Chrad

1. A good film may appeal to the masses, it's doesn't HAVE to be a contradiction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what we witness right now is absolute dullness as a result of EXCLUSIVELY trying to repeat former successes.
2. This justifies the equation 'a mainstream film is a bad film'. Exceptions only prove the general rule.
3. Spielberg, who now complaints in a chorus with Soderberg and Lynch, contributed to the misery. He is a master of the big budget movie as well as of the serials, franchises and remakes. And he is responsible for quite a bunch of terribly stupid movies.
4. So maybe Lynch has lost it. I don't know, but I accept that creative people can burn out too. Their work survives. If not for the masses, then the more for few. Rock'nRoll (cinema) is bigger than all of us ...

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.

www.vimeo.com/66955436
 
Some footage with SLR Magic lenses, and a little with the Panasonic 14-42.
As before, looks pretty damn great for $1000.
 
Brawley said he shot the low light stuff at 800 and wishes he'd shot at 1600, so it's a little noisier than it should be.
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/shooting-from-the-hip-pocket/

Sounds like it was screened from the Blu-Ray at your cinema. Depending on the quality of the projector used, that could account for the softness of the image. I worked in a cinema where the Blu-Ray screenings were done with a lower quality projector, and I could always tell.

www.vimeo.com/66955436
 
Some footage with SLR Magic lenses, and a little with the Panasonic 14-42.
As before, looks pretty damn great for $1000.
 
Brawley said he shot the low light stuff at 800 and wishes he'd shot at 1600, so it's a little noisier than it should be.
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/shooting-from-the-hip-pocket/

I wasn't sure.. so I looked for it and.. bang!
 
http://philipbloom.net/2010/04/01/canonraw/
 
 
this is PB's april's fool in 2010, saying there was a Canon firmware upgrade giving RAW :D
 
the funniest part is when he writes: "Canon have done exactly what we wanted. RAW baby, RAW! "

It absolutely is the principle of the BBL.  The DI implementation is a means to achieve an approximation of a look that used to be done totally in-camera.  And while I don't know that they invented it, the pre-DI body of work from both Ridley and Tony Scott is filled with the the orange and blue palette that is practically synonymous with the BBL. 
 
The basis of the DI BBL is warm light on talent, cold light in the background, which affects shadow color.
 
 
 






 
 
...besides the whole complementary aspect, even going back to the Old Masters paintings, the eye moves from dark to light and, given a color scheme mixing cooler and warmer colors, from cool to warm.   The latest DI trend just gives it a hue-shift and does it in perhaps a more self-conscious way.

There was that ridiculous 1D C related run-in on Twitter we had. I've seen the dark side. I'm not surprised he is belittling raw and these latest developments.
 
There's various conspiracies as to why he bangs on about the Cinema EOS C300 so much. At Photokina he was being paid by Canon to speak about Cinema EOS. A conspriacist would link the two - paid by Canon - radio silence on other products. But I don't put much stock in that. I think it is just down to personal preferences and what his work requires. Philip sees image quality second and getting a job done first. He sees the commercial side, the practical side, more clearly than the artistic side. Raw is not for him. I don't think he understands the raw workflows that well and seems a bit intimidated by the whole thing.
 
How can one ignore the clearly exciting image quality of this camera for the price, whilst bemoaning the large files and huge interest in the hack? Totally bizarre. Not even a blog post.

Sure, if you already have a 5D III, but under that philosophy you shouldn't be shooting raw or 4k at this time.
12 minutes beats 49 seconds any day.

Dude, 4K projection does not equal 4K.  They're not projecting 4K DCPs exclusively or even as a majority.
 
It's not the size of the screen it's the size of the screen relative to viewing distance that determines optimal spatial resolution.  You're argument is invalid without taking into account viewer distance from the set.  A 50" set is on the threshold of making 1080P worthwhile at a viewing distance of 10' (but not decidedly better than 720P in this case)...you know, like on the wall, with a coffeetable in front of you, sitting on a couch.  10' is a luxury for some (certainly in Los Angeles or Tokyo) but at 10' a set would have to be way over 100" for 4K to be beneficial.
 
And this doesn't take into account we don't even have good 1080 transmission yet, because it's compressed all to hell. 
 
 
edit: here's an interesting aside, since this guy mentions 4K projection.  4K Sony projection makes, if you're not careful, Alexa and F65 footage look like absolute garbage.  I was totally convinced that Killer Joe was shot on some ENG camera after seeing it in 4K projection not too long ago.  I was so immediately distracted by how video it looked and I came to the conclusion, before just watching the film, that times were tough for William Friedkin and he just made the movie as best he could (good movie, looked horrible in the theater).  I got home only to find out it was an Alexa shoot.  Wow.
 
Similarly, and I still don't know where the producers spent $17M on the latest Evil Dead movie, but that thing was shot on the F65 and it looked like digital video, ironically projected by a 4K Sony projector.  Just terrible.  I bet it will look better on BD though.  Same for Killer Joe.
 
My point is, we haven't got the current stuff figured out and playing nice together or maintaining quality at all points.  We don't have anything close to unadulterated quality in the home at current standards or even in the theater at current standards.

And here's an example with the 5D footage enhanced as well...5D on top, BMCC below, 1:1 @ 200%
 

...even enhanced, there are far more areas that do not resolve out to see blades but remain clumps.  Because the structure and detail has to be there to be enhanced.  

This isn't "perceived detail", or false detail.  This is blades of grass:
 

...that's unaltered 5D on top, BMCC on the bottom, 1:1 to each other @ 200%
 
 

...if it were "false" detail then further enhancing wouldn't further resolve maintained blade structure, here still at 1:1 to each other, 5D on top and enhanced BMCC on the bottom (mild de-moire + my LCE scheme).
 

...and here we have 5D on top and BMCC on the bottom scaled down to 1080.  The comparison would be even worse for the 5D if you were to go the other direction. 

The other day i put down a preorder on a Mexican wrap at a food stand in Soho.
 
If enough people put down a preorder I might get the wrap next year, so everyone do it!
 
I had my preorder on the one with the sour cream but then they announced sourcream and chilli so I changed my order.
 
All this time I've not been eating because I've been chasing sauces.
 
I think I might just go and buy a sandwich and actually have lunch, at least then I can spend my time enjoying food not worrying about a potential wrap.

Needless to say, it looks extremely good. :)
Yet, the workflow is for huber geeks only and I'm afraid it will stay too geeky for long time, plus reliability will always be a concern.
Unless there will be developments that will make an hacked 5d3 practical to work with, I would use it, only on tests, my own training and personal shooting that does not involve any production costs or involvement of other people time.
 
The new Black Magic with the super 35 sensor will always be a more practical solution. And if time has a value to any of you guys, on the long run BM would also be a less expensive solution as well.
 
BTW, I'm pretty sure canon knew this was going to happens, and they will be very happy to sell more of these cameras and not having to bother to honor any warranty.
Plus it will hardly put a dent on the other Canon expensive camera sales. Who can afford them, have not time to bother with these hacked thingies.

The raw video looks really, really impressive.  The difference is so great compared with the factory video mode you really have to ask again, what did Canon have to do to make the default video so bad?  
It is not an accident.  
It is not the result of compression (because we now have an HDMI out).
It is unlikely to be line-skipping, because the camera shows no moire or fringing.  
 
As I have suspected since the 5D mark III's release, it seems like they have deliberately softened up the image in the camera's firmware.  I can't think of any other explanation.

Really?  I don't see it like that at all, or are you just speaking you've put them out of your mind as a purchase option?
 
I don't see this being any sort of BMD Pocket Camera threat.  Someone with $1000 to spend isn't in the same market as a $3500 camera they can then hack.  The Pocket Camera is going to be so versatile and useful in situations where this thing is not, they're not going to be able to keep them on the shelves.
 
Likewise, if you didn't already own a 5DmkIII (like me) I don't see this as a definite better option for a new purchase.  There are caveats to the BMD Production Camera that convince me the original BMCC is still a compelling choice in several ways.  As much as I love the aesthetic of Full Frame I also know that I can get that look on a M4/3 camera with Voigtlander or SLR Magic glass (and in a truer raw too).  Jello cancels each other out as they both have it.
 
For projects where I'm a controlling producer as well as the shooter the potential for catastrophic failure that using a hack brings to the table doesn't scare me.  I've been around this stuff well enough to know that potential is there in everything given the right circumstances.  Still, there are other productions where this camera, however neat it just became, wouldn't even be up for discussion because it involves too many dollars of other people's money and I'd just be a for-hire above-the-line rather than one with veto power.
 
This thing doesn't change how all those adjectives used to describe the 5D in "Bankai" form have already been said many a time about the existing BMCC footage.  I've de-moired a whole movie's worth of 7D mush so that part doesn't scare me.  Moire wasn't a deal breaker that prevented anyone from buying the Canon cameras they owned before a couple days ago.
 
I see this as an amazing gift to everyone that already owns one of these cameras.  As someone who doesn't, it's just really neat on a geeky level.  I don't anticipate it affecting my future camera purchases, however.

Lol each week a new cow is chased through the village. just like people were all freakin out when the bmcc was announced, just to find out it wont be available for ages, jello etc. and then everybody jumps on the next bandwaggon.
 
the mkiii doing raw sounds superb, but lets wait till a big crowd uses this in real life conditions and checks this for flaws intensively. if it passes that, then i will get all excited. 

To be honest, I actually like the look of the BMCC footage more. Yes, it's weaker in low light and less clean, but it has an intangible 'cinematic' quality to me. It's just very pleasing, particularly the colours, and the widest DR out there for prosumer video helps too.
 
I don't think this necessarily needs to hurt BMD either. Their 4K model with no rolling shutter could see a sales boost after this. 
Let's not forget that if you don't own any raw shooting camera, you could buy three pocket cameras for the same price as a Mk III.
 
Also, Vitality Kiselev needs to step his game up, heh.

A super 35mm raw camera for under $600? Where do I sign up?
Could be great once they get their new APS-C sensor out there.
 
Panny need to sacrifice their pro division (as if it was making them money, heh) and put this stuff in as an official feature in GH5 (or GH3 via new firmware) or else it's over for M43 for filmmaking.

You can clearly see the better DR of the G6 there though. Less contrasty, far superior highlight roll-off and shadow detail.
I'd rather shoot with the G6 for this reason. Same lack of moire and high detail of the GH2, but better colour processing, dynamic range, and noise, and less banding artefacts. 50p, peaking and manual audio level are just bonuses.
Fingers crossed for a firmware update release so work can get started on a hack. Considering the much better starting point than the GH2 provided, imagine what a high bit rate hack like Driftwood's work could result in.

You can clearly see the better DR of the G6 there though. Less contrasty, far superior highlight roll-off and shadow detail.
I'd rather shoot with the G6 for this reason. Same lack of moire and high detail of the GH2, but better colour processing, dynamic range, and noise, and less banding artefacts. 50p, peaking and manual audio level are just bonuses.
Fingers crossed for a firmware update release so work can get started on a hack. Considering the much better starting point than the GH2 provided, imagine what a high bit rate hack like Driftwood's work could result in.

Hopefully once the move to streaming has shaken out, some alternative models for marketing lower budget films will come about.

It can.  What someone will spend isn't necessarily the same as what they have to spend (or feel they have to spend).  Soderberg's point was that is what studios feel they have to spend to market a film, any film, here in the States (and another chunk as big overseas).  He further illustrated why they are far more willing to do this for a film that costs $60M than they are a film that costs $6M, because the cost to market both are essentially equal and there are very, very few precedents for low budget films earning $300+Million at the box office or even close.  
 
Those are odds they're not playing and they don't know how to scale back from $30M minimum marketing to a proportional amount based on the cost of a cheaper film.

The director wants to keep a lid on the production costs so as not to distract attention away from the film itself. He's doing the opposite of propagating a starving artist narrative. That said, I heard a rumour that the budget was around $50,000.
$300,000 in a month is very acceptable for a small scale, no studio independent release, but if the budget is correct, it's exceptional. Six times the production costs is a great return on investment, especially when he's spending so little on distribution or marketing.
Bare in mind that this is not the only number that counts. Carruth is also making money from every foreign distributor that picks up the film. It's just a little from each country, but it adds up.
 
Talk about negativity. This guy could go out and shoot an upbeat movie in the hopes of chasing success, or he could make what he wants to make, on his own terms, and retain total artistic control over the film and its release. He found a way to do the latter and remain profitable.
That is true success. 

The director wants to keep a lid on the production costs so as not to distract attention away from the film itself. He's doing the opposite of propagating a starving artist narrative. That said, I heard a rumour that the budget was around $50,000.
$300,000 in a month is very acceptable for a small scale, no studio independent release, but if the budget is correct, it's exceptional. Six times the production costs is a great return on investment, especially when he's spending so little on distribution or marketing.
Bare in mind that this is not the only number that counts. Carruth is also making money from every foreign distributor that picks up the film. It's just a little from each country, but it adds up.
 
Talk about negativity. This guy could go out and shoot an upbeat movie in the hopes of chasing success, or he could make what he wants to make, on his own terms, and retain total artistic control over the film and its release. He found a way to do the latter and remain profitable.
That is true success.