moebius22

[quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1343019784' post='14337']
[color=#0066cc]3rd test: Even more so. 1DX is bext full frame DSLR.[/color]

[u][color=#0066cc][media]http://vimeo.com/46186716[/media][/color][/u]
[/quote]

For that price, it better be.

[i]There Will be Blood[/i] is one of those movies you either love or hate. [i]No Country for Old Men[/i] had a retarded ending in my opinion. The Cohen's are gifted film makers but their output as of late (apart from [i]No Country[/i]) has been lacking in my opinion compared to earlier work.

Personally, I'm getting sick of how hard people sweat Nolen, (mainly cause of Batman). He (like all the Hollywood guys) worship of the format seems in part fueled by romanticization of the medium and its history. Ultimately, economics are not on their side, and besides some ardent DPs, the public can't tell the difference anyways.

He's at the top of the food chain. He can afford to have that point of view.

I have admired this guys creativity and ingenuity for a while, yet I cannot seem to find any reference this film's plot.

They postponed this thing due to unresolved problems at the time. What do you think are the odds that this camera can at least match (or edge) the Mark III with no significant downsides like the D800 moire (low threshold I know)?

Way out of my price range. I'm sure Philip Bloom can appreciate it.

[quote author=jaybirch link=topic=841.msg6084#msg6084 date=1339697978]
[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=841.msg6074#msg6074 date=1339689247]
Are you implying that I am using my blog as a platform to bash Canon for reasons unrelated to the actual facts?
[/quote]

Currently, yes... I'm not even implying it, it is just true.

Everyone knows the reason why the 5DIII does not have a swivel screen... absolutely everyone, including you.

[b]Still shooters would hit the roof.[/b]

Ban me... I only come here because my cousin was looking for a budget camera and asked for advice.... this [i][b]was[/b][/i]  a good round up of budget stuff.... now it is just another blog with an agenda.

Hopefully you come to your senses and just get back to posting reviews and insights.
[/quote]

Please ban him. He's f@cking annoying.

It's brand recognition first and foremost. APS-C isn't bad for many people. Practically all the film students I know own a Rebel t2 - t3. I tell many students about pluses of the Gh2, but it doesn't give them that feeling of security that Canon stills camera does. The availability and costs seals the deal for many.

Auto-focus will probably clinch a great deal of wedding photographers looking to get started out.

[quote]At the end of your career is it best to have a load of zeros on the end of your bank balance or to have lived and to have made great films?[/quote]

Joseph Kahn said this at my college when he was talking about his film [i]Detention[/i].

I'm seriously thinking of putting my 2011 MacBook Pro up on eBay and going back to PC >:(

[quote author=MaxAperture Films link=topic=657.msg4906#msg4906 date=1335821209]
Good news!!  The Hobbit to be made available in 6 formats -

[url=http://blogs.crikey.com.au/cinetology/2012/04/30/peter-jacksons-the-hobbit-coming-to-cinemas-near-you-in-six-different-formats/]http://blogs.crikey.com.au/cinetology/2012/04/30/peter-jacksons-the-hobbit-coming-to-cinemas-near-you-in-six-different-formats/[/url]

Kudos to Jackson for accommodating everyone's taste in his latest rendition.
[/quote]

I doubt the studio or the exhibitors gave him a choice on that one.

[quote author=Karl Jordan link=topic=657.msg4871#msg4871 date=1335712136]
Must be crack in that pipe he's smoking.
[/quote]

Technology can be a a hard drug to pass up.

Peter Jackson on the uproar over [i]The Hobbit[/i] in 48Fps:


"Eat your peas."

[quote author=Paul Watt link=topic=637.msg4683#msg4683 date=1335370859]
So much vitriol from many who have not seen the clips, or any 48fps 3D.  Why all the hate?  So Peter Jackson took a risk and tried something different.  No-one's forcing anyone to make any aesthetic choices for future films.  Do whatever you like.  I find it a bit hypocritical that people criticize new technology when it's someone else pushing the envelope, then bemoan the fact that they can't get their hands similar technology at an affordable price.
[/quote]

Because Cameron and his kind are forgetting first and foremost, it's about the viewing experience and not the Fx (in that order). If you destroy the viewing experience for Fx sake, what good is that?

I also seriously doubt the frame rate war will result in us getting cheaper camera equipment.

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4675#msg4675 date=1335367670]

However, the whole framerate-business is also a matter of viewing habit (is that term right? Please correct me). It can change. Jackson predicted it and his employees agreed (he is not the nice guy as he appears in making ofs, he doesn't tolerate contradiction).

[/quote]


That's the kind of holier than though attitude that gets me with filmakers such as Jackson and Cameron. It's either their way or the highway when it comes to the methods of filmmaking. It's like the viewer doesn't like it, but too hell with them, because this is better - I hope it blows up in their faces.

Cameron (as great as he is) is long overdue for a [i]Intolerance[/i] moment himself.

[quote author=marcuswolschon link=topic=637.msg4663#msg4663 date=1335363091]
Does it matter what people think?
3D, 4K 48p is here to stay.
With FullHD here and 2K comming to the consumer market soon,
there  just *must* be something that cinemas have that the
living room has not.
(And it's certainly not the bad popcorn, advertisement in fron of the film
and the noisy crowd in the front rows.)
[/quote]

3D, large screens, and the need to get out of the house.

I think many assume that there is no limit to how much expense the exhibitors will sustain (they are already begrudgingly absorbing the costs of digital, even with financial help from the studios), but they surely won't sustain the costs if viewers are exhibiting this sort of reaction to this technology.

[quote author=MJChristensen link=topic=637.msg4665#msg4665 date=1335363368]
3D and 48fps - like all cinema tech - constitute aesthetic choices.  We may as well debate whether or not color film or sync sound are cinematic - or if black & white film is still relevant.  It's like a bunch of painters debating watercolors vs. oils.  There is a time and place for any aesthetic choice.  That said... Peter Jackson is proving yet again that he is terribly unqualified to helm Tolkien films.  When it comes to rendering Tolkien's work for cinema he fails with the narrative and - consequentially - he cannot help but fail aesthetically.  It's like asking an abstract expressionist to paint in a neoclassical style.  I'm afraid it's worse than that actually.  Jackson is so clueless I want to cry.  I do not think that audiences will "get used" to the look of 3D and/or 48fps.  I think we will have to wait for a director who knows how to use them effectively.  Even then... Would it ever work on The Hobbit?  I'm skeptical... so skeptical I could cry.
[/quote]

I agree that this may be the wrong aesthetic choice for the subject, but past box office receipts don't bear out your summation of Jackson's abilities.

Joy to my ears. It's about time that the tech evangelists (like Avatar man) were put in their place.

The internal battery is wrong headed and a problem.

It's a game changer in that (if successful) it shows their is an untapped market for these capabilities at that price range, even if the original product may not live up to expectations.

Who would of thought that Sony, the king of proprietary, now takes the place of Canon.

Wait till somebody figures out they can do this for money.

[quote author=JesseB link=topic=515.msg3396#msg3396 date=1333425973]
Tomorrow, I'm doing a write-up about why I use my GH-2s for weddings, and I'm going to use this clip to get at two of my main points: flexibility and value. Using only native M4/3s glass, you can cover from 7 to 300mm at F5.6 or more open, and hit 12, 17, 20, 25 and 45mm with primes for a total of less than $6000 (including body). Open the door to adapted glass and you can get F2.8 at just about any focal length you could ever want for less than $250 a lens. Bam.
[/quote]

I would very much like to see that.

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=494.msg3207#msg3207 date=1333076634]
The post was positive towards the FS700 saying it will have true 1080p.  On the other hand, the [b]FS100[/b] isn't true 1080p.
[/quote]

That's the first I have heard of it.

[quote author=Chris Santucci link=topic=494.msg3204#msg3204 date=1333073103]
"the FS700 does 4K via 3G HD-SDI to an external recorder."


My Red One does 4K and doesn't need an external recorder.
[/quote]

Totally different price range.

[url=http://www.red.com/store/red-one/product/red-one-s35-mysterium-x]http://www.red.com/store/red-one/product/red-one-s35-mysterium-x[/url]