Ernesto Mantaras

When you consider how films are actually shot, extreme shallow depth of field and fast wide angle are gimmicks. I actually am starting to find too much bokeh distracting. It was nice to have when the 5D Mark II came out 3 years ago. We've moved on.

Besides the sensor in the Blackmagic is hardly what you'd call small chip.

better to say RIP extreme shallow DOF ...
always used as a crutch by bad and lazy DPs ...

Let me quote those last words:

[quote name='Coppola']

[font=Helvetica][size=3]... for once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever and it will become an art form.[/size][/font]
[/quote]

He is not talking about any technical issue. What he predicted became reality at once. With Super 8 cameras and later home video. There were artists, driven by the need to express themselves, who took these simple, so called 'unprofessional' means without glancing at what 'the industry' did with their millions.

To an artist, the comparison of consumer cameras to professional cameras is of little interest. [i]Ars gratia artis[/i] (pompous MGM phrase). A real indie doesn't need comparison. If I have to say something, I don't care about if it meets technical specs. If all I want to do is identify myself with the achievements of others, I am pretentious:


[quote name='Coppola']

[font=Helvetica][size=3]Nothing is so terrible as a pretentious movie[/size][/font]
[/quote]

BTW: Great film, I prefer the original cut. One good argument for the use of true anamorphic lenses:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/technical

You see the typical lens flares and the funny looking focus transitions very often. What you also see in the specs: Shot in 35 mm, but published in 70 mm. Nobody ever complained about inappropriately low resolution ...

https://vimeo.com/45985040

Not sure if you guys have seen this, but it's pretty awesome. The last quote from Coppola was especially relevant!

Ah I see the point. It's 2/3 fstop indeed.

Fuji X to M43 is impossible, because the flange distance from the Fuji X mount is shorter than M43.
Samsung NX is 25.50 mm vs 19.25 mm for M43. So it in theory it should be possible with an adapter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
Also confirmed here: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lensmount/lensmount.html

Anyway, i can't find such an adapter either, except for a rumor from 2010..
http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-novoflex-ready-to-launch-a-new-nx-to-mft-adapter/

There is a Samyang (same manufacturer) 7,5mm with mft mount!
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/714-samyang7535

It doesn't bother me. Nobody with any experience on a Gh2 would cater to its weaknesses in a real world shoot like the Empirical test. I think they just went for the cleanest image with a nice sheen on it, and that's fine. It has kind of an immediately gratifying characteristic... But by no means would i give it the "film look" stamp. Seriously, an old fast takumar for about a hundred bucks and the right grading could've taken this in a totally different direction. You can't stick a razor lens like the Fujinon in front of a Gh2 with a 150mb patch and expect it to not perform surgery. You almost have to throw some dirt on it to give it some soul... But that's cool because it's cheaper. I've seen plenty of footage that looked filmic. Granted, I can't film an indoor scene on a bright sunny day and get all manner of what's going on out the window as well as inside. But i've seen plenty of Films shot on actual FILM that blow out windows also.

Each sensor has its own character. A lot of these cameras throw a "milky" characteristic on skin that drives me nuts... You too $70,000 Alexa...

But in this case this is not being a gearhead. I'm over stating stuff because I can't believe the indifference so many people have to something so evident and bad looking. This is purely based on what I saw when watching a music video: an image that hit me in the face because of its uncommon artifacts.
I've shot short films and movies for 7 years, and I've drawn and painted my whole life. I live through images. I do VFX all the time. Animation. I have a trained eye. And I believe Philip does too, and he probably has far better equipment than I do. So how come he denies such an obvious shortcoming (I have to say that softness is a lot more filmic than jagged edges and pixelated details, really...)? It can be better in every other aspect, but this single one, considering this is an HD camera intended for film production, is a really bad one.

And this is the main point: don't repeat someone's words as if they were the most qualifed truth, the undeniable opinion on what's good just because of his experience. Judge for yourself. Do you like the image that camera produces? Do you believe it's worth its price? That's great. But do it because you think it's so, not because a celebrity cinematographer says it is.

I saw what comes out of the camera and think it's not up to par with what he's claims, if even for one single aspect of the image. I'm not afraid to question Philip for being experienced. I trust my experience, my work and my sensitivity.

This is what I'm trying to say.

NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL.
[url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/17754/502da48f81691_1DXvsC300_Grid.png[/img]


NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL.
[url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url]

I can't believe that nobody wonders about the blockiness of the 1DX video (as more detailed as it may be compared to the 5D3). Nobody brings it up, I've even read people praising how good the 1DX and the C300 cut together. I don't mean to bash Philip Bloom's work. I've been following him for years and I like the images he captured for this video. I'm just talking about the 1DX acquisition: it's terrible for a 6,500 dollar camera! Colors and dynamic range aside, it looks like old HDV! This goes beyond it being equal to a lowered priced camera, I think this kind of quality is unacceptable in those terms.
And I know I'm analyzing compressed footage, but if that blockiness of the 1DX shots was added by the compression, why isn't it present in the C300 footage from the very same video? And I see that pixelated image in all of the other test footage shown here (it's less evident in the ships footage, though).
Just to add to my point I added snapshots from a compressed video I have uploaded in YouTube (conditions for every shot shown here are completely different, but just look at how each camera captures the images). It's not relevant by itself, just a personal test, but here's the link if you want to check it.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GPd3cXxCcI[/media]

Please, am I all alone in this?

Forget the hack, you are no longer going to need it.

Cannot say any more.

Photokina... I will be there!!

down @ red hq

jim j

stacey,stacy is it is it true what i heard over the inter web about the delays delays you know the de lays.

stacy
what did you here big fella.

jim j
about those damned fools fools.
you know those crazy aussie cats that made that plastic magic toy de layed cinema camra.

stacy
sure back to bondi beach and back to the drawing board for those kangaroo rustlers.
a lickle issue involving data through put overload resulting in coronal mass ejection sensor melt.
the negative temperature coefficient that will not allow current to flow to kryptonic cryogenic cooling heat sink.
thereby latching and interrupting the device into a tripped position until the device is either manually reset or explodes.
that thing.

jim j
my head hurts and my rubber ducky is throbbing can you give me some boss man relief

The dissent of this camera from the so-called "established" is begining already. I was just talking to someone the other day about new cameras and I brought up the BMDCC, which was immediatley shot down with... "there's just no way a $3000 camera is going to look good". I was blown away. No thought into the technology. No thought about RAW or 12-bit color. Just "it can't look good because it's only $3000". I tried my best to explain to them that technology is technology... and the only reason that something like the Alexa sells for $70,000 is because Arri can get away with it. It was no use in the end. But seriously, there is absolutly no reason that this camera will not look as good as the Alexa in most situations. The ignorance and gulibility of these aspiring cinematographers and directors is amazing...


Oh anyways, my point is Andrew, is that you should start a poll or "top-ten" list of the new "excuses" to not use the BMDCC. ;)

My running list so far is:

-Form factor
[i]"worrying about how to hold the camera will distract from framing and lighting"[/i]... or some other bullshit that makes no sense at all.

-Size
[i]"it's too small and the crew won't take the shoot seriously" [/i]
This is the tell-tale statment of either the shittiest film-makers on the planet, or closet gear-whores. If you hear someone say this, there is a 100% chance that thier films will always be absolute garbage with no hope of ever improving. Avoid working with, contact, or even talking, with these people. Some of thier aneurysm-inducing logic may seep into you head and poison you. It's just not worth it.

-Price
"it's not expensive enought to be professional"
Many roads lead to this level of stupidity. But it is most likely is that these people have just recentley worked thier first hollywood AC job after film school and are currently undergoing "professional" indoctrination. In 2 years time, the only acceptable shooting formats to them will be 35mm film, or Arri's next offering.

-Too much dynamic range
"detailed-shadow low-contrast grades are sooo 2012... "professionals" prefer crushed blacks)
These people are the same who are now claiming that shallow-DOF is amature. Thier logic is, that whatever features afforable cameras currentley have, must not be "professional". It goes without saying, that these people experiance extrodinary cognative dissonace and pain, and (since cameras like the Alexa and Red also have high-dynamic range) thier cognative processes are constantly being interupted by logic-wrenches. These people are usually the disgruntled camera-op's on set who you'll find yelling at the PA's and production comapny for only providing 32" set monitors.

-ISO
[i]"If it doesn't go up to ISO 45,000 like the 5DIII, it isn't professional"[/i]
Just Canon fanboys. These r-tards are the ones that can actually justfity buing a C300 over a Epic. There is no logic here. Just brain-washed lemmings. The big manufacturers love these guys.

-RAW
yes, I belive that "the established" will even take stabbs at RAW with asinine statments like, "RAW is for amatures that can't expose on set" or "RAW gives you TOO many options, and confuses the "clients""

That's all I can think of for now... I'm sure there will be many more to come.

Yes because 12 minute per reel was unacceptable in Hollywood for the last 60 years :rolleyes:

yes when I used to shoot film you would have to plan the shot around how much unexposed film you had left !
and you ended up with loads of cans of short ends at the end of the shoot ! I have a garage full of them rotting away !
so digital is a luxury so many people are unaware of and take for granted!!
Don't forget you where stuck with one ASA film speed at a time - if you had say 5274 Vison 200T in the camera you couldn't just switch ISO like we do now on each scene!

KahL please meet Facts.

The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade.

I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others.

Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting.

Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example.

TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless...

I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon.

I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind.

http://vimeo.com/45596420

What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied.

We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!