mtheory

Hi JCS, I can accept any fictional time-space theory.  It was the blatant small-science sloppiness that got to me.  When Flash Gordon became a hit, a long, long time ago, you knew it was inaccurate that rocket exhaust would flame upwards in level flight, but you also knew there was no other way for them to get the effect.  They created a model and put a Roman candle in it and filmed.  In Star Trek you knew it made no sense that the ship's phasers would each go at an angle to the target, but you also knew it would look stupid on your tiny little TV if they showed it as a straight line (unless it was a little blip of photon torpedo).  I'm sure you get my point.  Historically, the problem with special effects was they often just couldn't film what would be more believable (from a science point of view) in a visual fashion.  The tech just wasn't there.  But the filmmakers KNEW what they would have done if they could have.
 
Today we have F-35s with vertical thrusters, which were used in Harrier Jump jets beginning in the 1960s, and pretty much common knowledge by the 1990s.  Yet the design of the space-ships in Interstellar are 1930s.  If the water wasn't 1-foot deep on that planet, what would have happened then?  The whole movie I felt the director was saying "f-you I'll make my spaceships any way I want because I'm THE genius here.  I know that because my last movie made a billion dollars"  
 
The problem is rampant in movies, maybe always has been.  Like Redford's "All is Lost".  I'm no sailing expert but even I noticed all the unrealistic shots.  For example, if there is one thing marine electronics is, it is WATERPROOF.  Yet we're to believe they all short circuited.  It's the audience's vanity that they want to be part of something special so badly they can't say the emperor has no clothes.  My daughter says most of her friends would look at her as a freak if she said what she really thought about Nolan's movies.
 
As for Interstellar's cinematography. Again, I don't see anything special there.  The b-movie "Moon" was 100x more evocative of space and interstellar psychology.  There was one scene, in Interstellar, where the organ music is building and building and building and then they run out of fuel and it stops and the character says something like "we ran out of fuel" and I so badly wanted to turn to my movie companion and say, "no, they ran out of organ music".  It was SO obvious.  I almost laughed out loud.  An actor should have said what Bette Davis said in "Dark Victory".  "Max (Steiner), only one of us is going up those stairs."  

I've been a film-nut since my teens and I'm in my 50s now.  Nine times out of ten, I now exit the movie theater wondering why I still bother.  In order to suspend my belief, the filmmaker can't dare me to ignore the incongruous.  Like many of Tim Burton's movies, Interstellar came across as a movie made by a visually imaginative person with no interest in subtle character development and story-telling.  Am I just too old to get it?  What am I missing?  To put it bluntly, though the film was watchable, I thought it immature.  
 
Inazuma, what about Interstallar did you find incredible?  How is it a movie that defines moves?  Have you see the original "Day the Earth Stood Still", or "2001 A Space Odyssey" or even "GATTACA" or "Contact", which are fairly recent?    
 
There was only one thing that Interstellar got right.  The black character who waited 23 years, alone, in the ridiculous time warp remained cool, while the white one became a sociopath ;)

Interstellar was Nolan's first ever digital intermediate !! he's awayes done photochemical colour timing before......what next... Nolan shoot on an Arri Alexa......heaven forbid!!

Now the thread just sounds sexual...

I can't stand those wankers with bush beards and fricken wayfearers ponsing around in a flanolette shirt!! There's hundreds of them here in Sydney, I can't believe believe they actually have to wear all that shit to get noticed, it's embarassing!! 

This parody is spot on, I've noticed an influx of bearded hipsters at local production & rental houses in the past two years. Filmmaking as fashion, fuck that...

I honestly believe the 5dmk4 is going to be mega. That is all.

This was shot in 8bits on a canon c300 and has won awards,
 

Heres a short clip from a documentary i'm working on. This was shot probably 50/50 full frame and crop mode. The opening slider shot was in full frame mode. 
 
I am not finding the rolling shutter to be an issue at all
 

I love this comment, by which i mean its just plain idiotic.
Everything you've seen from the FS7 has been shot within the first 5 minutes someone has had the camera. Let's wait a few months before making such a wide declaration. Early A7s footage/GH4 footage also looked pretty crappy. Give people a few shoots with a camera - then make your judgements. 
 
Now to your "video" point. It has zero to do with frame interpolation. Its called over-sharpness. What really annoys me is people who shoot a digital sensor camera that isn't a RED, want a "cinematic" output, and yet use no softening filters (RED deliberately keeps their image as soft as they can get away with). None. An Alexa can look over-sharp shot poorly. 35mm film can too. When we shoot film (too rare!) we often have 3 layers of softening in front of the lens. 3 layers! When shooting a commercial or drama we have a range of Tiffen softeners ready to go for the Alexa or the F55, and we often will soften the highlights again in the grade. 
 
However - if you're shooting for broadcast, and you're matching $150k studio cameras which are horrifically sharp, being able to look 'video' is actually a plus! Sony and Canon and Panasonic understand this.
 
You want a more pure 'filmic' camera that's value for money? I can't recommend the BMs enough.
 
You need a camera that can shoot reportage, TV interview, a feature doc, a music video AND an indie feature? Better to start off hella sharp and adjust to taste.
I tell people all the time: A Swiss Army knife is actually a pretty terrible hunting knife. Unless you NEED that flexibility. 

Yes I am sure the crew and post team on Skyfall found Alexa raw really hard!

I've been fooling around with using DNxHD 220x with Ninja 2 attached to C100 MK 1, and for C-log it's pretty incredible how much of a difference it makes. You gain a ton of detail (yeah even more!) and colour separation, secondaries work incredibly well... you basically gain a stop or so of usable dynamic range as you don't lose all the detail in the darks. it's quite brilliant.
 
The price of C100 MK 1 and Ninja 2 are both dropping so in combination it's gonna be really good for indie film making, just jack the audio into the camera too! I don't mind using the AVCHD for reporting and that kind of thing, but the DNxHD has ten-times the data and whips it into touch if you want to do post. IT ain't 4K, but it'll look damn good.
 
For promos and slow motion stuff though the FS7 is a much better bet, but it'll cost you twice as much. OR you can hire it for 150 a day. It seems it maintains the Sony cool, Kodak-y look, which is certainly a look. It's one i like, though it's not as friendly as Canon.

Can't believe I forgot BitWC was shot on C300's!
 
Far from being a limiting factor the C300 was in fact integral to the film's success. All those walking scenes looking directly into Adele Whatshername's rather bewitching face; the 1000's of takes the cast and crew were forced to do; the completely independent vision of the director (low-cost shoot, so unrestricted by big studio).
 
You could argue the film depended on the C100. And the image is everything in this film. Its pure cinema - cinema in its most base form. If you can do that with a C300 then for me the argument is over. Sure Malick might need film or Fincher a RED, but BitWC is pure cinema as far as I'm concerned, and not only did it loose nothing from being shot on the Canon, it gained something very special.
 
What an amazing film it is: far too long; ethically very dubious (treatment of its young stars); gratuitously compelling sex scenes; depressing as hell. But challenging in a way far too little cinema is (I was shaken for days after seeing it). I can't say I liked it, but it affected me in a way very few films ever have. 

How does motion blur work with regard to downconverting 60p in the C300? When you shoot 180 shutter at 24p. How can you get a 1/48s exposure if the sensor is grabbing images at 1/60s? Is it simulated in camera somehow (blending frames?)?

The best way to learn filmmaking is to watch and observe films, develop a taste, then experiment and eventually arrive at your own techniques. It worked for Quentin Tarantino, and it will work for you.

I feel like I've been punched in the gut..I have been a fan of all of Glazer's work for over a decade ( commercials, music videos, films ) and when I saw this absolutely ugly video mixed with his trademark creative directing/editing style all I could think of was how good the commercial SHOULD have been with proper cinematic visuals applied ( better camera / grading ).
 
This actually made me think how much equipment DOES matter, and how much that shitty digital camera look can rob an amazing filmmaker of his visual style...man I will need some time to recover...ughhh...
 
This is how Glazer work is supposed to look like.
 

 

What surprises me the most about 7D2 is not the lack of 4K ( half-expected it ) but lack of low-light capability. Right now D4s, D810, Df and A7s are radically changing photographic conventions by delivering acceptable noise-free ISO1600 images...I didn't believe the hype until I rented a D4s and tried it myself...wow...Nikon truly raised the ISO bar here with not one, but three of its cameras. I'd go as far as call this low-light development as next-gen, and it made me excited about photography again, while Canon is refusing to compete. 
 
I already knew that my next video camera was going to be non-Canon, what i didn't know is that my next stills camera might be non-Canon too...and that I still find hard to digest... 
 
Last hope for that 5D4 announcement in Feb.

Hardware hacks probably would be easy.  
 
That's a small sensor though:  5.75 × 4.28 mm.  Even with lenses built for 16mm, 10.26 x 7.49 mm, you'd have some extensive cropping.  
 
And, Ooooooo, what about our precious shallow DOF?  How can we shoot anything without shallow depth of field!  No one these days is allowed to make movies unless the DOF and bokeh is incredible.  I'm pretty sure one's DIY cinematographer's credentials are in danger of being revoked if an aperture is closed down beyond f4. 

Andrew Im glad you are looking into nikons again. I do love them and used the D810 recently so I can agree it does feel like a much better version of the D800 camera. The video, stills and the Group focus points all are really great. I wish the value of my D800 wasnt so low now or Id sell and upgrade.
 
As for nikon hackers I do hope they get some great advances soon. The Nikon bodies have the ability to write a lot of data to cards and buffers very quickly. Especially as Ive been saying with the XQD cards they are unbelievably fast. 
 
I have kind of given up on the DSLR Video stuff but like having it around. Ive moved on to the Kinemini 4k but its a huge camera. Anyways again glad you are pushing these guys because they will be there own worst enemy with their current mentality on what we want as users.

Hey guys,

Just a head's up the new Nikon D750 is superior to the D810 for video. I saw proof of this in person. Sorry I cannot show you the footage. It wasn't mine and was used on an adult vid. Both cams were on the set.

(D810 still better for stills - super large).

On the video side, the D750 has zero moire/aliasing to speak of (you will find it on D810) and it has a flip lcd screen. It's just as sharp as the D810 (GH3 quality in 1080p but MUCH MUCH better colors!) and is 24 meg Full Frame. The lcd is sharp as hell.

It has zebras, dedicated movie buttons and is lighter than D810. No peaking unfortunately but the zoom in for focus is real nice.

Best of all is the low light. It's at least a stop and half over the D810. Compared them side by side. I saw some footage where 12,800 ISO looked good (great with neat video) and 6400 ISO looked damn near perfect. That's shocking for a Nikon dslr video.

So you get one of the best still cameras in the world with perfect 1080p. (And yes it does 60 at 1080 and that looks fantastic as well. Could see no visible banding.

In my opinion the D750 is just as pleasing as 5D raw but without the time involved. If you shoot stills and want high quality video it's something you should consider. If you only shoot stills go with the D810. For video DSLR it's a no brainer with native Nikor lenses.

For mirrorless I would go A7s but if I'm 50% stills and don't need 4K, than I'm going DSLR Nikon. These dudes have upped their game. Big time.

Just one man's opinion.

Cheers

Because the A7S takes my Canon lenses, has 4K output, has a better form factor for video, better codec and better image with S-LOG.

Considering the accomplishments of GH4 and A7S, not including 4K ( internal or external ) in 7D2 would be suicidal at this point. Given that we can now easily migrate Canon lenses to other systems like Sony/Panasonic, cutting edge body specs are more important than ever. Canon is on thin ice here.

Hello there (Sorry for my bad English)

I'm the director of the film embedded above. To clarify many question talked about in this forum. I would have to explain how we shoot this.

For the equipment, we had 3 5D Mark III with 1.2.3 Magic Lantern firmware installed with 3 Canon Cine Prime Lenses (28, 50 and 85mm.) few L lenses (50 F1.2, 24-70mm F2.8, 28-300 F3.5-5.6 and 70-200 F2.8) and Samyang (Rokinon) Cine 35mm.

In term of optical quality most lenses have pretty good sharpness (to the point that most of the audience will not notice the different unless you are working in this field) as long as you keep the F/T above 4 (and less than 11). If you want to work on 2.8 or 3.5 (less than that are totally not recommended by any chance even you sharpen it up in post. If you want the soft look, it's better to use Black Pro-Mist filter or Fog instead of using lower F/T Stop) then you'll probably see a some different between each lenses. At 1.2-2.0, it'll probably be used only in certain situation and I never recommend anyone using this T/F range as it always hard to focus and the overall sharpness is bad.)

for color rendition, Samyang and Canon Cine are on par with the color representation. We found that 70-200 and 28-300 have less saturation and luminance than the rest. But it's still manageable in Post-Production to get the color to match the rest. I prefer trying best to use the primes one rather than the zoom unless it's for the sake of fast background movement or really soft background.

The good thing about Canon Cine comes to the 300 Degree focus ring which helps a lot in such a complicated shots (like 10-15 focus shift in one shot while dolly back and forth and do a 360 camera turn) Even that (with F3.5), My Focus puller cursed a lot (in Thai) !!

For those who look for a cheaper alternative to Canon, I would suggest you to get Samyang (Rokinon) as it has a full range of lens (with 50mm coming up soon). For my point of view, Canon Cine Prime are mostly for rental companies to own and rent it out (in cheaper price than Ultra Prime/ Cooke i5 or Master Prime) and still give a good optical quality for lower budget type of film.

this should help answering all the question about lenses.

For 5D Mark III with magic lantern. How we lit the scene is that we trying best to lit it in the camera's histogram range. Most of the people I knew of normally didn't do a proper testing to see how far the camera can go in terms of dynamic range and color the sensor can recorded. Everything you see in the frame is designed to take the full advantage of the camera CMOS sensor (blood color, skin mock up, on set smoke to tame the contrast down and bring the dark part up and at the same time lower the highlight down, cloth and set color etc etc.)

Most of the DPs wouldn't go that far to workout with the rest of the crew to bring the best out of camera and therefore don't get what they deserved to after long hard working day shooting it.

and last the Post-Production Workflow. We work on CinemaDNG all the way from the onset DIT to the lab. Using MLRawviewer to check each and every footage after we change the CF card (Sandisk Extreme Pro 128GB, we have 2 of them). Then break the MLV down into CinemaDNG and send it to Davinci at the lab (which required a fast set hardware to work on it at 2K DCI)

We did tried blow it up to 4K and the result is stunning as it still contain all the sharpness. I asked some dude from Canon Thailand to come and see this footage (in 4K) at the lab on the big screen and they were stun of how there little old camera are capable of. I'm pretty happy with the result though (as long as you put a lot of hard work in it to make sure you squeezed every bit of their capabilities out of the camera)

Oh .... we shot our film in Thailand .... it's pretty humid and it's 37-42 degree Celsius most of the time. The camera got heated up to the point that we were worry that we might cooked it for our next meal break, but it didn't get any damage though.


Hope all this information help : )



 

 

 

 
 
Hopefully I can post more of the stuff soon. Still 2 more days to go til I finish the film. After the lab work, I'll probably come up with the trailer that I can post once more to see the end result.

5D3 raw image quality is awesome.