Jump to content

William Malone

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About William Malone

  • Rank
    New member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mr. Lee is a great director but he's so wrong, on so many levels on this one, I don't know where to start. I think by now its been proven that audiences don't like High Frame Rates... They don't even like 30FPS, let alone 120 FPS. Lets first take 3D. It has come and gone at least three times already in the history of film and the reason is clear. It will never be the generally accepted format until they can do 2 things. #1. (As someone already pointed out) It needs to be projected in a hemispheric format with no frame because a frame destroys the illusion. #2 (and perhaps mor
  2. I think we all forget that the whole Canon-video thing was really a fluke. Canon is not a video company. They are primarily a STILLS camera firm. As a company they are very conservative. I liken them to Rolls-Royce in the 1950's and 60s.. slow and plodding and selling things that are well-built but 10 years behind times. I personally love Canon and feel the same pain. I would love to buy a new Canon for my film productions but it seems that's not going to happen. I think that when they introduced the 5D Mk3 (which was pretty underwhelming) it became obvious that the MK2 was not a company
  3. Andrew, You've hit a topic that I've been ruminating on for some time. I've been thinking a lot about the whole 4K thing and image sharpness. It occurred to me that the films that have the most lasting and profound effect on my psyche are not necessarily the sharpest and most realistic. In fact those films are the least interesting. The power of film is to carry us away to another place and time. Often places that never existed or idealized versions of places. Super-sharp realistic images seldom move us in the way those haunted (often blurry images) made by uncoated lenses of than superior
  4. ​ Good theory.. but essentially incorrect. While early photography did use a number of seriously dangerous chemicals, they were replaced in the early 1900s by much more benign chemistry. All of the materials you mentioned are listed as "low toxicity". Manufacturing computer gear is highly toxic... hence why you're not supposed to throw those old electronics in the trash. None of this is anywhere near as much of a environmental disaster as automobiles (and including electric cars BTW) and the biggest ED is humans (Chuckle) We should seriously hold on making them for awhile. ​
  5. Andrew, I just couldn't let this post go. I guess I would fall into the category of the "privileged few" having been a "film" director for over 35 years and having shot film almost exclusively. Let me start by saying while I do have a certain sense of nostalgia for film, I'm not someone who doesn't enjoy and in fact embrace new technology. I've been happily shooting "video" for the last 5 years with a ML equipped Canon 5D Mark 2. I have been waiting for the "perfect digital cinema camera" to come along before I upgrade. That has yet to happen. Because I'm an old guy, perhaps I may hav
  • Create New...