Tiago Rosa-Rosso

I think we can't tell much about lens and body balance until we use one.

No one appreciates the art of recycling. Everyone just wants the brand new. This planet has finite resources. Not only that but most of the rare ore (coltan and other rare metals) are dug by little African children. Even Andrew can recycle is own 6d articles and save some hard disk. https://www.eoshd.com/2017/06/canon-6d-mark-ii-codec-worse-old-6d-lower-bitrate-no/ PS: There is some irony here. Because Canon doesn't give a shit about who dugs their coltan, but none the less aren't we a bit spoiled?

RS makes you a steadier filmmaker.

is 8k SHARP enough?

Canon will respond to this with their new Canon MJPEG RAW!

Hmmm. I think there is a big a big difference in form from diamantino to children of men, and I don't compare them on their purpose, I just think it's a relief to see other structures, forms and approaches. Zoolander ?? Really?! I didn't saw Zoolander so I can't say you are wrong.

Just saw this short now.

I agree. I think that in the realm of Hollywood they are exquisite, we could also add PTA and others to the list. Note that I said Hollywood produces great films and directors. But take for example Tarkovsky, Bergmann, Pasolini, Bela Tar and others. It's another gesture towards cinema, that in my opinion is, to some extent, more courageous and poetic in the sense of exploring the possibilities of cinema not just as a medium to convey a narrative.

"I didn't saw Roma" and I can't tell much by the trailer but it certainly doesn't look like one more marvel movie. I understand your division between bad Hollywood and good Hollywood, but it's still Hollywood and it's still mainstream and profoundly ideological. Três amigos operate in Hollywood, money comes from Hollywood and the films they produce follow Hollywood classic models of storytelling. Yes, they are more inventive, than most of the other crap Hollywood produces, but I wouldn't call it disruptive, they don't add much to the medium itself. It's all a bit primary and basic, it lacks courage and poetry. The ideas are repetitive, and always placing the spectator in a passive point of view, pleasing the spectator, because they have to sell. And it's alright as long as there is a place for the other side. For the one who is not looking to please you, the ones that don't want your emotional investment, who are willing to make you think instead of just convincing you. Having said that Hollywood it's a big industry and produces great movies and directors. I agree with you that Cannes is an amusement park full of directors and producers looking for distributors and vice versa, most festivals are. And competition in cinema is something I can't really understand and find it profoundly perverse. But I think that Cannes was far more interesting this year than last year when it comes to new directors and showing very different movies from what is usually shown. and again it wasn't a Cannes decision but a matter of law. Actually, Cannes was trying everything to have Netflix movies at the festival. There were at least Lars Von Trier movie and Spike Lee English spoken movies. But there were great movies far more inventive than any movie I've ever seen from Cuaron, Inarritu or Del Toro. Did you saw Diamantino that won la semaine de la critique or Chuva é cantoria na aldeia dos mortos or Lazzarro felice or Dogman or Ayka or Une affair de famille? All great, and with a different idea from what cinema can be or should be. I think it's at least refreshing to see these movies in a big festival. Hollywood tends to see cinema just as a medium to tell a story, but cinema can be much more than just this. That's right! It's all about the money. But if you had the possibility wouldn't you prefer to go to a movie theater?

It's a bit more complex than that. Cannes didn't ban Netflix. There is a law in France that forbids any festival that takes place in France to exhibit a film in a festival that after doesn't have an agreement of release in movie theaters in France. It's simply obligatory. I partially agree that movies are to be seen in a cinema theater, but that's another conversation. Now, in fact, there was something rather good and refreshing about Cannes banning Netflix films because it gave room to other young directors. Who otherwise wouldn't have the possibility to be in. Don't get me wrong I think these platforms are great, but I don't see why isn't possible to have bought. A release in a cinema theater and then after a while in Netflix. I think most directors would agree that they would like there work to be seen in a cinema theater. I think Netflix is being a bit greedy, wanting all the profits just for them. And if you think about it might lead to a monopoly, that might have bad consequences for the art itself. And correct me if i'm wrong but aren't Cuaron, Inarritu and Del Toro Hollywood directors? I think Cuaron only did y tu mamma tambien outside of hollywood, didn't he?

OK. let's wait and find out.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/05/canon-eos-r-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/?guccounter=1 I read it here

It shoots 4K at 30 fps, but as with the 5D Mark IV, there's a considerable 1.7 times crop factor. the EOS R does have 4:2:2 10-bit video output externally via the HDMI port (internally, it's 8-bit). That will give serious video shooters more latitude for color correction. It also has 3.5mm microphone and headphone jacks.

10 bit 422 out and c-log, not bad!

I understand what you mean, but in my case no. I rarely use 4k, most of the time I shoot fullhd and then scale it up to 2k flatscope. I tend to dislike the oversharp look of 4k, and it takes a lot of space. Also most of the time I use a focal lengths between 30mm to 70mm. So for me this camera and lens it's actually great. Good color science, good ergonomics, nice menus and easy to use. Of course, it would be nice to have 10bit and clog but 8 bit 4.2.0 and cinestyle also does the job for me, and it's more changeling since you really have to nail it when you are shooting. No miracles in post with 8-bit.