odie

Long live France!
Long live Liberty!
 
 
Downing Street has confirmed that there will be a minute's silence in UK on Monday at 11:00 GMT (Noon in Paris).

Long live France!
Long live Liberty!
 
 
Downing Street has confirmed that there will be a minute's silence in UK on Monday at 11:00 GMT (Noon in Paris).

in honor of Ingmar Bergman..  Mr. Eastman and Mr. Edison with their new inventions.      ( I found a roll of 35mm 5279 for $50..so close)

in honor of Ingmar Bergman..  Mr. Eastman and Mr. Edison with their new inventions.      ( I found a roll of 35mm 5279 for $50..so close)

If you by digital mean renting an Alexa its probably about the same or cheaper. In sweden film is much cheaper than renting something like an Alexa.

+1
200 ..and 50d film ...give the image...subject..actor...actress..friend...family member..an unexplainable feel..like etched in immortality...

+1
200 ..and 50d film ...give the image...subject..actor...actress..friend...family member..an unexplainable feel..like etched in immortality...

200asa film kicks the ass of any iso 20 000 camcorder when it comes to DR.

Get hired - don't buy lol ? So cant wrap my head around why anyone invests in visual transient tools, when the client pays for them anyway ? Just get the job, charge it on, do the next one, when camera +1 comes out?  I may be simple, but all my colleagues who shoot all the world class shit,  hire the operators, then prod manager hires the tool as requested, they don't even own a lens never-mind a camera - not one of my director chums who shoot the shit that is beyond global big even owns a single film-making device other than a phone. Like with music - an old analogue synth will not make you the Human League - just get on with the content rather than reaching for association? Was told as a kid people who do do - people who won't talk about it a lot. Who knows eh

I'm a geek inside and out.  I want to see this movie and analyze the footage (with my defective eyes) with respect to the Arri Alexa 65.  Probably take in this move within the week.  If anyone goes to the movie, please respond on your thoughts on the image, ............and the movie.  Cheers.
According to Imdb:
Arri Alexa 65, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses
Arri Alexa XT (visual effects plates)
Arri Alexa XT M (aerial shots)
Arriflex 235, Panavision B-, C-, E- and G-Series Lenses
Arriflex 435, Panavision Primo, B-, C-, E-, G-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Lightweight, Panavision B-, C-, E- and G-Series Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo, B-, C-, E-, G-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses 

Kodak Motion Picture Film | Facebook
 
 
Tom behind the wheel..

it sounds like you everything really wired over there...nice!
the only thing I can add from here and watching the colorists and dps work..is that everyone really likes kodak film here..it's like how the human eye sees things.....very passionate and successful professionals ..
 
good luck to you again...

​
I think it's the robotic quality of the motion (or lack of motion) - exactly how most cgi misses the point since it's often created by people who have little to no experience with physics and the laws of physics.  the lack of limitation within a digital world means the people responsible for having to produce realistic cg means incorrect levels of physical constraint are included in the brief.
IS is a new thing - in film terms (regarding miniature mechanical IS- in lens, moving sensor etc) .  the fact that it's not within an Arri 435, an IMAX camera, Mitchell cameras, Panavision Panaflex's, AATONS, Alexa, F65, Red Epic. or in any of the flagship film making lenses used in Hollywood from day one.  From day one (lets say 60 years ago) the lack of IS (as it is currently implemented in consumer cameras and lenses) has meant film makers have not had it imparting its look onto the picture.  
 
Since we're way past the golden age of cinema - it is going down hill on the whole.  The golden era of hollywood started and died pretty much in unison with when John McTiernan started and stopped making films.  There are some film makers still doing it right, Nolan, Tarrantino, etc but the new kids are coming and making films without doing their homework or paying their dues to the glory days.  Who knows, if commercial cinema continues the way it's going IS will be commonplace in 50 years.  But I know when I'm sat in my deathbed and kids are wondering why films like the Hateful Eight look so much better than the shite we'll be seeing in 50 years only a few remaining humans will know about what kept us in the real world.  Physical objects, with weight and value.
 
I know I'm mad and old fashioned in my views.  But I'm pretty sure Tarrantino would agree if he had the time and desire to talk on forums:)
 
 

https://vimeo.com/128428344
Thanks Werner for coming by!
better skin tones below:
 
 

It's sad times when the most exposure people see of the Kodak brand is just selling cheap AA batteries at Poundland.
Walking around the Pinewood lot, at least Spectre and Star Wars are being shot on Kodak film still.
Makes me wonder if they were as innovative at making better digital cameras or collaborating with companies like Nikon or Arri may have turned a better route...

​I'm glad there's some people shooting on the lovely Penelope still out there.
Penelope's probably my favourite camera to shoot on; it's too bad they could never get the whole Delta/interchangeable mags thing happening.
The battery life on the Alexa is frustratingly poor - especially when compared to film. You could easily shoot a week or more on four batteries - you'd struggle to get four hours in some cases with four batteries on an Alexa.
 
 
It's a totally different look to digital - IMO it gets silly comparing them anymore, they're totally different looks. I personally love the look of film, and don't believe there is anything in the digital realm that really matches it. Sure, there are cameras that come close in terms of colour, or dynamic range, or both - but they don't look the same and realistically it's a totally different process - you're not going to get even similar images when using a single bayer sensor.

Ok - my analogy was a bit of a stretch. I guess I was trying to say that the increasing relience of firmware and sophisticated electronics in modern cameras is an Achilles heel compared to the mechanical reliability of traditional film cameras.
modern electronics seem less like they were built to last - not even built to standards they were 10 years ago.
I too have a 10 year old Sony cybershot camera and the first 1TB LaCie hard drive...both have outlived equivalent products half their age. 
My first Arri camera for example was an original 1940 release that throughout the years was only modernised in its lens mount and motor. That camera has worked for almost 70 years so far (with very minimal mechanical matinance needed) and is still going strong...I just don't think we will be saying that of any of today's digital cameras in 2085.
 

http://vimeo.com/83774924    here's a director dp working with (super cheap) super 8mm  (i support the artist and whatever choice he or she makes)
 
for me kodak film...watching first dailies...well it was love at first sight...the unexplainable...
 
for practical reasons use both digital and film keep them both competitive and evolving

since I'm born in '91 I have no emotional attachment to kodak...but after working with it...well there is a magic to it....professionally in LA shows like BREAKING BAD..TRUE DETECTIVE..BOARDWALK EMPIRE..are amazing visually...pick the right medium for the right job...(for me ..it's when you have actors..models...high end commercials...skin tones are important) (try it when you can it is amazing)
no reason to wish the death of a great medium..which built the industry 

http://vimeo.com/83774924    here's a director dp working with (super cheap) super 8mm  (i support the artist and whatever choice he or she makes)
 
for me kodak film...watching first dailies...well it was love at first sight...the unexplainable...
 
for practical reasons use both digital and film keep them both competitive and evolving

http://vimeo.com/83774924    here's a director dp working with (super cheap) super 8mm  (i support the artist and whatever choice he or she makes)
 
for me kodak film...watching first dailies...well it was love at first sight...the unexplainable...
 
for practical reasons use both digital and film keep them both competitive and evolving

Film is going to stay for people who want to use it (obviously it's not everyone), it's just another option ou there for "some" filmmakers. One of the main reasons people still want to shoot with film, apart from it's look, it's because of the workflow, they are used to it, (shooting, and then watching the dailies later, etc..). Some DPs hate the way digital works (I am not talking about how it looks) but because now they have 12 people watching on a screen what the DP is doing and giving remarks on his work, he has much more pressure, especially if actors are not happy the way they look. With film everyone would trust the DPs knowledge and experience.
In the end it's still just a tool to tell a story, if the directors thinks that it is going to help him tell the story because he prefers the look, the workflow, and what it means to shoot film, then so be it, who are we to tell if something is better!
I really don't see what the fuss is all about, we should be happy that film will still be around as an option to shoot a movie.

After shooting and editing extensively with the 5D3 (H.264 + RAW), Sony FS700, GH4, and A7S, based not only on my personal opinion, but on feedback from actors/models/clients, cameras which produce better skin tones are preferred. I found this out by shooting the same scenes with multiple cameras and reviewing the results with others. Doing research online I found that skin tones were the single most important element for cameras used to make money. Resolution, frame rates, viewfinders, ergonomics, etc., are all very important too, but skin tones are number one. Skin tones affect emotion, and emotion is used to tell a story or sell a product.
What cameras provide the best skin tones? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most professionally? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most in Oscar winning films (last few years)? ARRI. What DSLR was used most in feature films? Canon (5D, 7D, 1D): http://shotonwhat.com/?s=5D. Why did the C100/C300 far outsell/outrent the FS700, even though the FS700 has way more features (and can even look full frame with a SpeedBooster)? C100/C300 produce better skin tones with less effort. 
In the end, it's possible to get similar, sometimes even better (rare/unusual lighting conditions) skin tones from the GH4 and A7S vs. the 5D3, however on average, the 5D3 requires a lot less time and work.
How do we know when skin tones are better, when it's so subjective? Shoot the same scene with multiple cameras then show the results to multiple people for feedback. Some DPs do a ton of testing to figure this out before shooting a feature: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500/

Last night I watched the much anticipated conclusion of the Hobbit trilogy. And sadly I have to concur with all the people who said, that 3D HFR looks absolutely dreadful.
Look, I have been a huge fan of "Lord of the Rings", I love fantasy, I love the feeling to be swept into another world, taken to another time and led to magical illusionary places.
The Hobbit fails on all counts, at least in 3D HFR.

For the whole movie I was so distracted by the technical aspects that I couldn't build any "relationship" with the protagonists. Whereas in LOR I would tend to empathize and even cry, many scenes in the Hobbit are rather cringeworthy, even those that were probably meant otherwise.

The look reminded me of computer games which might be the reason, why younger movie goers I spoke to, showed a distinctly different response. But the overly photorealistic, plasticky impression makes me concentrate on the tons of make up instead of the facial expressions, on the visibly artificial scene and furnishings instead of the grand (?) tale, on the sheer plethora of detail and resolution instead of the plot.

The 3D distracts from the main things happening in the movie, instead leading viewers to get lost in the multiple planes of view.

The HFR destroys the filmic impression, by taking away 24p motion blur, which really lends itself to fantasy and accentuates its magic potency.

Besides that, The Hobbit is also a rather mediocre motion picture IMHO. Flat, almost comical dialogues, very few unexpected turns and a main actor thats simply not as likable and convincing as in LOR. And of course, the trilogy could and should have been conflated into one movie.

Now, why am I posting this? Just to vent? No, because, as many camera nerds around here, I was so excited to read all information about the new 4K cameras (especially the NX1) and got all worked up about getting more resolution. But after watching The Hobbit I have concluded that more resolution and sharpness is mostly not needed (at least not for fantasy, drama, comedy, maybe for documentaries, news and porn) and that it can actually subtract from the viewing experience.

Insofar the Hobbit has been an epiphany for me: I will now concentrate more on color science, dynamic range, lowlight abilities, stabilization, handling and highlight roll off among other things.

4K is certainly not dead, it has many uses, especially as an aquisition format (in-post stabilization, zoom, downscaling, green screen work), but I don't see it as the be-all and end-all of cameras.

End of rant.


 
 

I saw one of the earliest big 4K monitors at NAB one year.
The shot was of a Samurai walking down a gravel path. I quickly realised I was staring at the detail of the gravel rather than the actor's face!
I also saw plenty of Sony 50p and 60p that year, and found it plastic and dead. Too much like real life.
Since then I never really obsessed much over resolution or HFR, in fact I often blur footage slightly on purpose! It feels dreamier, and the best movies are kind of like waking dreams I find...
Wildlife, sport, reporting and some kinds of documentary suit both well I'm sure.