I really want to know is, will it be switchable to a 4:3 aspect ratio?

 

I know this request from the pro community was lodged with Panasonic. I just hope they implemented it.

 

Like Andrew and many other anamorphic zealots, I'd be very, very happy to finally shoot ~2.35

 

Keep us posted, Andrew.

 

Thanks

George is right. Good for him for taking on the fight. He continues to use his influence well. If you haven't seen Michael Clayton take a look. It's films like that, and many others, that are on the line. As for the rest of us filmmakers, everything goes on the table (neck included) when we make a feature. Onward.

A good film, regardless of names or budget, comes up like grass through concrete.

 

Find  your niche. Germinate. Reach for the sky.

The director wants to keep a lid on the production costs so as not to distract attention away from the film itself. He's doing the opposite of propagating a starving artist narrative. That said, I heard a rumour that the budget was around $50,000.

$300,000 in a month is very acceptable for a small scale, no studio independent release, but if the budget is correct, it's exceptional. Six times the production costs is a great return on investment, especially when he's spending so little on distribution or marketing.

Bare in mind that this is not the only number that counts. Carruth is also making money from every foreign distributor that picks up the film. It's just a little from each country, but it adds up.

 

Talk about negativity. This guy could go out and shoot an upbeat movie in the hopes of chasing success, or he could make what he wants to make, on his own terms, and retain total artistic control over the film and its release. He found a way to do the latter and remain profitable.

That is true success. 

 

Amen. Shane is well into the black. Critically, and monetarily, which means he will roll into his next project on his own terms.

 

I watched the film earlier tonight via iTunes/AppleTV. It was affecting. Well done. The nuance of the story was beautifully subtle but totally there. And yes, by the way, it looks beautiful. it matters. It's cinema.

 

Gents, ladies, the distribution mold is shattered. Time to make a jail break.

 

I'm in.

Good for Shane. And us, as audience and filmmakers. A rising tide floats all our boats.

As posted a few days ago, what BMCC announces at NAB will be the benchmark. There it is. A bold new direction forward for many of us.

 

Onward, compadres.

Pre-ordered earlier (4K cam).... Quite a strange feeling, pre-ordering, then waiting for the announcement!

 

Hmmm... Safe to say you are surprised then?

 

Given your previous quote a couple of days ago on the GH3/NAB post:

 

ScreenPro:

"I'd be very surprised if BM announce anything new, camera wise.

 

People who stayed patient with BM would be unhappy with a better spec'd camera being announced and the possibility of further delays and pre-order chaos..... Everyone else will just think they are full of shit to announce another camera with the BMCC still massively in limbo.

 

It's a real shame... Maybe they will turn up with 10,000 BMCs.... Here's hoping."

Dude, check out our logos... this is G TOWN

 

G is good....

Let's hope they do!

 

If BMD come out with something new it'll a bit embarrassing, since they've not made enough of the first two yet!

 

Let's hope there's at least something  interesting at this end of the market...

 

Camera manufacturing is not any ease game to get in and stay on top of, compadres. Just ask Red.

I suspect the current GH consumer base will only extent to the price range of the 5D3 and BMCC, which is $3,000, and it needs to properly compete against these (let's face it) better cameras.  It will need to compete with the 5D's amazing low-light performance as well as BMCC's amazing latitude and detail quality.

 

Yes, I believe what BMCC announces at this NAB will be the benchmark for those of us with GH2-3s looking for the next solid camera platform to work from for the next couple of years. If Panasonic makes an announcement in this area the comparisons (which we will probably read here, thanks to Andrew) will be very interesting.

I would add to the list the ability to switch the sensor to record in the 4:3 aspect ratio. This would make a lot of anamorphic shooters very happy. So would 10bit 422, more DR, and an ND wheel.

 

Fingers crossed for a Panasonic announcement at NAB

Good to see some sobriety taking hold. Past, present, and future is 24p for me for narrative experiences. Sports, a different beast. HD at 2K is solid for a long time to come. The human eye is very comfortable there. And on-line is only going to get more exciting... for all of us.

Compact view cameras allow for shimming of their digital back to achieve the optimum sensor position. In massive produced DSLRs the tolerances are close enough and can be masked by micro-adjust. But I have seen cases on friends equipment where one end of the sensor was off by a fraction and he could never get anything in focus on that side. The camera went back to service and the service report read -- "shimmed sensor".

 

Fascinating. I didn't think that a sensor could be out of alignment. But it is part of the chain and therefore a suspect. Maybe not one of the "usual suspects" though, but something to consider. Thanks for the post.

Do I see a tip of the hat to CONTACT at 2:07?

 

I like the analogy, and I see where you're coming from (an otherworldly meeting on the beach) but no, didn't have Contact in mind there. Now, if the waves were rolling backwards, as they do in Contact, it would be closer to being an homage. Actually, that could be interesting. Anybody want to roto the characters to make that happen?? ;-)

 

I think Contact is, btw, a good film on several levels.

 

The steadicam (pull) shot where the daughter runs through the house and up the stairs and finally reaches up and pulls the glass mirror medicine cabinet open, as if the ENTIRE SHOT had been done inside the mirror, was amazing. Nobody else in the theater noticed that but a filmmaker buddy and I nearly fell out of our chairs. It was sublime.

 

So was the sound design by Randy Thom. He inspired me to write sound into the storytelling for Mandorla.

This looks pretty cool! Nice one for shooting it all on GH2s, kudos. I'll be sure to watch the finished picture when it's out and about.

 

Thanks. It is, after all, the final picture that matters.

 

Change that bloody font please ;)

 

Yep, I know. Changed it for the feature edit a while back... good thing about a working trailer is seeing what actually works and what doesn't over time.

 

For the record, I am a font fanatic. Made my kids watch the documentary "Helvetica." They haven't seen the world the same since--especially road signs.

Congratulations! Its great to hear about another indie film maker accomplishing his film, mostly these days its just all about looking up spec sheets and tests, glad to see some people are actually shooting something ;)

 

Right on. Thanks!

ok, fine, sorry, I surrender, everybody...GH2 anamorphic 4 life!  nothing else matters.

 

Okay, gotta like your humor. Maybe that's a patch we have in common...

If I see anyone trying to derail a discussion about some technical aspects of film production on here with their boringly obvious and uninformative 'content is king' mantras I will be, to quote Tarantino, shutting their butts down.

 

This here's Sheriff Reid's blog, folks, and his reputation for being a serious shooter is well earned. Tip of the hat, Sheriff. And to you, deputy Rhoades.

 

"Hey Daniel Day Lewis your acting is pretty useless without a lens!! How about we talk about what's really important!!?? Canon or Nikon glass?"

 

THAT just caused a large laugh to roll out across the high Nevada desert. Can never have too much humor on a camera tech blog. Or on a high desert plain for that matter. Also makes the Sheriff metaphor work. Anyway... back on topic...

 

On the road back from Sundance. Must return to editing. Will respond more when I'm back in the home studio. My curiosity about the 1 degree of vertical slant on two particular shots in the trailer is growing. It's an easy enough fix, but was the camera just not quite level, or is it something else? Will carefully check other shots when I'm back. I may shoot a test pattern too. I'm not a test-pattern kind of guy, but they have their place and I'm open to find out. As Burnet pointed out, there are a lot of variables, so I appreciate the community help.

 

Meanwhile, my producer is obliged to keep me on edit and on schedule, but I will get back to the discussion as soon and as often as I can. Hopefully in a day or two.

All, thank you for all your overwhelming support, observations, and questions. My producer has reminded me (several times now) that I need to put my undivided focus back on editing. We have an aggressive schedule to meet.

 

Best to you all!!!

Thanks for your answer and advice, Roberto.

 

My plan: like you said, work on the script, pre-prod, etc. and follow BMCC and DigitalBolex d16 development.

The latter offers 4x3 sensor if I'm not mistaking (on top of being sexy)? I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this project.

 

Now, regarding LOMOs and anamorphic: I understand anamorphic is a whole family of lenses that are made to shoot those beautiful large landscape-like pictures and have a different flare than non-anamorphic. But, flare aside and ease of use + budget in mind, would the end result be that different than if shot with regular non-anamorphic lenses and crop/add black bands in post? (probably sounds heretic ;-).

 

A last question: your steadycam 75mm shots of that lovely actress in Lyon are absolutely beautiful! I was just wondering how difficult it has been to get stable shots with the equivalent of an approx. 140mm lens?

 

Thanks again for sharing,

 

Pask

 

Pask,

 

Two short answers. Yes, there's a difference with anamorphics. Have a look at Andrew's guide. I'm not saying it's BETTER than spherical lenses, but it is different. Let what you feel for the character of a lens be your guide.

 

Steadicam with a lens "larger" than 75 or 80mm would be extremely difficult.

this article disappointed me. some of the ADR sounds bad, especially the protagonist's. some framing looks awkward, like where the cam is placed. I guess a set of LOMO's like these could've been fortunate for a better production & acting. but I do like the acting from the guy in the office giving him advice. I would like to see an article on some indie boys doing their best with a Frasier lens. I would so love to rock a Frasier lens than to worry about anamorphic! nowadays just getting proper acting is so dodged indie kats are only focusing on technicality. nobody ever talks about acting around here anyways...

There is no ADR, as ADR is usually a process after picture editing is locked. We are editing the film now, and this is a working trailer. It is also, as the article's title clearly states, about a very specific type of anamorphic lens, which I find provides a magically slight distortion to reality. A Frazier (correct spelling) lens allows the foreground and background to be in focus, and is great for wildlife shots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_lens

Anamorphic and Frazier are very different animals. This is also not an article about acting, and having seen all the footage of this film, I find the acting to be very good, very natural and real. I see the written story coming to life through the characters. Other professionals in this business, one with two academy awards, feels the same way. His name will be in the final credits.

Something else should be said here.

Most filmmakers I know salute any filmmaker who goes through what it takes to get a feature film in the can. Whether it was shot on an Alexa or an iPhone. For anybody else reading this, if you have a passionate dream to tell a story in moving pictures and sound, GO FOR IT!! Know the difference between constructive, well informed, and useful criticism, and destructive, sour criticism, which should be ignored. Brush it off and move on.

Roberto,

Congrats on what seems to be a very promising and exciting project!

I am currently writing the script of what would be my first full-length feature film and would be interested to know if you've been as happy with the GH2s as with the LOMOs.

I own a few OCT-18 (non-anamorphic) LOMOs that I like a lot + a hacked GH2 but I'm wondering if going the RAW route with the BMCC would not be a necessary upgrade to do all the pre and post-shooting work justice.

What do you think?

 

Cheers,

Hey. Thanks.

 

I'm extremely happy with the LOMOS and see them as a lifelong investment. Very happy with the GH2 also, I am still shooting with it, but like you, I am also keeping an eye on how the BMCC is developing. It's very impressive, particularly with regard to the dynamic range it offers. If it offered a way to shoot to a 4x3 sensor, which would yield a more cinemascope-like format, I'd jump on it. The RAW route looks like a storage and process intensive workflow for a feature, but I haven't studied it too much.

 

I think having a set of pristine non-anamorphic LOMOs is fantastic, especially for shooting a feature. Love to have a set myself, but finding a good set takes time, right?

 

I suggest keeping your GH2, and keeping tabs on the BMCC while you write. Don't buy any camera until you are ready to go for pre-production. Even then, test it first--all the way through your workflow.

 

Good luck with your project!! At the end of the day, it's the script that matters most, then casting, directing... and eventually cameras and lenses.

Oh, not like the square front LOMOs.  It's a weird thing then.  I'd still check the interface between OCT and MFT, since your checking with a projector has nothing to do with how well this piece works in the mix.  These wouldn't necessarily be manufactured or engineered with anamorphic tolerances in mind.

 

There is no OCT. It was surgically removed when a carefully machined PL mount was installed. PL is the standard mount for most cinema lenses, worldwide. There's a fascinating, largely unknown, and somewhat colorful history about how Russian LOMO roundfronts came to the West to be used in low (and not-so-low) budget cinema. Maybe Andrew will have an anamorphic lens historian post an article sometime.

 

Anyway, the PL to MFT adapter I use is from Hot Rod Cameras in Burbank, who are the only source most pros trust for an adapter like this. Very serious piece of hardware.

 

Thanks for your thoughts and observations, I do appreciate them and the discussion we've had. And good luck with your own shooting!!

Out of curiosity, did they use your PL-to-M4/3 adapter and camera or did they test the LOMO+taking lens with their own equipment?

 

There is no taking lens. LOMO roundfronts are single unit lenses. The common standard to test cinema lenses is to mount them directly to a projector (often fitted with a PL mount) and project a test pattern through the lens and onto a screen. As Stuart Rabin at Focus Optic says, the lens is either IN or OUT. These were very much in.

I like the look and the aspect ratio. I do see the misalignment too. It is weird if it's impossible with the PL adapter like you say. Look at the shot at 0:59 - 1:00 for example. Even the woman on the left looks a bit distorted?

 

I see what you mean. The camera rig was placed on the conference table for that scene, I suspect the balance was slightly off. Regardless, will address it on that and any other shots after we lock picture.

 

Just for the record, the entire lens set was inspected, mounted and projected at Focus Optics in LA before purchase, and were certified as being in perfect alignment and in exceptionally excellent condition.

 

Thanks for the feedback.