Jump to content

Xiong

Members
  • Content Count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Xiong reacted to Jimmy in EOSHD opinion: smartphones are not killing DSLRs, apps and online services are   
    It is smartphones AND apps... The two are symbiotic.
    The cameras on modern smart phones are great, the apps are great... I can shoot and edit raw images on my Nexus.
    As Mozim says though, this will help separate the two industries... Which I think is a good thing. Canon, Nikon etc can cater to people who care about lasting imagery, rather than shoot and share.
    You say "no wifi on high end",,,, it doesn't need it, it doesn't need grading apps, facebook sharing apps.... Just a very low battery consumption bluetooth, like the NX1 has. Send the raw to your phone.... Grade and share (while the raw file is uploaded to dropbox, for backup). Let the phone do what it does best. Simple.
     
     
  2. Like
    Xiong reacted to alexcosy in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    I found this video yesterday and it made me think of this thread. It's kind of related to this subject, especially on the matter of archival and how today's digital footage will hold up in time. And it actually is also wonderful and kinda magical.
    Watch it, you're in for a very cool (digital video about lost, and refound film...
     
     
  3. Like
    Xiong reacted to sunyata in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    ​You make a lot of good points but if you're concerned about the environment as a whole, you also have to consider the amount of carbon produced to keep all the - always on or charging - servers, devices and infrastructure running 247, since that's the macro environment that has made digital viable and also how it will be consumed. As more people come online with broadband, our media consumption has gone through the roof, which takes more servers and more electricity to deliver. I know there's no going backwards, but I just want to emphasize that digital is not clean, you just don't see the pollution when you create it. 
  4. Like
    Xiong reacted to blondini in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    I shot on film for a few years when I started out. I've shot on a variety of video formats for quite a few years. I'd definitely choose to shoot celluloid if I could on my next film. I worked differently on film. It made me think differently about how to approach what I'm doing. I think shooting on digital has taught me heaps of bad habits, to be sloppy, and not value the moments I shoot. 
    And that quote from Andrew Wondlan regarding Kodak Vision 2 could be equally applied the progress of HD/4K and the pursuit of more pixels and dynamic range. I don't give a ****. GH4 looks like garbage no matter how many pixels it has, and I have never felt my pulse quicken when I look at it. I remember the first time I saw 4K projected, at a test screening of King Kong in Auckland. it made me feel sick. I feared for the future because I doubted that a beautiful film would ever be made on 4K. Nothing has changed my mind. So yeah, cheer for the democracy of digital. But I'll shed a tear for the beautiful films that made me want to pick up camera in the first place.

  5. Like
    Xiong reacted to fuzzynormal in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    ​No doubt.  But like any obstructions, actual ones are harder to overcome than the virtual ones.  You always have that safety net of knowing you can ignore a self-imposed constraint.
    If you're on a diet, you tend not to put a box of doughnuts on your dining room table after all.  
    Discipline to not to break the easily avoided virtual obstruction is great --if you can control that discipline!  Most of us would reach for the doughnut when things get difficult.  
    Then again, if there's no way to avoid an obstruction you're forced unconditionally to figure out a way around it.
    For sure I'm getting esoteric now!  Philosophical reductionist navel gazing.  But I do believe all this digital production is a double edged sword.  Weirdly, the ease of digital production can potentially diminish the quality of a film.  If for no other reason than it requires less production effort to attain similar IQ and less concentration/skill from the crew.  (normally - most of the time - that's freakin' awesome, actually; more for less)  
    Surely making things harder to do would seem counter intuitive, but depending on one's creative desires... well, it just might not be.  
    I haven't shot a production on film for at least 3 years, but my colleague and I are doing s16 for a new documentary with various mixed media.  Why?  For all of the reasons listed in this thread.
  6. Like
    Xiong reacted to Joedal in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    Was the making of 'The tree of life' or 'The new world' all planned by Lubezki and Malick? Was the butterfly landing on Jessica Chastaing's hand planned? Does the Joker really looks like a guy with a plan? Was '2001' emotionaly warm or scientificaly and cold as space movie. Are the actual movies (Avengers like..) artistic and unplanned like 'Dancer In the dark' thanks to digital? Nolan is known to keep the filming way all within the budget, with a relatively small crew, and 'Interstellar' was finished weeks before the original schedule, thanks to Nolan organisation. I was deep into that one and the only question that comes to my mind was that i liked watching it, and luckly on Imax screen, thanks to the 4K digital projector next to my home. You make the point for a lot of things in your article, but for the cold vs warm(?) - plan vs unplanned - superior vs inferior - more dynamique range vs less parts, this was an heartbreaking article i've just read.
  7. Like
    Xiong got a reaction from Ed_David in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    ​The above comment is thee one, you can close the thread now.
     
    As a lover of movies that was raised on movies shot on film, I can tell. I can see the blown highlights of day scenes, I can see the cropped black bars that "emulates" anamorphic 35mm minus what makes it so magical along with the fake lens flare plugin that's put on top of every shot. The grain with film and the movement of it, all I have to do is point to Michael Mann's latest movie Black Hat. Go download the trailer, its there, the ghosting images of a digital sensor. Film improves movies of all like, just look at low budget B movies from the 70s and 80s, they carry a charm with them and character. Look at low budget B movies of today and it does not have lasting value cinematically say for a few exceptions.
    Not to come off too strong Andrew, but your distaste for film in this article is quite absurd, I had to balance it out. Digital is great, I don't doubt the benefits but it isn't film and that's OK. With the coming of time it will just be more prevalent in Hollywood with everything going digital, even the sets and props. With the rise of the independent digital movies(which is a good thing and a bad) its going to take some real effort to find the best among the mediocre, the loss of restriction is a good along with the bad. Then again that usually comes with better film makers out weighing the lesser, its just going to be hard for them to stand out among the sea of creators filming with their iphones in this youtube centric world of not being able to focus more then a few minutes on content. Along with the entries of short films on vimeo that don't scratch the itch that is film storytelling expression with their shallow depth of field and handheld shots because putting the camera on a tripod is "too old fashion" and everything must feel kinetic like the Bourne series right next to the sea of test videos for camera gear, almost outweighing films on that site... I'm ranting now so best to stop.
  8. Like
    Xiong reacted to Cinegain in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    How do you shave? Do you do it oldschool? With a brush and a bit of soap? An actual fancy bladed razor like back in the day or at a barber? Do you do multiple passes? Listen to a bit of jazz music in the background, taking your time? Dry up with a nice warm towel and finish with a splash of after shave with a slight alcohol burn? Does the routine comfort you? Does it clear your head? Does it keep you focussed? Did your years of shaving like that give you skills, making you hit that perfect clean shave everytime, without any skin irritation or cuts?
    It might take a bit longer, but there's something familiar, something comforting, something true and perhaps even romantic, about shaving like that.
    You could argue that it's quicker to take an electric shaver and go at it. Facing that blinking LED telling you the battery is out of juice... hairs clogging the apparatus, the aggravating noise. There's hardly any comfort in that, nor is it romantic. But it gets the job done, probably quicker and just as effective...
    What I mean is... maybe people just feel more comfortable shooting film, not even so much for the result, but because of the process. Because it feels right for them to do it that way and because of that they're able to give it their best. And who's to say which is better? I think it's a cool thing film is still around. Not that I would use it myself, but it's craftmanship... it's skill... and I'm just glad that there's people willing to keep that alive.
  9. Like
    Xiong reacted to Patrick in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    I'm an old salt. I've worked in film most of my professional life, primarily in labs (gigantic and small) , post-production and editorial. The past fifteen years, I've been in film restoration. I have literally seen and handled hundreds of millions of feet of film in my life, dating from the early 1900's to, well, negs shot just a couple of years ago.
    In my work, we use traditional photochemical and digital technologies hand-in-hand. There are things digital can't possibly achieve, and things traditional photochemical processes choke on that digital wins as undisputed champ. And I LOVE my digital tech. I'm no luddite.
    In the end, though, I feel posts like this one (and on other blogs) re: the film issue are an exercise akin to arguing how many angels can dance on a saltine cracker. Or, to put it more directly, "You can't argue taste." It's a tool in the arsenal, just like why someone would shoot video with an 8-bit codec at 720P. Because they can/need to/like to. Right tool for the job. Everything else is academic. If YOU, the media creator, make the format choice that you believe is correct from an aesthetic, technical and budgetary standpoint, so be it. You are the artist. If it is to be 4K HFR 3D, great, if you want VHS, okay. If you want film, rock on.
    As to the dated, anachronistic aspects of the film medium, I agree it can be frustrating, unwieldy and time-consuming. I also happen to think performing live music with a band is a pain in the butt just for the sheer aggravation of moving a truckload of instruments, cabling, amps, etc. around, setting up, tearing down, but I would never advocate trashing it all for a keyboard and sampler just because it is cheaper, more convenient and "is just as good."
    Just one man's opinion...
  10. Like
    Xiong reacted to dbp in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    I've never specifically worked with film or done comparisons to digital, but here's the impression I get from reading posts by those who have.
    Digital has certainly caught up in terms of resolution. It appears to be caught up, or at least very close, in terms of dynamic range. A long time Achilles heel of video.
    Where I think digital might still fall behind is the richness of color and the color science itself. The "mojo", if you will.
    Which is why specs and charts never tell the whole story. 
    Not saying I agree with it because I don't really know, but I do wonder if film is still king in this regard? Anyone who worked with it want to chime in?
  11. Like
    Xiong reacted to Mike Cha in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    Long time lurker. A post that made me finally want to create a user name.
    I'm all for digital and the freedom it brings to all film makers.  But I recently had a discussion with a colorist about this subject and he (proponent of film) said something that made me think about my thoughts on digital/film: 'If you didn't have to worry about budget, would you choose film or digital?'
    I'd have to say at this point, I'd probably choose film (and only to shoot, not for projection.) But those days are definitely numbered.
  12. Like
    Xiong reacted to Willy Busfield in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    The only person being elitist is you, by thinking the medium they are choosing to use isn't good enough.
  13. Like
    Xiong reacted to odie in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    http://vimeo.com/83774924    here's a director dp working with (super cheap) super 8mm  (i support the artist and whatever choice he or she makes)
     
    for me kodak film...watching first dailies...well it was love at first sight...the unexplainable...
     
    for practical reasons use both digital and film keep them both competitive and evolving
  14. Like
    Xiong reacted to Jimmy in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    Your argument seems to be that there is no difference.... in which case, why care if something is shot on film or digital?
    It's not your money or time.
  15. Like
    Xiong reacted to Jimmy in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    You realise that film gets digitized right? You can stretch that image any which way you want.
    Each film stock is just another "sensor", at the end of the day.. Just an analogue one with a look that some people think is right for them. Choice is good.
  16. Like
    Xiong reacted to Willy Busfield in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    Using film can give an artist something to react to.  Something tangible and predetermined in look and feel.  If that feeling benefits the filmmaker then who cares if they use it. Skin-tones and dynamic range hold a very subjective importance.  The artist feeling inspired and reactionary has more value and film can force that value with certain filmmakers.  
    Christopher Nolan's films feel cold because of Christopher Nolan, not because he's shooting film.  He has the best of the best loading and cleaning his cameras, it doesn't take any more time or thought on his part.  
    I hope film never goes away.  Diversity and character in our tools as filmmakers is a beautiful thing that is being watered down by the ease with which technically pristine images can be captured.  
     
  17. Like
    Xiong reacted to odie in Kodak celluloid film saved by studios - oh and by the way - what's the point?   
    since I'm born in '91 I have no emotional attachment to kodak...but after working with it...well there is a magic to it....professionally in LA shows like BREAKING BAD..TRUE DETECTIVE..BOARDWALK EMPIRE..are amazing visually...pick the right medium for the right job...(for me ..it's when you have actors..models...high end commercials...skin tones are important) (try it when you can it is amazing)
    no reason to wish the death of a great medium..which built the industry 
  18. Like
    Xiong reacted to jase in EOSHD’s top 5 cameras of the year 2014   
    It feels like bashing Andrew is a new sport? He is controversial for sure, but guys... it are his top cameras of the year 2014? Why are people arguing over this nonsense when this is subjective thing? If Andrew states that the 1DC is his camera of the year it his genuine thing to do so - you dont have to agree. Just build your own top list.
  19. Like
    Xiong reacted to jcs in Canon blocking Magic Lantern on latest 5D Mark III bodies   
    While potentially unfortunate, it's pretty simple folks. If Canon releases a crappy 5D4, vote with your wallet and don't buy it. It's one of the reasons I spend so much time learning how to make the GH4 and A7S work well. If we collectively can help each other figure out how to make skin tones, for example, competitive using the GH4 and A7S, the 5D4 becomes less relevant. While I hope that Canon releases a decent 5D4 (for video), if they don't we're not blocked as there are other great options out there.
    The mass market is where the big money is, so a great 5D4 will make them the most money. Their analytics may show that the 5D4's primary market is for stills, and that they'll lose money from the much smaller professional market if they provide all the features video/filmmakers are looking for in the 5D4. Everyone at all levels is sensitive to cost. We're living in a world of "good enough", especially for video/film production. The GH4, A7S, D750/810, etc. are all good enough. Competition and sharing our knowledge how to get the most from our gear will offset any reliance on any one camera manufacturer.
  20. Like
    Xiong reacted to andy lee in Does Cinema EOS mark the end of high spec Canon DSLR video?   
    Canon are just good enough for the 'masses' - we are specialist camera nerds on this forum and have found all the better alternatives to Canon and how to squeeze every last drop out of them quality wise.
     
    People still walk into camera stores and online retailers and just buy a Canon because it has the brand reputation and changing ' the masses' to even think Panasonic or Sony let alone Samsung will still take time.
     
    We are all believers - the masses have to still follow us!
     
    There are still alot of Canon users on here who will not touch a mirrorless camera with an evf.
  21. Like
    Xiong reacted to drokeby in Interview with Panasonic - raw HDMI output may be coming to future GH4 firmware plus anamorphic aspect ratios in firmware V2.0   
    It would be a nice addition for Panasonic to implement a Cinemascope aspect ratio right in camera using as much of the width of the sensor as possible. It is nice to have 2880 vertical resolution for anamorphic but the horizontal resolution suffers. (Not to deny the value of the special look of anamorphic lenses)
     
    The sensor is 4608 pixels wide. 4608 / 2.35 is just over 1960. 4608 x 1960 is a few more pixels than 3840 x 2160 (9,031,680 versus 8,294,400) and just a bit larger than 4096x2160 (8,847,360 total pixels). 
     
    One would assume that they could do 4608 x 1960 at 24 fps at least. I would love to have that frame width!
     
    Or they could do 4512 x 1920 (8,663,040) or stick to their current pixel count at 4414 × 1878 (8,289,492) for 30 fps.
     
    David
  22. Like
    Xiong reacted to Xavier Plagaro Mussard in Interview with Panasonic - raw HDMI output may be coming to future GH4 firmware plus anamorphic aspect ratios in firmware V2.0   
    Wow, Panasonic really wants my money!!! It's so positive not only from a features/price ratio, but from the fact that they are finally listening what people wants!!!!!!!  :P  :lol:  :D  ;)
     
    I had the LX100 in my radar, but this could change everything!!!
  23. Like
    Xiong reacted to Andrew Reid in Canon 7D Mark II video specs vs the enthusiast DSLR competition (GH4, A7S, 5D3)   
    Maybe on the Mark 4.
     

  24. Like
    Xiong reacted to Matthew Walsh in Sony to officially reveal 4K XDCAM 'FS700-successor' on 12th September   
    Highly unlikely. Super35 is "full frame" for cinema, and using a larger sensor could alienate part of their customer base. I think saying "almost all" users are putting L glass on them is a bit off base as well. I've seen (and used) a lot of EF glass on FS700s (though only some was L, and most of the time it's been Zeiss CP.2s or Canon CN-Es), but I've seen nearly as many lower end users being fine with E glass, and higher end users adapting PL glass.
     
    Most cine lenses are designed for S35 sensors. Full frame is a cool look, but it's not the standard - and there's already an A7S for that.
     
     
    It'll be interesting to see what they do with this camera. There's a lot more high quality competition in the marketplace than there was when the FS700 came out. Hopefully they have a few tricks up their sleeve. 
  25. Like
    Xiong reacted to Bob Wall in Sony F5 hack unlocks 4K XAVC recording   
    Philip says that he's sure it would be shut down in the next firmware update...but wouldn't that firmware update have to offer something useful to make people apply it?  If I was an f5 owner, I'd be sitting there thinking that this hack, with current firmware was extremely valuable - to make me apply a new version, that new version would have to offer something at least as valuable.  Otherwise I'd stay on the same firmware forever - because the camera works perfectly well right now. 
×
×
  • Create New...