Jump to content

richg101

Members
  • Content Count

    1,828
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by richg101

  1. I saw the movie on Friday.  visually one of the best films I have seen.  I'd seen comments from others who said they couldn;t tell the difference between shots, but watching the movie is was very obvious when they were shooting 65mm.  in image quality terms the digital projection of The Revenant smashed Hateful Eight (70mm film projection).  Some of the vistas were incredible.  I felt as far as an entertaining movie - I'm not looking forward to watching it again for it's entertainment value.  I started hoping it would reach the end about 40mins before it actually did.  And the cg on the bear scene was horrific.  not up to the standards required for such a film. 

  2. They've got to update their entire infrastructure from compatible switchers to displays, cameras, computers and hard drive space that can handle it all.

    I could've give you any numbers but it is indeed a very costly upgrade for broadcasters

    even if it only cost £100 to upgrade all their gear to permit broadcast of 4k they wouldn;t bother since it's a lot easier to send out 720p and palm off all the mugs who bought 4k tv's to watch the crap the said broadcasters actually broadcast.  I don;t want to watch commercial television in any resolution, least of all in 4k.  4k footage of staged terrorist attacks to justify going to war.  advertisments for consumer stuff, singing and dancing competitions and soap operas.  vile.  

  3. IMO 1980's Olympus, Canon and Nikon lenses are up the the standard of the Zeiss Contax's.  A Olympus 24mm/2, 35mm/2 and 50mm/1.8 can be had for the same price as a single zeiss 28mm/2 and perform just was well. IMO.  the 35mm/2 is a very very good value lens.  i think adapted to EOS mount with cheap adaptors and with a speed booster 0.64x these will be a wonderful lens set for gh4

  4. Nice spot Enny

    I wish the Micro Cinema Camera had a form factor similar, with screen... having to add a big one defies the point really doesn't it?

    I just wish some footage from the illusive camera would show its face!  It seems to be a figment of the black magic marketing teams imagination - it's almost a year since they announced it and nothing to be seen!  I want to see the impact on dr and sensitivity when switched to global shutter mode before i think about putting down a pre order!

  5. Personally I'd always go for the contax versions.  Made in DE or Japan.  The ZE/ZF lenses suffer from modernisation of manufacturing processes - open one up and there aint brass mechanical parts in a ZE.  I expect the glass will also not be German / Japanese.

     

    IMO the 28mm/2 is one of the most over rated lenses ever.  way too expensive for what it actually does.  28mm lenses I find boring in general, and paying premium for an f2 where dof is so deep anyway it'd a waste of big bucks - particularly since at f2 it looks like crap.  I'd sooner get a contax 25mm/2.8 and a 35mm/2.8 for the same price as the single 28mm.  Or plump for the 35/1.4 for the extra £100.  Now THAT IS A LENS 

     

    On the flip side I think all of the faster zeiss dslr lenses should be avoided.  You pay a premium for the bigger apertures but when used wide open or even 2 stops closed they really fringe in a nasty way.    

     

     

  6. My list (currently).

    1. Hateful 8

    2. Kill Bill 1

    3. Death Proof

    4. Jackie Brown

    5. Pulp Fiction

    6. Inglorious Basterds

    7. Kill Bill 2

    8. Reservoar Dogs

    (Django has been sitting in its Bluray box on my shelf since release. Dont know why I havent seen it yet.)

     

    Interesting preference list.  I agree that Death Proof is certainly up there as one of my faves.  Out of curiosity, why do you place Hateful Eight as number 1?   

  7. Bad movie, looked great.

    Is it true most of it was not Alexa 65 and that was only used for a few establishing shots? The lens flares don't look like Summilux lens flares and I think that was their S35 set... to me most of the wide angle coverage and almost everything but some of the tighter shots and night time work looked like older rehoused hasselblads.

    Very impressive. If it is merely open gate 3.2k Alexa they really exposed and graded well, it looked better to me than that.

    I expect they were using the older System65 hasselblad lenses - and I expect most future productions using the alexa65 will also since the modern hasselblads that the new Arri65mm lenses are based on suck.  Most of the newer hasselblad lenses don't cope with full frame medium format digital backs and will also be pushed beyond their capabilities on the alexa 65 when using the full sensor width.  From the trailers I;ve seen it looks like they used the 50/2.8 and 40mm/4 a great deal.  I know that dof rolloff of these like the back of my hand.

     

     

     

  8. I'm shooting on a Kowa 8Z and am currently using a Helios 44-2 58 F2 as a taking lens.  I've found it surprisingly hard to get flares that resemble the classic anamorphic streaky look..  I've only really taken it out on one shoot, but I've had a play around with is quite a bit and a mate mentioned that the taking lenses will (obviously) influence the shot looks, but I wondered if changing the taking lens would change the flare characteristics substantially?   

    Like I say, I've only taken it out once and I was pointing it right into the light most of the time (video below), although obviously not on the silly grade time lapses.  

    I've been hunting around on ebay and am considering the following, but can anyone tell me how much difference they're going to make, or show me some footage from a similar set-up?  I'm not unhappy with the Helios, and perhaps it's not flaring because of LED lights in squares, instead of one focussed light source...

    Potential Lenses:

    Rokkor 58 1.2 or 1.4

    Jupiter 9 85 F2

    Carl Zeiss Jenna 80 F2.8

    Reckon these are worth the investment, or will it make no difference?

    From watching your video it appears that your taking lens might be flaring up too much and actually masking the effects from the Kowa.  I'd be tempted to suggest looking for a optically perfect helios 44-3. like this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-MC-HELIOS-44-3-2-58-58mm-f-2-M42-Vintage-Soviet-SLR-USSR-Lens-s-n-9059248-/172052522469?hash=item280f2125e5:g:Jb4AAOSwLN5WiSiW 

    these are multi coated.  most are green in their coatings but don't tend to show this in the flaring and the overall contrast from this version will compliment your kowa. and since it won;t flare up as much as your current helios 44-2 you'll seem more of what the kowa is adding to the party.  a pair of clean uv filters positioned up front as well as between the kowa and the taking lens will also help to promote more streaks from the kowa.

    finally, be sure to clean your lenses thoroughly with some alcohol based lens cleaner.  the cleaner the optical faces the more obvious the flares will be from the kowa. 

     

     

  9. I thought I'd start a topic relating to The Hateful Eight.  I'll start with my opinions of the movie...  **I'll aim to not spoil the movie for those yet to view it. But please stop reading if you feel I start going too deep into things**

     

    I watched the 4th screening on the first day of opening in the UK, at Leicester Square Odeon, London. - The only theatre screening in 70mm in the UK!  We were sat close to the optimum position - second row of the Royal Circle, 4 seats from the centre position.  The most expensive seats in the house. It cost me £25 for the ticket, £60 for the return train, and £70 for a bed in the hotel across the road from the theatre.  So to view the movie I paid a lot of hard earned cash.  I went in after 3 beers so was adequately lubricated and relaxed.

     

    Plot - Basic and simple.  But I didn't feel it lacked anything in the way of entertainment.  

    Characters - Very Very good indeed.  Every character was loveable (in a QT character type of way).  Each were given superb amounts of great dialogue.  The dialogue felt very theatrical.  The dark humour and dialogue drove the movie for the duration of the 3hours and I didn;t for one second start wondering when the movie would end.  The Goggins/Jackson building of friendship and trust throughout the movie stole the show for me.  

    Aesthetic - Stunning.  IMO I felt that the overall resolution was somewhat limited.  It certainly felt as if the Panavision lenses weren't quite sharp enough to fully take advantage of the 65mm format.  I've seen 2.8k Alexa acquired movies projected digitally that felt higher resolution and more refined.  I felt the 65mm non anamorphic imagery from 'The Master', 'Interstellar' and '2001' totally outdoes the overall image from The Hateful Eight.  HOWEVER! - in no way did the perceived lack of sharpness affect the viewing experience.  if anything I think it added to the feel.  I expect if the film had been shot 65mm spherical and delivered in native 5perf/65mm 2.2:1 the overall image would have looked 'technically' superior.  

    If anything I'd have liked to see a little more variation in the landscapes.  Visially the whole movie felt very much like a homage to John Carpenters 'The Thing'.  The isolation, the bleak and unvarying landscape, the small shooting quarters where most of the film takes place, the characters and the ending too.  The lack of trust between characters and in particular Goggins and Jackson dieing on the bed at the end was very similar to how Childs and MacReady go to sleep in the snow. 

    Music - Ennio Morricone's music was superb - they even used one of the themes from his soundtrack to The Thing -and it felt so right!.  The way only a small amount of Ennio's music was used in a looping fashion felt a bit like Tarrantino had told Ennio that he was going for some type of humorous reference to the way John Carpenter only used limited material from the soundtrack Ennio wrote for The Thing.

    Visual Effects - Practical.  Lifecasts of heads full of pig guts being blown up.  The gore effects were second to none.  

    Dialogue - too much of the N word IMO.  I'd have liked to hear a bit more variation.  I'd have used c**t a few times to break things up a bit.  Goggins' friendly line to Jackson "I'm not dead yet you black bastard" was very funny.    

        

    Comparison to Pulp Fiction - I know it wont have nearly as much rewatching potential as Pulp Fiction does.  My viewing made me come away knowing it was meant to be a theatrical type experience rather than a watch at home type of experience.  Pulp can be viewed on a pc monitor without the overall experience being harmed.

    Comparison to Inglorious Basterds - Better characters but lacks the varied scenery and very very refined lighting of Inglorious.  If anything its a shame Inglorious wasnt shot in Ultra Panavision 70.  I felt budget of The Hateful Eight was consumed by the logistics of 65mm.  The need for way more light, the snowy locations, etc.  Some of the side-on shots of the stage coach going through the snow looked like they cost a fortune, but don't have the impact that some of the scenery from Inglorious has.

    Comparison to Django - About on a par overall.  If I gave Django a 7.8/10 i'd give The Hateful Eight an 8.4.  I bloody love Christopher Waltz, but felt Tim Roth in some way filled the gap playing a role I feel Waltz would have filled very well.  

     

    Intermission - Perfect.  without the intermission the movie would feel too long.  It was a refreshing change to be able to stretch legs, grab a fresh coca cola and talk about the movie.  

     

    Overall - One of the best cinema experiences I've ever had.  On a par with my childhood/teen cinema experience of Jurassic Park, Independence Day and Titanic.

     

     

     

     

     

  10. No joke or typo. Developing isnt hard or expensive. If its Color negative, reversal or B&W doesnt matter. Easy peasy.

    Scanning is trickier for negative.

    Reversal can be done with a DIY solution and a digital camera, very cheap.

    But if this is something you really want to do, a s8  automatic frame by frame scanner is $1000.

    you can scan 35mm at 4k for about £20k with that black magic/cintel scanner  - I know people who spend 20k on cars on finance and every day the car loses £100 of its value.  I expect anyone with a good credit rating could get a business loan and start shooting and scanning 35mm at home.  https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/gb/products/cintel

    I expect now film is on the up someone already working daily as a commercial cinematographer could start shooting film on a konvas 35mm camera for jobs where the look adds to the production value. 

     

     

  11. who on earth would use this kodak thing?

    anyone making films wanting to use film would get something more pro

    with the film and development costs its too pricey for anyone to experiment with

    it involves so much waiting for the film back that no one in the want to see it now world will touch it.

    what is this supposed to be? nostalgi for 50 year olds?

     

    I'll answer each of your points as best i can

     

    1. creative people who want the cheapest access to celluloid for motion picture.  The same type of people who still shoot film (1000000% more expensive than digital), listen to vinyl records (which are 1000% more expensive than itunes and 1000000% more expensive than piracy), and those who drive classic cars instead of modern cars (they break down more often and are less fuel efficient, yet they still do it.  it's called going against the grain. enthusiasm. passion. nostagia

    2. not always.  8mm film shot, developed and scanned well will outperform full hd digital.  if the 8mm format took off the costs will likely be massively cheaper than 16mm or 35mm due to demand driving prices down.  the 8mm film stock has the same colour and highlight rolloff as the film stock used for interstellar, hateful 8, and the master.  if you only need fullhd then 8mm carefully handled will deliver.

    3. it may be too pricey for some, but not everyone.  those who might make the choice to invest in stuff for their art endeavours rather than waste money on big tv's, junkfood and consuming stuff they don;t need tend to spend their money on stuff like this.  

    4. patience is a virtue.  you may not be patient enough to wait for development.  I get impatient too.  but as above - there are people who are patient and they benefit!

    5. maybe.  I like to think when I'm 50 I'll have the budget to invest in stuff like this for my own enjoyment, capturing family, grandchildren, life, etc.  But I know plenty of commercial film makers who will be investing in this little camera for commercial work.  The value in doing so is heightened by the fact that there are those with your opinions who aren't willing to go to the effort or invest in the action of trying something against the grain.    

  12. I started shooting polaroids about 2 years ago.  3200iso b+w and 100iso colour from fuji.  it costs about £1.50 per shot, and within a year the entire supply of film will be exhausted.  .  only 3 out of ten pics are viable to be scanned and shared.  Even then the images get next to no likes on flickr. technically they're weak.  however each image I take on polaroid feels like a real photo.  a physical entity.  I've done a few birthday/wedding jobs where they budget £5 per photo.  They are willing to pay this because the pictures are so much more magical.  technically they're awful but on a human level they are magic.  The effort I went to making a camera that obtains the best from polaroids is pretty mad looking back on it - when you consider how technically limited the format is.  But from the private messages I get asking for a parts list to make the camera below, it's clear film is still important enough for kodak to develop this new 8mm camera.
     

    20661595352_b67b4a4aed_k.jpg

  13. if they made sd cards which were fast and limited to 1gb and stopped you shooting in jpg and reviewing your shots 'in camera', I'd buy some.  36pics from my a7rii in uncompressed raw just about fit into 1gb.    

  14. so Zunov is for consumers and p.o.s. cavision  for pros? Richard, what are you talking;

    well, anyways, keep shooting with this WA nonsense

    As I;ve said before,  share your results from the zunow.  unless we see images that back up your opinions your contributions are worth less than nothing.

  15. If only magic lantern would go the distance and sort out some type of efficient compression of that 14bit raw.  The difference is night and day.  That Canon image looks wonderful in contrast to a rather unpleasant image from the sony.  reminiscent of the difference between 35mm film and mini dv.

     

    Hang on...  scrap that.  Why can't Sony just make a log profile that looks like the one that comes out of the black magic cameras as prores.  

  16. irritatingly not:(  since even if you crop your 3.55:1 unsqueezed image to 2.66:1 you'll be looking at an effective 26mm focal length from the front of the kowa.  or a effective 35-40mm focal length in full frame terms.  the vignette caused by the ff38 will counteract any fov widening the wide angle attachment will provide.

     

    it's worth considering that you;ve already got a pretty damn wide setup if you go to 2.75:1.  if you need any wider it might be worth sourcing a nice wide prime like a flektogon 20mm or even a pentax 15mm/3.5 and cropping.  assuming you went wider than what you already have in anamorphic the dof will becomes so deep you'll loose a lot of the anamorphic aesthetic anyway.  a nice old ultrawide, or even a fish eye 16mm will crop to 2.35-2.75:1 and due to barrel distortion can often look a lot like a wide anamorphic anyway.  - lots of glass surfaces, distortion, flaring etc.    

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...