fuzzynormal

Well, in retrospect, I guess I should have done my due diligence and researched the production chain of the film I was going to see. "Buyer Beware" and all that. Still, there's something disagreeable with going to see a IMAX branded projection of a film, (and paying a premium price for it) and then getting an highly inferior image. Not smart on the IMAX biz-ness front, IMHO. It diminishes the brand. Yes, the master digital format is 2k. Odd in of itself, and then to bump it up for an IMAX projection? Bad idea. I mean, there were shots that I could see every single sharpening decision they attempted in Resolve. Focus was soft on that shot? Sharpen the eyes! All of those post production tricks were right in your face. In a way, it was ultimately kind of fascinating. Like watching a DVD six inches from the monitor. It's also ironic that while film is often considered the holy grail of image acquisition by older industry folks, this particular example illustrates how that legacy can be tarnished. Anyway, I wouldn't have expected a major distribution film like this to have this sort of flaw, but that's how the industry is doing things and I guess they felt they could get away with it. I just wouldn't have ever expected that a film, actually shot on film, and projected in a theatre would be woefully inferior to "video." But, based on what they decided to do, there's my testimony.

What's that? All I see is a muppet.

No doubt. Personally, I like standard and portrait. That's just me. Then again, I'm also enamored with Malick, so it's all good. Do not talk to me about Bay. I like to pretend he doesn't exist.

Man, does EVERYTHING have to be some sort of damn algorithm these days? This is the arts (supposedly). Just do it for yourself. If you can't find rhythm in an edit, I don't know how you're ever going to be a successful editor. So say I, grumpy old man. Now get off my lawn.

Still on the wide-side, but if it works for you, that's great. I'd consider renting the 1dc in the future for certain jobs. I'd love to see the used price come down a little more though --and maybe just buy it; depends on future work and how other camera models depreciate. I lean to smaller gear and shoot a lot of stuff on m43, (talk about being unassuming when shooting video, try a GM1) but who knows...

Just curious. Why so wide? Not typically cinematic at that short range. Not knocking it, mind you, just wondering if you like that look better or if you're doing something wide-specific.

Did you see it in IMAX? I'm thinking the larger format really exposed the flaws. Then again, it was so bad I'm not ruling out projectionist mistake. Maybe a condition of all issues, who knows? All I do know is that I got screwed paying extra for this sub-part screening. Oh well.

Yeah, the "IMAX" treatment I feel was definitely a bit of a scam. Shot on Kodak film, finished in digital post at 2k, and then upscaled for IMAX projection? That's not cool. For small-ish multiplex screens it sort of makes sense, but at my screening I truly felt I was being unfairly exploited by the IMAX branding.

At my screening it didn't look like film and it didn't look like video... Actually, it looked like a film transferred to a DVD then digitally up scaled and projected. So...both? In other words, it looked kinda like a mess.

I just can't believe I went into an IMAX screening and watched a projection that looked so mundane. The trailers, the advertisements, the "turn you cell phone off" segments all looked fine and then... the actual movie started and it felt like I was watching Vimeo with the HD button turned off. Damn annoying considering it was a $16 ticket. I've been going to IMAX films since I was a kid. My fondest cinema memories are of watching dry nature films shot in massive IMAX. It was so cool. This MI movie, however, truly looked like a digital projection that should have been shown on one of those small multiplex room screens, just blown up to fit the larger IMAX space. Even aside from the lack of resolution, the shooting in the film was sloppy as hell. A few scenes were crafted quite well, but so much stuff just looked ... lazy. I dunno. Maybe the larger format betrayed a lot of that usually gets overlooked. ---------- EDIT: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=68152 BTW, The production credits caught me off-guard too. The film is underwritten by some interesting players. That might have something to do with their distribution choices and how they decided to finish the prints. Beats me. But ultimately the IQ was sub-par. This was truly a real-shot-on-honest-to-goodness "film" that ended up looking quite a lot like low quality video. Not because of the actual production value, but because of the post processing and how they decided to distribute it.

Just watched the Revenant trailer at an IMAX theater today. The motion cadence looked lousy. Curious if the projection was messed up or if that's just the way it looks digitally projected. Was, sadly, not impressed. Also, MI: Rogue Nation looked like (poorly) upscaled 720, so I'm suspicious if the theatre messed up the projection? It really looked quite mediocre. I mean, the damn advertisements they project before the screening were higher resolution, easily. Anyone else see this film and notice any peculiarities or is the culprit a poorly managed movie house?

Might be a good candidate for a crowd-funding campaign? Seems to me there's space in the motion picture market for these sorts of niche products. As a documentarian, I'd be interested using a camera like this specifically for talking head shots. The ability to get pleasing DOF in tight spaces, like an academic's messy office, would be an useful advantage. That reason alone is why I'm still using a 5D.

As an tangent...why are these modes activated in default by the manufacturers? As for Avatar; could care less about the frame rates on that one, the story was a joke and therefore so was the movie.

You're on the right track. Resolution is somewhat irrelevant if you don't know basic production skills such as lighting and audio. If if you shoot Nikon, best bet would be to upgrade your camera body, I think. In in the meantime think about how you want the mic and light your future productions.

Lackey Moths? Known as tent caterpillars where I grew up in Michigan. I remember one year as a kid they were friggin' everywhere. Step on 'em and yellow guts squish out. Ah, I'm channeling my inner 8 year old.

When in doubt, tell a story. Always tell a story. Visual montage is common. Good storytelling is not. Do you know the story behind this subject? Can you find one and make it interesting? Hard to do, right? That's why to do so would be special. Also, many many action videos are wide angle. Almost al of them. It would be a challenge to create one with a longer focal length. Say, a 50mm s35 equivalent. At the very least it would look different, and that's not "generic."

Don't know how technical and wonky you want to get, but if you want a cheap (free) change to your stuff, I suppose you could try the Magic Lantern Raw hack on your old 5D and see if that sort of reboot of your imaging reinvigorates your work. The expanded ability to push and pull your image in post is much more challenging and rewarding than acquiring higher resolution, IMHO. But, it depends on what you're wanting to do.

Documentaries; rearranging reality for a deeper truth.

No, I did. All I'm saying is that when you're a considerate pro, you go get what accomplishes the gig. You're gear agnostic. Now, people with pro careers and great skills obviously do rent Canon because it's a workhorse and does the job. On the other hand, internet scrubs like me... we pixel peep, have emotional attachment to our consumer gear, and even whine about a Canon not matching the feature list of a 2K photography camera. And, yeah, a pro Canon video camera not matching certain video specs is even true. But it doesn't mean you go shoot your next gig with a Gx7. Anyway, I responded to the claim that watching the video would end internet rants. I know that statement was just rhetoric, but I was trying to say in response, "No it wouldn't," and the reason I say so is because people at the low-end level are irrational about things. They've been known to personally value equipment over creative ability. A good pro would avoid that.

Why the snarkiness?

I'm already a corporate video genius though. Nobody can make a talking head as boring and dry as I can.

My ambigious point being: if you're a pro and have a great skill set, you're not worried about GAS, you're just doing the job with what works for your situation, such as a c300, or an Alexa, or a 4 million ISO camera, or a RED Minotaur, or a BMPCC crash cam, or whatever. And you're probably not on internet forums like me, waiting for FCP7 rending to finish on a crappy corporate video job...

Only for people that don't value their skills over their gear.

I think you got a bunch of kids that want to act like they know a lot --so the contrarian opinion mixed with criticism makes them feel like they're offering insight. It's a curse and blessing of being young...and, yes, stupid.

It's a specialty camera. Higher end production companies will buy it for specific purposes. It looks like big boy grown-up stuff. Hobbyists and corporate video small frye like me can stay content with consumer gear. But look on the bright side (pun intended) --what this camera is doing impressively now will be commonplace in a handful of years. Contemplate the repercussions of that.