Chrad

more information has always been the future of things. being it more color depth, higher resolution, higher framerates or less aggresive codecs. everybody should decide for themselves what makes the most sense to upgrade first. this also depends on what youre producing for.
 
somebody making internet films doesnt have big advantages from mastering in 4k, because most of the people dont even watch the films in 1080p full screen. in a youtube-sized videoplayer (not fullscreen) 1080p video looks razor sharp either way, why not upgrade something else first that makes more sense in this context, like dynamic range
 
And i have to absolutely disagree with Andrew saying that "4K means more Dynamic Range", as there is no technological aspect proving this, since its only a Resolution-based standard. The fact that those cameras who offer 4k right now have higher dynamic range than the average 1080p cam is a totally different story.
 
see for yourself what makes most sense to upgrade first. i would much rather have a 10bit 1080p picture than a 8bit 4k picture as of right now...

This is what I don't get though. We don't have to have bad 1080 any more. None of the major manufacturers has released an affordable 10bit 4:2:2 1080p camera. It sounds like that step is going to be jumped. We're going to go straight to 4K. I can't imagine why this is something to celebrate. If it's simply that 4K uses the full sensor of a stills camera, then I have to say it sounds like it's time to start asking for video-only cameras with DSLR specs (and prices!) from the major manufacturers.

I understand that 4k gives better resolution, dynamic range and colour than 1080 - and that these benefits are transferred when 4k is downscaled to 1080 in post. But I don't understand why this is an argument for 4K for people who don't need 4K output. Surely those people would benefit much more if the greater processing power and bitrate was put into a better 1080p codec (e.g. like the Pocket's prores). They would then get the benefit of the larger files in the form of grading latitude, rather than just chucking away information from their very full cards as soon as they got home. Wouldn't they? Personally I'd rather chuck that information away after I've done something useful with it, like a bit of colour correction.
 
I'm not hearing a lot of people complaining that the Pocket isn't 4K. I am however hearing a lot of people complaining that the Pocket is a pain in the a**e to use. Imagine if Panasonic put BMPCC-like tech inside a GH3. We'd all go completely wild. Why isn't that the immediate future? With 4K it just seems to me like we'll be starting the whole H264 journey again, just at a higher level. Why not make HD the best it can be before moving on to 4K? The whole thing smells a lot like the megapixel race to me and, to be honest, the ugly side of capitalism.
Anyway, this is my question: Leaving aside reframing options, why is compressed 4K better than high bitrate 1080 for those who don't need 4K output?
 
Just to be clear, this is a genuine question. I am genuinely hoping to learn something. I am not being pointlessly antagonistic in the hope of rubbing someone up the wrong way. That's just the card I was dealt at birth - to forever write forum posts that elicit the wrath of Hades.

Yeah, Fincher's film was well over half as good.

I honestly thought he did a good job. It's not very interesting material to work with.

As far as inspiration...it just comes, but you have to be looking for it. If you're constantly looking for a good story to tell, then you'll start to see images, and if you focus on them and look for ways to bridge them together, a story begins to form.
 
Probably not very helpful, but it's hard to say exactly where ideas or inspiration comes from. But once you get into the habit of dreaming cinematically, I find that more ideas flow from there.

As far as inspiration...it just comes, but you have to be looking for it. If you're constantly looking for a good story to tell, then you'll start to see images, and if you focus on them and look for ways to bridge them together, a story begins to form.
 
Probably not very helpful, but it's hard to say exactly where ideas or inspiration comes from. But once you get into the habit of dreaming cinematically, I find that more ideas flow from there.

GH3 can also take your Nikon lenses.
 
I wouldn't buy a Blackmagic, since the rolling shutter is pretty bad, and inappropriate for documentary type shooting.

GH3 can also take your Nikon lenses.
 
I wouldn't buy a Blackmagic, since the rolling shutter is pretty bad, and inappropriate for documentary type shooting.

It's really, really not. It's very competitively priced against similarly specced machines. 
 
And when you pay as much or more for a system with this level of power, chances are it isn't going to be this small.
 

 
It's an incredible feat of engineering.

I dont understand the hype with those mac's. There is nothing special about the hardware and the software is a pain in the ass. You always have compatibility issues. Whats the point of having a software that works if most things wont work with it? And its WAY overpriced.
 
I own an Apple display, and thats enough Apple on my life. I cant live with a system that creates that amount of boundaries

Looks like Vitaliy Kiselev has added EOSHD to another spam revenge list again.

Seems legit.

Seems legit.

Seems legit.

Seems legit.

All this talk of 4K hardly different to the eye than 1080p, load of nonsense in my experience.

I used a GoPro today and did a shot with the 4k option for a laugh, then I did the same shot in 1080p and put it on a 1080p timeline....... The difference was easy to see. The image in 4 k was miles better.... And this was just from a GoPro on an iMac screen.

Do we need 4k? Definitely not for most of us. Many consumers are happy watching pixelated streamed movies off dodgy websites. But as a serious filmmaking tool, it could be very useful and very beautiful.

I don't need 4k. But I sure want to film in 4k. I want to say wow again!

http://www.specsavers.co.uk

Putting aside how obviously different the 70D and C300 are technologically, the majority of those shots were probably captured on Alexa.

Can anyone imagine Steve Jobs quitting Apple just because people thought he was an asshole? A visionary is driven by the passion of invention, not by having his ego stroked. Pathetic.

The flat files were released by John Brawley, out of the goodness of his heart. I don't think this was sanctioned by BMD at all. And if you are interested in buying this camera I think you should download some of this stuff and see the type of versatility you can get over the files in the grade. Are these the most interesting shots ever, no. But Brawley wasn't being paid to shoot a commercial for BMD.
 
In fact, I'm glad that BMD doesn't waste a bunch of money on marketing. And I'm surprised Brawler leaked these clips again, given the Shitstorm he go got the last time he let clips out (for the BMCC). And to be fair (to you guys), back then I was one of the people screaming bloody murder about the BMCC clips until i realized that John was doing this pro-bono. 
 
Anyway, how helpful (for a potential buyer) would it be to release a bunch of clips with $100K worth of cranes and studio lighting? I think it looks like quite a capable camera. Think about how far we have come. And speaking of overproduced promo vids, lets take a tour through history, shall we?
 
https://vimeo.com/7151244
 
I've come to hate this film... and I'm not sure I have a good reason.

Criticism will be healthy for BMD, it will prevent them from becoming the next RED cult and keep fanatics and douchebags at bay.

RE: Suckerpunch, an interesting case!
 
The Movie Bob piece was a good watch, but IMHO Movie Bob is doing exactly what the neckbeard audience always does: read too much into their movies, books and games in an attempt to make them cleverer than they are. He may be attempting to stop people ascribing negative "testosterone fueled" intentions to the picture by revealing a plot underneath, but in truth the complexity or otherwise of any plot underneath doesn't matter if the film fails to rise above that which it attempts to parody or subvert.
 
If you followed the theory he's using here, every single dumb over-the-shoulder shooting game actually deserves our respect for its incredibly deep plot, just because it attempts to in some way humanise its characters, and throw in twists to seem smart. *slow clap*. This theory would make Dragonball Z genius, because it's both over complicated and  really violent.
 
In gears of war they chat for a minute or so between huge battles, and use ham-fisted ways to get us to connect witht he "characters": a dead wife, some other family nonsense, but it's still hackneyed tripe. Basically, Bob's line runs that because they gave it some kind of attempt at plot, because they bolted a puzzle-piece story around the action scenes they wanted to show, we are wrong to say it's a wankfest. I say it plays to precisely the same audience, and lacks subversion.
 
The theory seems to be that if you throw a load of clunky, disconnected and overt-thought complex metaphors into a graphics piece it's somehow clever. But it's not, it's still reams and reams of extended, explosive battleporn interspersed with minimal dialogue and a paper-thin storyline, which itself is cobbled together from the least emotive, most aesthetically pleasing parts of of other stories. The purpose of the so called story is to excuse the following action.
 
Setting something in multiple reality layers does not automatically render it clever or successful (see: Inception), it can give a superficial appearance of out-of-the-box writing, especially in a genre of movie where risk aversion is a way of life, but this swiftly becomes unraveled without the character empathy necessary to allow the audience to truly connect.
 
There's no real development of character in Suckerpunch, every single player in it is one-dimensional designed to drive the flaccid story in one direction or another in order to line up the next round of basement-bro bad-guy thwacking.
 
We have zero empathy with the characters, which means it doesn't matter how many levels of reality are there or how much we're 'being laughed at', we don't care. It's not good enough to go "Aaaaaaah, but you didn't get it, it's actually really complex...", so are all stories, especially if you start to project you own beliefs onto them vie in-depth after-viewing analysis.
 
The important thing is that it does not function as a anything more than a beautiful graphics showreel, because the graphics are beautiful, overwhelming and make you go "wow" while the plotline, characters, scripting, pacing, acting and attempts to make a point that may or may not be intentional, are all lacklustre.
 
Finally, the layer of "it's laughing at the audience" plays perfectly to the target audience, who always want to feel cleverer than the rest, like they get something no-one else does. In order to truly subvert you have to rise above. In order to be a Trojan horse it's not enough just to get in the gates, you need to bust out at night and take over! Suckerpunch just ended up in the stables with rest of em...

Lynch has plenty of sense about money and business, he just doesn't care. He's fully aware that the nature of his work limits his audience, and he's okay with that. He just wants to create the things that he truly wants to create.
 
Your entire notion that Lynch could get whatever he wanted made by playing to the system is absurd given that Spielberg almost couldn't get Lincoln made as a theatrical film. Spielberg, who has changed the shape of Hollywood, and given it many of its biggest ever hits. Lincoln. Lynch's work is a million times less palatable to a mass audience, and a million times less likely to get major Hollywood funding.
 
All Lynch would have accomplished with your scenario was waste years of his life pumping out work he's not passionate about. Instead, he's given us beautiful and unique work. Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, The Straight Story, Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire...
 
The world is a better place because there are still romantic types like Lynch out there who are willing to go down with the ship for their art, and not just hacks ready to compromise themselves to get a better foothold in the cutthroat world of financing.

I didn't like Dune very much when I first saw it in the cinema, but I guess I was too young then. I also didn't like Coppola's Dracula then, but now I must admit both films get miraculously better every time I see them.
 
BTW: Do you know this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjvuCOlkO4E
 
or the Goofy version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7baCckh-XE
 
It's fun to think about other directors. Years ago I read in a german book on Kubrick that one should imagine A Clockwork Orange as written and directed by Steven Spielberg, starring Tom Cruise. And only today I found a satire with that connection, here.
 
The article mentions A.I., and I found it a great movie (though probably not too Kubrickian). In the end, when the Blue Fairy actually appears, I found it so much over the top, I was reminded of David Lynch. It was an effect like this:

 
But of course, Lynch had his own fairy:

 
 

Hmm.  I wonder why he didn't shake the camera more.  Needs more cowbell
 
If I had to pick a list of my top 10 favorite movies of all time, at least five of them would be Lynch films.  Had a long conversation with Sean Young about Dune when I worked with her on a low budget b-flick several years ago.  That said, he's an acquired taste.  Is it really a shock to hear, in a time when people like Lucas and Spielberg are moaning about difficulties in funding, that Lynch would be singing the same tune? Don't cry David, I'll send you a love letter.  Straight from my heart, #$%#&!
 
This brave new world feels so foreign to filmmakers, but the theatre scene has been feeling it for decades now.  Times change, audiences change, things evolve.  Welcome to Earth