AaronChicago

3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Also not really convinced by the director - his films are up & down quality-wise, but he appears to be a good lap dog.

Keep in mind that Villeneuve isn't a writer on any of his big films. The only problems I've had with some of his recent films are story related.  I think he's a super talented director.

2 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Yes the book is far better & slightly different.

The one thing that the new trailer has completely overlooked is that the original film always had the question of whether Deckard was an android at its core (depending on which version you watch, obviously) & by having an ageing Harrison Ford, that question has now been answered. But what i did notice is that they have basically pushed that question onto Gosling's character - so yet again Hollywood has rehashed the same story into a more updated version, which will be unsatisfying. Don't mess with the classics, as dissappointment will be the only result!

Seen 2 films at the cinema recently: Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 & The Handmaiden. One was a huge waste of time, energy & money - also too long at 2h16min (Baby Groot couldn't save it). The other is almost certainly the best film that i'll see this year, by one of the most talented directors around.

I really think people need to forget Hollywood rubbish (they're never going to change & will regurgitate everything in a worse wrapper) & learn to embrace reading subtitles, because the best cinema isn't American or even in English!

They said that Goseling isn't a replicant in an interview and that it won't be the core of this film. Although you're right about Deckard aging. That answers that unless they reference aging components.

Haha. I love Red Letter Media.

17 minutes ago, Fritz Pierre said:

I thought Arrival suffered from lack of light...I liked the film (love Amy Adams) though it was hard to see anything...Deakins will help with that. I'm actually disappointed that Ridley Scott did not make this....and the anamorphics used in the first definitely made the constant rain and atmosphere and floating billboards and decay seem suffocating... there's so much time since the original (which was not well received when released but attained cult status after the fact) that I'm not turned off by the idea of the sequel...in fact the exact opposite...I'm glad they made it...but the Cinematography....Design....Script....every aspect of the original will be a tough act for any filmmaker to follow...mixed feelings about the trailer...but as the studio making it already knows, this will definitely be one to see in a movie theatre...

That was Bradford Young who has a really dark style. I kinda liked it for Arrival. Usually those types of movies are bright and flashy.

Definitely renting the Varicam LT next time I have a night shoot. The UM46K is okay with fast lenses but sometimes I really wanna push to ISO 3200 or 5000.

3 minutes ago, silvertonesx24 said:

I'm definitely stoked for the cinematography for sure

I read somewhere that the younger generation of today will have far fewer cultural properties to define their name by (or for filmmakers 30 years from now to exploit). Certainly seems to be the case. What will Hollywood be doing in 2035, rebooting Spiderman for the 17th time?

Likely they will face a crisis like musicians do- when you're competing for ears today, you're not only competing with your contemporaries but with the entire historical back catalog of other artists. The 18-29 exploitable population gets younger and smaller and more distracted.

Yeah music has just gone completely off the rails IMO. I'm thinking the future of visual story telling is in television. Cinema will still be around but it'll be more of a spectacle.

On that note - I think BR2049 will be memorable even though it's a sequel. The last 2 films Villeneuve made are still standouts in my mind from the past 2 years: Sicario, and Arrival.

1 minute ago, silvertonesx24 said:

Same first thought as I watched this trailer as well. I'd be so much more excited for this, if it were just original IP

Big-budget sci-fi that's at least trying to be original and not derived, rebooted, sourced, or otherwise copied from something else- Interstellar, Inception, and ???

I love original too. There are some properties where I get nervous at announcement such as Star Wars Ep VII. I had the same cringe moment at Blade Runner sequel announcement. After seeing the team assembled (Denis Villeneuve is in my top 3 current filmmakers) and now seeing the trailer I'm super stoked.

8 hours ago, Christina Ava said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ

Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film

What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.

How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.

Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.

The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!

Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..

my humble opinion..

I'm not so sure that this is all color grade. Little is known about the production thus far but Deakins is always adamant about shooting as much "in camera." Colored lighting is gaining a lot of popularity, especially with the advanced LED's and color control. Obviously the desert shots are over saturated to orange, but I think everything else might be motivated by existing lights in a scene. At the very least motivated by projector walls. Rogue One lit most of their space battles with giant projector walls displaying the space battle atmosphere. It looks natural, and less computer generated. I'm sure that Denis had a big influence on color as well. He might not have wanted natural skin tones running throughout. That's more of a style choice.

38 minutes ago, KrisAK said:

Nice writeup.

I probably shouldn't take the bait, but 6-10-21 sound biblical:

Ephesians 6:10-21 (Armour of God):

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Or not.

Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to find little subtle references everywhere. I'm guessing in the movie it'll be a specific date, which is 2 years after the original Blade Runner took place.

This looks amazing. I think Denis can add a new depth to Blade Runner that didn't exist. The visuals are a win - that's a given.

@hyalinejim Great job with making the Panasonic reds less orange and ACTUAL red. Here is a shot where the tubes were solid red, the poker table was red, and the guy's shirt was red/black. It was looking a bit orange naturally till I added your LUT.

9 hours ago, deezid said:

@AaronChicago
Can I set the video to public so it may help other potential buyers?

Sure.

@Emanuel @deezid I didn't change anything on NR so I'm guessing whatever is standard. I still need to mess with that. It's possible that the ProRes conversion did something funky, but I used the original GH5 file in the Vimeo clip. Here is the original file straight from the camera: https://www.dropbox.com/s/51cdjfj495nivdn/P1000088.MOV?dl=0

@hyalinejim that cover screenshot on Vimeo is on point! That shot itself is epic.

@deezid what kind of filtering where you using for motion cadence?

With travel, I would bid on the full job at one price, and make a note that says excluding travel fees which are paid by the client.

The Varicam sensor crushes the C100/FS7/FS5's. $6500 is a great price. They'd have to cripple something in order to not cannibalize the Varicam LT.

If you keep your camera locked off it should be fairly simple. If you're in a natural light situation make sure you film both takes within a few minutes of each other. Get a stand-in that looks similar to the talent to act out scenes for eyeline. Also if you need to do over the shoulder shots it helps to have a stand in that looks like your talent (back of their head, shoulder area).

1 hour ago, Hanriverprod said:

43rumors claims a tip said this was the specs (ft3):

S35 sensor (from the Varicam LT)
EF-mount
14+ stops of DR
4k/1080p 10-bit 4:2:2 recording
Possible Prores recording
Two XLR inputs
SDI/HDMI output
Dual SDXC slots
Detachable sidegrip and top handle
Price: $6500

http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-are-those-the-new-panasonic-camcorder-specs/#disqus_thread

 

That would be great. Although what would separate it from the Varicam LT other than dual ISO? It would be half the price.

10 minutes ago, deezid said:

That's what I use as well. Damn, that really sucks, since my GH4 looks quite clean with it.

The UM Pro has better debayering and downscaling than the UM 4.6k. Less artifacts, not by much though.

UM PRO


UM 4.6k

GH5 (eww, reminds me of the hair actually)

Just to be clear I didn't have the pro mist filter on the comparison.

32 minutes ago, deezid said:

So the example posted here from the GH5 was with sharpening at -5 or 0?
It looks terrible to me, especially on her hair and skin.

The 4.6k Ursa is lightyears ahead. The Ursa Mini Pro is supposed to be way better than the original Ursa 4.6k even!

-5. I normally use a black pro mist 1/4 to help take the edge off.

The UM Pro has the same sensor as the 4.6K so from what I understand its the same image, just enhanced features.

Masters Of None is shooting on the Varicam 35.

1 hour ago, Inazuma said:

@AaronChicago Thanks for the downloads of the ungraded files. They're nice to work with and I'm having no problems using them with Premiere Pro on Windows - albeit with one curiosity. The colour shifts when I play the videos in the timeline!

Again I must say the GH5 is comparing quite well. I do wonder if the light could have avoided being blown out if you'd underexposed a stop.

Very possible. The GH5 handles shadows better than the GH4 from what I've seen so far.

1 hour ago, mjfan said:

@AaronChicago exactly which lights do you own? I'm looking to get some Aputure and Quasar lights. Thanks!

I have Aputure LS1s, and COB120t.

Quasar Science: two 4' 5600K tubes, and two 4' 3000K tubes.

Other than those I use an Arri 650, and a 6 x 6 diffusion screen.

The problem that I ran into, as well as Kholi, is that you can make adjustments to match the UM46K for her (the actress) but some of the green/yellow stuff isn't possible to fix with one overall LUT. I tend to worry less about skin tones with a LUT b/c the face can be keyed or masked and adjusted. For Kholi's I was push her skin more toward magenta with a little more saturation.