mtheory

I thought the fundamental idea behind the digital cinema revolution was that it enabled Cinema managers to download and screen what they believed to be suitable/profitable for the 'local' cinema-goers from the giant hard disc in the sky.
 
The old model for distribution must change to suit this century surely?

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.

So i finally caved and bought a BMCC (it arrived today), now i need to get a desktop to tame the beast. I've gone back and forth between Mac OS and Windows(I own both already), and I've finally decided on going with Windows for my workstation. It was a close call, but at the end of the day the the price/power of a WIN desktop won over the ease of use Mac.
 
Here are the specs:
ASUS P9X79 WS Sealed Liquid Cooling Systems Overclocked Intel Core i7 3930K 4.0GHz - 4.2GHz LGA 2011 Hex-Core Processor (12MB L3 Cache) 850 Watt Corsair TX850M Single 4GB EVGA GTX 680 Genuine MS Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit Edition 240GB Intel 520 Series 2X 3TB SATA 6.0Gb/s, 7200RPM, 64MB Cache 12X Blu-ray (BD) Disc Combo (Reads BD and Writes to DVD/CD) (No DVD/Blu-ray Playback Software Included)  
Anyone with last minute suggestions, please chime in.

I'd say we don't see the BMPC until the Fall, but when we do see it, I think it will be provided in ample quality. You have to figure that BM has learned something from their go-around with the BMCC.
 
 
 
Yah, because there are soooo many better options out there for the price.... :lol:.
 
Wouldn't trade mine for anything, and I had to wait all of 4 days to get it.  Of course other people have had horror stories, and i'm sure there are some people out there who prefer the 5D3 hack to owing a BMCC, but let's not pretend that the BMCC's been made obsolete before it ever got off the launch pad. That honor has been reserved for the c500.
 
 

It's not a matter of getting used to a habit or of overcoming a distaste. There have been studies in the 90ies about the correlation of the film image's size (relative to the viewer's field of vision) and how many details of the plot could be reported afterwards. There is a clear proof that size matters, and the advantages lie in the two-digit percent-range. Is this so hard to imagine? What about Blue Velvet, with all it's very dark scenes? What about Lawrence of Arabia, with it's grand panoramas? What about 2001, with it's dominating blackness that represents immeasurable distances and works as a wormhole for our 'doors of perception'? But even an easy-to-digest movie like Transformers will never have the same impact on a phone, retina display or not.
 
If small screens were the future, why then discussions about 4k? You can do without higher resolution (see Lynch's Inland Empire), but for a cinematic experience you must blow it up!
 
Today, giant tv sets and high quality beamers have made home cinema installations easy and affordable. With the right attitude (isolation of your screening room from the rest of the mundane world, dimming the lights, raising the volume, becoming unavailable for calls or other messages), you needn't go to the cinema, only if you want to see a new film.
 
What is more, people in their 20's suffer from a form of deprivation, for which their smartphones are as well the cause and a kind if remedy. I am in several facebook and whatsapp groups (I have to, if I want to keep in touch with people of that age). I assure you, it's not just a silly game like when we used to send us silly or obscene letters under the desks. It's stultifying. The road to disaster.
 
However, as the very interesting 'Lincoln'-thread suggests, cinema is experiencing a crisis. Maybe two hours are either too long to transport an audiovisual idea or way too short. Films should either run 3 minutes or develop interactively as a television/internet series with open end. If the form can change - the size, the length, the narrational structures, what have you - the content will allow for new ventures as well. An example: Erdogan might learn from a short clip that he no longer represents his people and is disempowered effectively, making the future development a mere formality. 'Film' could become an instrument of communication in the best sense. 

can you imagine kids today sitting through 'Lawrence Of Arabia' or 'Dr Zhivargo'..... 3 hrs long....
 
two of my favourite all time films ever,  David Lean and Freddie Young at their best ..
long takes ,stunning cinematography , no MTV quick edits , no CGI explosions and a story with a plot and grown up dialogue......etc etc
 
Films are now made for a gerenation with ADHD and 40 minute attention spans and sound bite one liner scripts.
 
So roll on the Indie arthouse digital revolutuion , if it makes more new directors make intersting films then thats a good thing in my book!!

Big Budget movies are now essentially two hour commercials designed to sell toys ( All of Marvel and Disney ) and product placement ( Audi in all of Iron-Man movies ) for big brands, they are no longer a product in itself the way a self-contained cinema experience was designed to be. No, movies won't whither and die, - quite the opposite, we'll see more...ALOT more movies...Marvel for example wants to churn out a superhero movie every 6 months, reboot-rinse-repeat.
 
It's filmmakers with an independent creative vision who are metaphorically withering and dying in Hollywood, being replaced by marketers and stylists instead. Cinema will continue to exist simply because watching a film with your friends is a social experience in itself, which does not compete with that other cool movie you will watch on your iPhone/Netflix, a new home for modern independent filmmakers. 
 
I don't really see what the problem there. You want global audiences? They are there, at the click of a button if you are willing to forsake the champagne at the festivals and the elitist "I've been screened in a theatre, bitch" smirk and go into the most competitive global digital marketplace. Look at David Fincher, the guy did it with House of Cards, and the audiences showed up, - I'd readily view his next movie exclusively online. 
 
And Alejandro Gonzales Innarritu shot his last film on VHS and released it online, because he is an artist who doesn't care about the festival circuit and the big honors of theatrical releases, he creates because he likes to create, and he shares using whatever medium is at hand. 
 
Spielberg and Lynch are just afraid to adapt to this change, that's all...to them I say, grab a 5D and show us what you can do without a million dollar budget, your talent is now laid bare. David Lynch can have an army of volunteers of actors and crew if he only asked for it on Twitter, his movies can be shot with ANY camera, he could be shooting and releasing several movies a year to online audiences if he wanted to and yet he sees obstacles instead of an opportunity in digital. 
 
Dinosaurs...

Yep, I was looking at the similar $999 pricepoints for Macbook Air and iPad and was thinking just how much more I can do on Air with a full-fledged OS. Plus, if it doesn't work you can always cut stuff with it. I know Boris would.
 

Big Budget movies are now essentially two hour commercials designed to sell toys ( All of Marvel and Disney ) and product placement ( Audi in all of Iron-Man movies ) for big brands, they are no longer a product in itself the way a self-contained cinema experience was designed to be. No, movies won't whither and die, - quite the opposite, we'll see more...ALOT more movies...Marvel for example wants to churn out a superhero movie every 6 months, reboot-rinse-repeat.
 
It's filmmakers with an independent creative vision who are metaphorically withering and dying in Hollywood, being replaced by marketers and stylists instead. Cinema will continue to exist simply because watching a film with your friends is a social experience in itself, which does not compete with that other cool movie you will watch on your iPhone/Netflix, a new home for modern independent filmmakers. 
 
I don't really see what the problem there. You want global audiences? They are there, at the click of a button if you are willing to forsake the champagne at the festivals and the elitist "I've been screened in a theatre, bitch" smirk and go into the most competitive global digital marketplace. Look at David Fincher, the guy did it with House of Cards, and the audiences showed up, - I'd readily view his next movie exclusively online. 
 
And Alejandro Gonzales Innarritu shot his last film on VHS and released it online, because he is an artist who doesn't care about the festival circuit and the big honors of theatrical releases, he creates because he likes to create, and he shares using whatever medium is at hand. 
 
Spielberg and Lynch are just afraid to adapt to this change, that's all...to them I say, grab a 5D and show us what you can do without a million dollar budget, your talent is now laid bare. David Lynch can have an army of volunteers of actors and crew if he only asked for it on Twitter, his movies can be shot with ANY camera, he could be shooting and releasing several movies a year to online audiences if he wanted to and yet he sees obstacles instead of an opportunity in digital. 
 
Dinosaurs...

Probably true! Crowdfunding he'd make the goal in an hour. 

This is all actually a good thing.
 
It means talent like Lynch will flock to on demand services (Vimeo included) and small cinemas.
 
The big cinemas need to die a death and be taught a lesson.
 
People will grow bored of watching shit.
 
I say good riddance multiplexes and $10 popcorn & coke. Let the uninterested and bored sit at home and watch their pirated DVDs. Real film lovers are about to get the revolution they deserve.

It's such a satisfying impulse to blame the evils of society and corporate profit for one's personal failures and inhibitions.
 
It's also BS.

A good job they didn't have a hand in Django Unchained's distribution.

Seriously, this is like reminding people they could cook for themselves at home and save a buck or two everytime someone suggests a new restaurant. It's retarded!

I could give you an endless list of things you could make or build for yourself and save loads of money in the process, but what's the point?

We all know we can build our own computers and save 10 cents in the process, it's just that most of us have better things to do, get over it.

Building computers is a great thing for sure... if you're into building computers!
But if you're into filmmaking or movie editing, then you should probably be making or editing films instead.

People are here discussing a product they'd like to use (or not), why do you have to come here with the same old talk "oh if you cook at home you can use only the ingredients you like and it's much cheaper". Go build a computer or something!

That's all great for people with time and an interest for it, but that's just a few of you. If I get a larger project that requires another computer (or more) I can just grab one at the Apple store, turn it on and log into my apple account, and all my apps are there, do you think a client would wait for me to order all the parts and then spend a few days assembling and troubleshooting a new machine, even if that was what I really wanted to spend my time doing?

If I have to spend a day assembling a machine then I'm not saving any money at all. No one's forcing a Mac on you, if you don't like it move along, nothing to see here, I'm sure there's plenty of forums where you can talk about building your own computer and how much you'll save.

In the end, your only weapon is innovative content. You have a global audience at your finger tips, - can you win them over? There has never been a better time for emerging filmmakers than now.
 
Words of wisdom from Tarantino and Rodriguez. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVE296BvOj4

I didn't make it clear that the buyers I spoke to were from all over the world, they were more than willing to listen. I told them it was an urban thriller, all good, I told them it was set in London, all good, I told them it was about injustice, all good, I told them it was a multi-cultural cast... they were outta there LOL. To be honest I wasn't at all surprised. One thing you do when you come to understand film sales agents is understand the numbers, they now all have a universal processor which not only determines how much they will pay for a film but will also tell them what they are expected to make from it, it's actually quite scary when they talk to you about it, with a big grin on their faces, you are standing there watching your project being stripped of any artistic merit, any soul that might touch a persons heart and resonate with them, and are left being like a piece of sushi on those conveyor belts.
 
I am often dumbfounded by what I find is just normal today, in a lot of what we call a way of life, which is a total lack of quality control or oversight as basic values, what these people don't want to understand, is that they are in the business of creating film to sustain a fim business, and what filmmakers more often than not when starting out don't want to understand, is... that they are wanting to get into the business of making films as a living. What both need to get on board with, is how to help each other sustain each other. I remember at film school being ignored for 3 years because I said the forbidden words, 'the business of film', when what I should have said is, 'I want to make films that no one will ever see, that are about fruit decomposing over 24 hours, that I will then project in slow motion to deliver my artistic vision', that would have got me luvved up from day one, and played no doubt in the arsehole of the ICA!
 
Creative vision is all fine and dandy if you are spending your own money but the second someone gives you a pound or a dollar you will have to accept that opinion and deliver a return on that investment, that's what you are promising by accepting the investment to begin with. The films you make today must deliver the business and as previously mentioned, the mechanical only wants the formula and only the formulaic will be adhered to as it makes sense to support that, risk and lean management are what all these guys are about, your vision means nothing to them, the numbers do.
 
It is quite possible that maybe this outburst from Spielberg and Lucas should NOT be adhered to, and allowed to happen, only then they may wake up, well only for a moment before the next original idea gets exploited, and milked to death, afterall Steven Soderbergh recently quit because of the same reasons. You and I both know Andrew, creativity is risk and risk only! To step into the unknown is the excitement and when you do and it works then they all come following!
 

Implosion? Maybe for pampered filmmakers used to the status quo. Yes, Steven, now you gotta compete in a much more democratic digital environment. The days of a dozen good filmmakers and hundreds of millions of audiences are over. We are heading into the era of tens of thousands of filmmakers and billions of audiences. Grab a fucking camera. 

A lot of the people that complain about Apple often don't create much content, they tweak. Professionals have money, they also are very busy, anything getting between them and doing their job is a cost. Building a Hacktintosh even if quite reliable when done is not even an option for most professionals. A piece of gear needs to be replaceable on a whim, if something breaks it needs to be swapped out for something that works ASAP. if you can't you lose money and credibility. I know it goes against a lot of the hacking that happens here but closed standardized systems are far better for professional work this includes iPads, iPhones etc. The problem with a lot of PC, Android, or whatever setups is that they really aren't very standardized and replacing a unit 1 to 1 is often not possible even after as little as a few months.

Nothing wrong at all with going the other route there are just many benefits people often look past when comparing the two. And I think most people would prefer Canon, Panasonic, Nikon or whoever made a camera with all their desired features from the factory rather than feeling the need to resort to hacking, fact is they aren't and they could be.

Well, certainly I cannot say I like. The heat go up in your desktop at 10" i don't know. I'm a long time Mac Pro user but for me this is a Mac Mini Pro, but certainly i prefer this to a Imac.
 
My two cents
 
Pd: this afternoon i see a video at Engadget where some dude is showing the Mac Pro in a crystal cylinder, and some employed cross behind with two big chrome ashtrays and look keep looking the Endgadget guy, very ironic moment.

It looks like an IKEA dustbin.

It is ALIVE!!!!
 

 
Meanwhile, somewhere at Canon HQ...
 

The pocket and 4K are the most unique so they get my vote. The other two are a bit "meh" now. TBH I'm considering cancelling too, I'm pretty high up the 4K queue, but there's no sample imagery, almost no-one who actually ordered even the first camera has it
 
I'm also not convinced I need that much future proofing.
 
After recently handling Epic footage 4K, the resolution was a headache. The raw was lovely, but the huge resolution makes everything sluggish. That makes the 5D a better option, oddly enough. Plus I love stills.

People are already shooting commercial gigs with 5D RAW. If you're too scared to take the plunge with the rest of the gang, at least don't sit there trying to convince yourself everyone else is miserable when you're the one sitting on that lonely plank.
 
I haven't had so much fun with my 5D since the Manual Firmware was released. 14-bit color. For free. Unreal. 

Here is a demo showing how the pre-release ML firmware crop mode can increase the focal range of any lens without any loss in resolution or light when shooting full 1080 raw. I am still in shock.
 
http://youtu.be/dQ51rE_ZUgo

I think there will be a lot of people cancelling and jumping on the canon raw parade.  so pre orders are probably diminishing as we speak.
 
I'm hoping everyone cancels, jumps on the shallow dof bandwagon like back in 2009 (but this time with raw), and leaves the smaller more tactful sensor size less used leaving potential for us who are sticking with it with the aesthetic edge.  
 
I have to say I'm on the cusp of looking at a 5dmk3, but the idea of a silky smooth s16mm sensor (and its limitations) is one that is very attractive to me, where most are hankering after a larger sensor again.