Jump to content

odie

Members
  • Posts

    229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by odie

  1. 32 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

    How good was the copy of the film? A lot of times compression destroys low light scenes that would probably have been beautiful otherwise. 

    +1

    For me it's 

    any CAMERA that you can load or thread Kodak film in .. image combined with art..fantastic

  2. On 12/17/2020 at 6:39 PM, Matins 2 said:

    Is it even possible? Are new sensor technologies needed? Are there certain developments going on that some of us are unaware of?

     

    Two different mediums 

     

    not a question of catching up

     

    the difference between working with Kodak film and digital video is substantial when you a pursuing a career 

     

    Thats why I have a film camera  in my gear bag

  3. 8 hours ago, kye said:

    I'm going to disagree with all the sentiments in this thread and recommend something different.

    Go rent an Alexa.

    For practical purposes, maybe an Alexa Mini.  Talk to your local rental houses and see if there's a timeframe you can rent one and get a big discount, often rental houses are happy to give you a discount if you're renting it when the camera wouldn't be rented by anyone else so have a chat with them.

    Shoot with it a lot.  Shoot as much as you can and in as many situations as you can.  Just get one lens with it then take it out and shoot.   Shoot in the various modes it has, shoot into the sun and away from it.  Shoot indoors.  Shoot high-key and shoot low key. 

    Then take the camera back and grade the footage.

    I suspect you won't do this.  It's expensive and a cinema camera like an Alexa is a PITA unless you have used one before.  So I'll skip to the end with what I think you'll find.  The footage won't look great.  The footage will remind you of footage from lesser cameras.  You will wonder what happened and if you're processing the footage correctly.  

    I have never shot with an Alexa, but I am told by many pros that if you don't know what you're doing, Alexa footage will look just as much like a home video as from almost any other camera.

    Cinematic is a word that doesn't even really have any meaning in this context.  It really just means 'of the cinema' and there's probably been enough films shot and shown in cinemas on iPhones that now an iPhone technically qualifies as being 'cinematic'.  Yes, i'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek here, but the point remains that the word doesn't have any useful meaning here.  Yes, images that are shown in the cinema typically look spectacular.  Most of this is location choice, set design, hair, costume, makeup, lighting, haze, blocking, and the many other things that go into creating the light that goes through the lens and into the camera.

    That doesn't mean that the camera doesn't matter.  We all have tastes, looks we like and looks we don't, it's just that the word 'cinematic' is about as useful as the word 'lovely' - we all know it when we see it but we don't all agree on when that is.

    By far the more useful is to work out what aspects of image quality you are looking for:

    • Do you like the look of film?  If so, which film stocks?
    • What resolution?  Some people suggest that 1080p is the most cinematic, whereas some argue that film was much higher resolution than 4K or even 8K. 
    • What about colour?  The Alexa has spectacular colour, so does RED.  But neither one will give you good colour easily, and neither will give you great colour - great colour requires great production design, great lighting, great camera colour science, and great colour grading.  By the way - Canon also has great colour, so does Nikon, and other brands too.  You don't hear photographers wishing their 5D or D800 had colour science like in the movies.
    • What lenses do you like?  Sharp?  Softer?  High-contrast?  Low contrast?  What about chromatic aberation?  and what about the corners - do you like a bit of vignetting or softness or field curvature?  Bokeh shape?  dare I mention anamorphics?

    But there is an alternative - it doesn't require learning what you like and how to get it, it doesn't require the careful weighting of priorities, and it's a safer option.  Buy an ARRI Alexa LF and full set of Zeiss Master Primes.  That way you will know that you have the most cinematic camera money can buy, and no-one would argue based on their preferences.

    You still wouldn't get the images you're after because the cinematic look requires an enormous team and hundreds of thousands of dollars (think about it - why would people pay for these things if they could get those images without all these people?) but there will be no doubt that you have the most cinematic camera that money can buy.

    I'd suggest Panavision, but they're the best cameras that money can't buy.

    +1

     

    for me it was Kodak #7203..Wow!

  4. 17 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

    Just personal preference. I prefer the look of the 3.2k and 2.8k Alexa to the Alexa 65 and Alexa LF, it seems more organic and has more texture and I think that's part of the reason vintage lenses are so popular on the 65.

    And features I watch that were shot at 2.8K look better to me than my own 4k+ footage (pretty obviously). But when I worked in post with a variety of cameras the Alexa footage always looked so much better than the F55 and Epic footage to me, too. It's just got a smoother look to it and the texture is smooth and looks more organic and more like film so even if the shadows are noisy it's a good look, and when you lose that texture it either looks more digital or more plastic to me. I know other people who feel this way, but I know a lot of people don't. It could be fine. The Gemini and Black Magic stuff doesn't look too bad to me, presumably since it's not over-sharpened. Oddly, Alexa ProRes is sharpened by default so who knows. Maybe it's the low frequency sharpening on Alexa footage that I like, but I dislike the edge enhancement on a drone or iPhone or something. I can't say for sure, just speculate. But when you capture too much fine detail it looks worse to me.

    There's an interview with the DP on the Crown where he goes through all the steps he took to make the F55 look more organic. He wanted to use an Alexa but he wasn't allowed to. I guess I can relate to that. It's just personal preference. I really like the look of S16 and 2-perf S35. I like a more painterly image, I was more into Kaminski than Deakins. I like high speed film when I shoot stills. But I also want the texture to look good. I think it's also sort of a running gag, they keep delaying it and the joke among Alexa fanatics is they're delaying it because the 2.8k is already so good.

    I found a super 16mm film camera and Cine Arri Xenon lens...Wow!

  5. 2 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

    This has become a political forum, that occasionally talks about cameras.

    It is way too early to point fingers. Hindsight is 20/20.

    Except in the case of the media. They are the monsters. Either they are causing undo panic here, or their clear history of doing so dilutes a response to a true threat. They have no checks and balances. 

    TURN. OFF. THE. NEWS.

    +1

     

    and unfortunately we enabled the media to manipulate us

  6. “Japan was one of the first countries outside of China hit by the coronavirus and now it’s one of the least-affected among developed nations. That’s puzzling health experts.

    Unlike China’s draconian isolation measures, the mass quarantine in much of Europe and big U.S. cities ordering people to shelter in place, Japan has imposed no lockdown. While there have been disruptions caused by school closures, life continues as normal for much of the population. Tokyo rush hour trains are still packed and restaurants remain open.”

     

    from Bloomberg article

  7. This is from Patricia Claus (a journalist ) who also mentions an 2003 epidemic if anyone can comment 

     

    “Is this pandemic dangerous? Of course it is. Is it going to affect the economy? It is. But this is not the end of the world as we know it.

    For a little historical perspective, the SARS virus had a fatality rate of 9.63% and the MERS virus had one of 34.45%. The Swine flu caused 12,469 deaths in the US and a total of 575,400 worldwide. And the bottom of the world’s economy did not fall out during those times.

    Let’s all just take a breath and step back a bit from the 24/7 media frenzy. It is a part of human nature to want to be part of the herd, to not be left behind. But remember, this herd mentality can lead us off a cliff too.

    The world faces similar emergencies pretty much every 5-10 years due to the constant mutation of viruses. In our opinion, there is no need to exaggerate the threat quite as much as is being done today.

    Yes, it now appears to be true that the virus can live in aerosol form in the air for three hours and on surfaces for three days. That is cause for some major, and ongoing, disinfection and spring cleaning in our homes and public places.

    And because the virus is especially dangerous to the elderly, without question, they must be protected.

    One of our writers remembers the 2003 SARS outbreak very well, actually being diagnosed with that flu himself. Schools had closed for a month back then in Greece (15 days + 15 days off for Easter); that situation was very similar to what we face today. Who on earth remembers this now? No one. That’s why we think we need to put everything into perspective.

    Yes, of course we need to be extremely careful, and not spread it to the elderly. And this virus does seem to be more easily spread due to its aerosolization and ability to live on surfaces. But the virulence of the coronavirus is so much less than some of these other pandemic viruses that we have lived through before.

    As to the reasons exactly why so many are losing their minds – here are a few, gleaned from some astute observers of society today.

    Twenty-four hour, mega-hyped Coronavirus headlines with bright red graphics and banners.

    So-called news outlets designing and building Coronavirus sets and backdrops to get people to watch.

    Scrolling headlines identifying the latest cases and deaths.

    Nonstop discussions with experts with differing opinions.

    The media focusing on the deaths — and never mentioning the recoveries.

    This is fear-mongering on a billion-dollar budget.

    Like it or not, the media, especially television, is the real controlling force in our world today, and the coronavirus seems to be a very lucrative disease for the networks.

    Watching these nonstop, breathless warnings and dire predictions can lead to being excessively focused on oneself and one’s own family, to the detriment of others — the same mentality of feeling that it is justified to hoard everything within sight. This is a danger to ourselves and to the fabric of our society.

    Ultimately, obsessively trying to kill every single germ that is in our vicinity is a game we cannot win, because no matter how many precautions we take, how many surfaces we disinfect — we simply cannot control everything.

    Wash your hands, wipe down doorknobs and handles, cover your coughs and sneezes and stay home if you are sick or have been around someone that is sick. Social distancing, staying a meter away from others while we are in public, is a great idea right now.

    And by all means, obey any and all travel restrictions that have been put in place for the good of everyone.

    But there is no need for blind, apocalyptic panic — or mindless hoarding — whatsoever.

    We must try to keep our economies going as much as we possibly can, through whatever means we can, while still obeying all the restrictions placed on us.

    The world is not coming to an end, we will get through this — and we will learn a great deal in the process.”

     

  8. 1 hour ago, sanveer said:

    Yesss. Maybe a 1 room, 2 people (max), eoshd short film contest (maybe Andrew can open it to other people, under house arrest, too). And preferably under 10 mins. 

    +1

    FILM challenge one room ..good idea!

    F455D211-CCB2-408B-A3F7-69E82FA2C418.jpeg

  9. On 1/16/2020 at 6:43 AM, billdoubleu said:

    I haven't seen 1917 yet. The Lighthouse looked absolutely incredible though. There was definitely so very much time and effort put forth in crafting that look. I think it really paid off in serving the story.

    +1

     

    Film gets you in with excellence and a small budget 

×
×
  • Create New...