Jump to content

jonjak2

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jonjak2

  1. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346003207' post='16514'] Undeniably Gale did a great job on House. There are also some very nice cut aways in modern blockbusters to 5D footage, usually as a crash cam. However why cripple yourself now better cameras are out for the same money? Look at what you gain vs what you lose, if you went for the 5D Mark III over the BMC. You'd gain: Wide angle faster than F2.8 Stills Usable ISO above 3200 You'd lose: 12 bit colour 4-2-2 sampling Nearly half your resolution (600 lines vs nearly 1000+) Raw codec Larg
  2. [quote name='markm' timestamp='1345995782' post='16507'] If you can sharpen the image then my question is Is it really soft? OR have canon simply left it unsharpened. If so that should be more filmic as a 35mm movie camera doesn't add sharpening either. Sharpening adds a black line around objects. I'd be more happy with a mark 3 that doesn't add sharpening. The Mark 3 is the easiest to get a film look with its dof control but without the background out of focus the images to me don't look that great and not as good as the GH2. Another problem area is th
  3. [quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1345826566' post='16426'] You choose to ignore the point that I made that straight out of the camera the 5D3 is no softer than the 5D2. It doesn't have the moire & aliasing of the 5D2 either. With a bit of sharpening in post it looks even better. It doesn't necessarily require work in post as it's all a matter of taste. All these cameras have good & bad points. The soft look of the 5Ds can either good or bad depending on the shot. The GH2 has horrible ergonomics & the FS100 isn't a shining example either unle
  4. I used the Edelkrone Modular 5 rig and have to say that it is poorly designed for handheld work. The big flaw is that the camera is set too far forward, the weight of the rig is too high, and you have to lift your arms up to hold the bars. This creates a lot of strain, an unbalanced rig, and makes good handheld work difficult. I would not buy this rig due to this because it does not do the basics of what a handheld rig should. The follow focus is also poorly designed because it does not leave room for a matte box (unless you use a really small cheap one) and the smaller reversible wheel just s
  5. [quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343206417' post='14474'] How would you compare it? Youtube? Positive examples for digital in it's own right and dignity are the latest films of David Fincher. The photography in Stanley Kubricks latest film, [i]Eyes Wide Shut[/i], is a good example of how the tissue of the canvas and the brushwork shine through. A good example, because Kubrick certainly tried to get the imagery as clean as possible, despite the extreme low light concept. Note, how the high speed graininess increases the depth of field! I am sure, if Kubrick
  6. [quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1343134276' post='14415'] 2002- 2007 I used to shoot on Digi Beta Cam before I got the Canons and even this was too clean so we used to add 'film grain' and noise in post to make it look like film. All the pop videos I shoot on Canons have 'film grain' added after the grade as the final step before it is output to make it look 'less clean'. You can mimic Kodak film stocks that I used to shoot on in the 1990s like Vision 100T and Vision 200T 5274 wery well in post. Plus you can try differnt types of 'grai
  7. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343133784' post='14414'] You can mimic the imperfections of film in post. The problem is not that the cameras are too clinical, it is that the Hollywood people are taking all the imperfections out of their images, giving us stuff which is too glossy, to commercial, too clean. This will get even worse after The Hobbit and 4K 48p. I remain to be convinced by the artistic merit of that as well. We shall see... [/quote] You can[i] try[/i] to mimic the imperfections of film in post, but again, i've yet to see the type of grain,
  8. [quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343123235' post='14402'] This has more to do with the attitude the artist has to his work than with the technique used. But you are right: If you fail to win over your audience, you fail. [/quote] Sure, but digital immediately gives you a problem. Can you work around it? Yes, but shoot a set on 35mm vs RED EPIC and there is an immediate difference. Remember, i'm not suggesting there aren't workarounds, i'm just saying that in my view there is an immediate aesthetic problem with digital, and i don't like the way some di
  9. [quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1343091904' post='14384'] Uh, film had been around for many many decades before those films were made. Good digital hasn't been around for long, and it's still getting better. I'm sure time (and not much of it) will give us digital films that (subjectively) match the beauty of those films. Time has a way of fixing these things. Sets and visuals like that will be made to look more realistic as they are needed to. Things like that just work themselves out. [/quote] In time, sure. I'm not against digital!
  10. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343003076' post='14324'] So are we talking about something so subtle here between 35mm and 5D that on many occasions you don't notice, or are we to take you at your previous statement that the GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances. Not film-like? That is a bit of a narrow view. You're talking about subtle differences. To claim the whole damn film (like Blade Runner) looks the way it does because of a tiny subtle difference, is crazy. You haven't even mentioned lenses yet. Most of the Blade Runner look h
  11. [quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1342996403' post='14321'] I guess I never apreciated the cinematography in There Will be Blood because the rest of the movie was so godamn terrible. [/quote] Hehe, different tastes i guess. For me it was one of the best US films in the last ten years. The first 15 minutes just has stunning visual storytelling. If you're going to watch and appreciate any of it, watch that first 15 minutes.
  12. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342988212' post='14315'] I am glad you like There Will Be Blood. I do think digital has a harsher look than film - but Axel makes a good point about more care being taken with film. Digital is too forgiving. The differences in aesthetic between a GH2 in its comfort zone and 35mm film are subtle compared to the the differences between handling with care and not. Using an anamorphic lens on the GH2, exposing for the highlights, catching natural light at the right hour, having the light diffuse through fog or smoke in a real location,
  13. [quote name='Axel' timestamp='1342940113' post='14298'] It is the [u]care[/u] that is invested in big screen cinematography that makes it different from amateurish stuff, not "film". [/quote] My point is about the basic aesthetic features of film. 'Care' will never make a GH2 look like film. People compare digital to film because film has a particular aesthetic quality that is currently unmatched by digital, the same way artists may prefer particular paints, and so on. Of course professional film-makers will make digital/film look good. This isn
  14. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342914781' post='14288'] I really think you are attributing far too much to the look of film. I can put life into a $700 digicam. The right light and the right lenses, the right grading and the right sensitivity of handling in post is all you need. Film has a nice grain and latitude. The mythology of a cinematic image is not just in film like grain and latitude, it is in so many other aspects of the camera, lens, light, location, actors, costumes and most importantly cinematographer. [/quote] The GH2 can not look like The
  15. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342906771' post='14285'] I think the way film is processed and projected in this day and age makes it look more like digital anyway. I don't think it even has much of a classic look to it any more on most film shot big budget features I've seen, it is not much in evidence. Nolan is a good director, but a little over hyped. Better is Paul Thomas Anderson. Never seen someone better at getting the most out of talent that he manages to do. His characters light up the screen... No, they set it alight completely. Burn baby burn. [/quo
  16. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342880107' post='14242'] Digital HAS beaten film. I am pretty sure 5K or Super Hi Vision would look more detailed than the best S35mm film scan on IMAX. Would you notice even more resolution from 65mm on IMAX? I haven't yet. For sure digital has better sensitivity to light with less noise. With the Sony F65 it also has a wider colour gamut and better dynamic range. Case closed! [/quote] What? Are you kidding me? Do you actually shoot film, have you actually looked at the same shot on 35mm next to an F65 or Alexa or
  17. I had the iphone last, then the GH2, then the 7d. The GH2 looked nasty to me personally. Very videoy and not nice colours at all. I find it hard to understand how some people put it up so high, but different tastes i guess. I had the Alexa first because the image had a smoother feel, with very nice tonal range. The whole 'most people preferred the GH2' feels like out of context fanboy hysteria. Why so desperate to overstate this camera? Granted, it is amazing that such an inexpensive camera can even be close to the more expensive ones, but did it look as good? Nowhere near to me, a
  18. [quote name='alexander' timestamp='1342820683' post='14211'] I agree with nolan when It comes to 65mm 70mm Imax film but 35mm film is already beaten by alexa and sony f and also red. The only argument pro 35mm film is that filming on it realy is more of an art then flat digital is. Because it makes u think more about the look before actually shooting the scene. But it seems as if all the older directors prefer digital. Do not know wich one it was but one said that he did not wont to die in front of the cutting bench. thats why he is shooting digital... migt have been
×
×
  • Create New...