Posts posted by Chrad
1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:
What's really troubling is the way people seem to think that this film's Pros out weigh it's Cons, when really all it's innovation was done in order to propagate & enhance a narrative that is pure & simply racist to its core. It really is of little consequence whether he then made a film to appologise about what he had done. The facts are that he made a racist film & nothing can erase that - you've got to be pretty naive to think that he didn't know what he was doing or what kind of film he was making.
Just because something like this exists, doesn't mean we should ever hold a torch up to it as something other than a warning about evil & the means by which dangerous ideologies will go to in order to re-enforce/normalise their message.
I actually absolutely agree - I'm not trying to defend the movie or rehabilitate its reputation of whatever. And I don't think Intolerance is a good apology, either, even if such a thing were possible - it's multi-strand narrative doesn't feature a segment about intolerance towards black people by white people.
The popularity of Birth of a Nation is considered to be a major reason why the KKK had a resurgence, so it stands as a tremendous force for evil in the world. I don't believe anything can counterweigh that.
I just went over to the Wikipedia page. If people don't understand just how much of a milestone this movie was for the formal technique of film (at a point in its infancy when the foundation for everything we take for granted now was being laid), they should just look at the 'Significance' section there. Recognising this film's place in history in its entirety, provided that its cinematic innovation is never referenced without being contextualised by the insidiousness of its footprint on society, doesn't mean you're arguing the movie is good, or that it didn't stand for evil, or that its pros outweigh its cons.
11 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:
Just going back to BOAN quickly, just like to say that I've studied film (to PhD level) and lectured on film at University level & BOAN never came up as a film to be studied or watched as an example of anything worth while. The one time that it did come up was to do with it's blatant racism & not to do with any other qualites that people come up with. Perhaps its held with some regard in the US, but in Europe not really. The one film that everyone cites as the film to watch if you want to be a filmmaker is Citizen Kane - it has every shot type that you could possible ever want to use in a film & that's not even taking into account the editing or narrative construction.
In Australia I heard it spoken of at uni as a major technical innovator that was also incredibly harmful in the message it perpetrated. Not recommended to people, but acknowledged in its context in the history of silent cinema.
Citizen Kane is entirely different - an example of the craft of filmmaking really coming together, which you can still learn from today. BOAN is some of the baby steps that eventually lead to that. Griffith is invaluable to the history of cinematic technique, and BOAN was his most popular movie and one of his most ambitious. It's not a pleasant fact but it's there.
Since Potemkin was referenced I just remembered an interesting fact. Griffifth's follow up film Intolerance (a subject he took on partly because of the criticism of him as a racist after Birth's release) was hugely popular in the Soviet Union and was studied a lot in the development of the montage technique Eisenstein would become famous for. The point is, stuff is all interlinked. Birth has an important footprint and we can recognise that without celebrating what it stands for morally.
^ Agree with you on both counts. BOTN's racist context can never be forgotten and should never be separated from talk of its accomplishments. However, we also can't deny it's place in history. It's a sadness and a warning.
And re: Hollywood largely targeting kids and teens, a crash is on the way. Increasing corporatisation of the studios has killed risk taking, and the warning signs of audience rebellion are already there.
11 hours ago, kidzrevil said:
Understandable but I think you may be overlooking something bere. Art is literally content by definition. I think the discrepancy here is how you are defining whats content and whats art when they are in essence the same thing. You may not want certain forms of content to be considered art and vice versa because it doesn’t suit your personal taste but thats a very subjective way to look at it.
fuzzynormal is right, because no one was calling filmmaking 'content' in the 70s and 80s or even the 90s or 00s. That wikipedia page you're citing talks about the 'end user' (yuck) for your 'content' before it mentions audience. The proliferation of that term to refer to art is a result of the increasing corporatisation of the entertainment industry. It places everything on the same level as substance free internet filler material. If you have pride in yourself as a storyteller, never call yourself a content creator.11 hours ago, kidzrevil said:
Sidenote ”Birth of a nation” was racist af. Wasn’t the original title “klansmen” and painted the KKK as the heros of America ? Interesting that you find that to be a form of art. I doubt anyone is gonna be citing that as a reference for anything.
Then you should study up more on film history, because Birth of a Nation is a milestone in the development on the medium. We all know it's racist shit.
As for this thing about chasing speed, everything has to get faster and faster, let's make 10 minute feature films etc... Check out this ad from 1992.
It's the height of the MTV era, everyone's chasing speed, you get ads like this as a result. They've tried to cram the maximum amount of visual information and story elements in possible, because they have faith the audience can grasp it from very little. The result is a total mess. The comedy bits don't land, because nothing has emphasis, and nothing is given enough time to register emotionally beyond the broadest, 'I get what's going on'. Sure, this isn't the height of sophistication in what's possible with ultra fast editing styles and there are times where it could be very suited to the storytelling, but my point in throwing up this ad is that people were trying to push the medium in this direction as far back as 25 years ago. It failed to take off, I would wager, partly because it's not the most suitable way to tell a lot of stories. People don't just want stimulation, stimulation, stimulation, boom, flash, colours, edits. People still like to be immersed in a narrative, where they give it enough time for it to become part of their life. Long form TV is more popular than ever.
A 10 minute feature... You mean a short film?
Also can we please not fall for the lie that we should consider ourselves 'content creators'? An earnings report has 'content', a notice board has 'content'. Everything is content. None of us got into this because we love content. What we do is special because it's storytelling. Calling it content is a way to lower its perceived value so that it can be bought and sold on the cheap.
1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:
Because it needs more processing power. Raw is pure ~9 million data points. But a demosized image is 9 million x 3 data points plus gamma curve pluse color matrix plus white balance plus sharpening plus temporal noise reduction plus bit depth reduction plus color subsampling plus encoding.
So throw in more processing power. From a user standpoint it makes no sense to have to choose between 8 bit 4:2:0 and RAW with no reasonable in-between option included.
16 hours ago, Kisaha said:
Arrival was too mediocre for me, some other year in history it wouldn't be not even in the top 30 (maybe 31!).
Every year I am seeing less and less films I really like, and I have to search more Asian/South American/European cinema for finding the rare gem. I used to watch all the Oscaric films as well, this year didn't even bother.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4936450/ Bacalaureat (The Graduation) was my favorite last year, and that wasn't even close to a masterpiece, but it was an excellent film. Maybe it wasn't Deakins, or Villeneuve, or had 74 billion budget, but it was true, and followed me for many days after.
I think last year saw one true American masterpiece: Silence.
The in body IS of the 12-35 and 35-100 are very handy. The Olympus options notably have hard-stop manual focus.
In still mode the difference in field of view is 1.999x, in movie mode it's 2.08x.
10 minutes ago, Grégory LEROY said:
I've never wrote about super 16mm
Yes, but I mentioned it when I asked, if you think M43 looks 'robotic' in the out of focus transitions, where does S16 come into it for you? A smaller sensor, so the transition between focused and unfocused areas should be more sudden than even M43, but no one would call it 'robotic' or say it isn't cinematic.
There's no reason for the 'robotic' thing you're talking about. M43 is nothing but dimensions for the size of a sensor.
I challenge you to point to footage that exemplifies this look you're talking about.
7 minutes ago, Simon Robinson said:
However I think we might need to assume the pocket 2 is never coming.
Sadly I think that's for the best. It seems their focus is affordable pro equipment, not advanced amateur/artistic equipment lile the Pocket.
It's amazing that they once offered such a unique tool at such an affordable price.
I think Panasonic are the only company still targeting th 'advanced amateur' segment, bringing professional features down to consumer accessible gear - everyone else is chasing the higher margins up market.
9 minutes ago, Grégory LEROY said:
I trust my eyes, not specs sheets, m43 have this kind of weird robotic look to my eyes. Of course a talented videographer can produce beautiful things with m43 but the average footage I'm watching on youtube have this weird look.
This is a situation where you should actually trust the specs. There is literally no reason that M43 should look more 'robotic' than say, super 16mm, in terms of the look of transitions between in and out of focus. It's total nonsense.
Maybe you're looking at images produced with lenses that don't have much of 'pop' in terms of subject separation. That would make sense and could be attributed to optical design. But there's a solution - pick a different lens.
24 minutes ago, Paul Ning said:
I wonder if 6K RAW with 20fps is possible, then 4K RAW cropped with 24fps plus should be alright.
If you're okay with melting the tripod.
3 hours ago, wobba said:
The difference in sensor size between APS-C and 4/3 is larger than it appears (when cropping to video formats) if you just compare absolute sensor sizes. Cropping a 4/3 sensor to 16:9 requires sacrificing more sensor real estate than APS-C given the squarer proportions of a 4/3 sensor. A 16:9 cropped 4/3 sensor is not that much larger than a 16:9 cropped 1" sensor.
The field of view of the GH5 in video mode is about 1.3x wider than the RX100 in video mode. APS-C in video mode has a field of view 1.35x bigger than GH5.
This is almost the same as the photo mode field of view difference of 1.33x between APS-C and M43. The difference the proportions of the sensors make is very minimal.3 hours ago, Grégory LEROY said:
I've never talked about DOF, I think the artificial look is about in-focus out-of focus transition. I'm only watching m43 footage on youtube.
If you're not talking about DOF, it's totally psuedo-scientific and neaningless. What you're referring to is a property of the DOF, and if it applies to M43 then surely it must apply to S16 as well.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:
13 = unlucky
4 = death (5D Mark IV)
Yet Panasonic did okay for themselves when they finally got over their fear of 4.
5 hours ago, Dunjoye said:
based on that video posted. The color already looks superior to the gh5
Until it's time to grade and on one hand you've got 10 bit log in a beautiful colohr space and on the other you've got a single fixed 8 bit profile.5 hours ago, ricardo_sousa11 said:
However, I do believe Sony made an amazing move with this product, because it will force 3rd party lens manufacturers jump to the E-mount, and get a much broader 3rd party lens selection (Im talking to you, Sigma!).
Sigma are late to FE because they're working on original lens designs instead of just porting their DSLR lenses. I'm interested to see how far they can get the size down.
Why would Sony add 10 bit?
They're already number one in this segment. They know most people don't care.
Panasonic added 10 bit out to the GH4 only after they'd let their AF100 die. They were replacing both it and the GH3 with that camera.
Sony are doing very well with interchangable lens camcorders. Why mess with a good thing?
They are in Canon territory now - want pro video features? Better shell out.
1 hour ago, Germy1979 said:
This is a righteous camera, but I don't think it's the one we're waiting on. That 100mbps codec kind of tells me there's another one en route.
Or, it indicates that Sony are still in the practice of protecting their prosumer video cameras.
So not a video camera, really.
It's a bit of a gambit. I don't know why people in the market for an FF with amazing autofocus in this price range would pick it over Canikon, where they have the best selection of sport lenses and bodies that won't be a pain to balance them on. With the A7 series they at least had the street market down pretty well.
41 minutes ago, eltorrete said:
Would they be in order of their preference?
I only own Voigtlanders at the moment and love them but I've used SLR magic and also really like them.
The Olympus lenses I mentioned are interesting because they have auto focus and repeatable manual focus with hard stops.
13 hours ago, eltorrete said:
Since the autofocus does not work, what is the recommendation for a manual lens?
- Veydra MFT
- Rokinon Cinema MFT
- Speedbooster + Sigma 18-35
- Speedbooster + Rokinon Cinema
- Speedbooster + Any other.
SLR magic primes
Olympus Pro zooms and primes
Olympus 17mm and 12mm
7 hours ago, Grégory LEROY said:
I think In-focus to out-of-focus transition is more brutal with m43 sensor, creating some kind of harsh, artificial look.
So deeper DOF = artificial?
Where does super 16 fit into thos equation for you?
Blade Runner 2049 bombs at box office
In no way have I said that. It's not in any way 'ok'. Stating that it has had a profound influence on the development of the medium isn't excusing it for its propagation of evil in the world, and I have always qualified these statements by acknowledging that its technical innovation stands alongside its ugliness. This is not a defence, this is not excusing it, this is not saying its ok. Its innovation just is. It really can't be overstated, we can't pretend it doesn't exist because we don't like that it is so. The fact that the movie was so incredible technically yet stood for such horrible ideals and had an awful impact on the world is a lesson that aesthetic beauty doesn't necessarily have anything to do with moral virtue - a point which should be obvious, but a lot of people seem to forget. Leni Riefenstahl's work, as you've brought up, is another great example.
I absolutely agree it should be understood primarily as a racist film, so I have sought to contextualise my posts that assert its position in the history in the media with acknowledgement of its societal harmfulness.
This is just blatantly untrue. The movie was seen the world over. It's considered the first movie to feature complex parallel editing between action, it moved forward the grammar to something approximating what we do today in terms of the movement between wides and close-ups and the way close-ups are used, it was one of the first films to feature night time photography and large scale location photography, etc. It had a similar place to Citizen Kane in its day in taking all the technical advances that had been made in cinema, and finding effective use of them in one film. In that way it changed the expectation of how cinema would work in its aftermath, for audiences and filmmakers.
It definitely says something about Hollywood that one of its foundational films is Birth of a Nation. Is it any surprise how little minority representation there is today?
You'd be wrong on both counts: I heard it referenced in Australia as a hugely important film to the development of film grammar in the silent era, but also hugely racist and with an awful influence on the world. And, it is a pivotal work in the history of cinematography and directing, whether we like that or not.
As for Kurosawa, he was hugely influenced by Griffith and has acknowledged as such.