Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About independent

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. True IMAX is the only way to see it. Lincoln center here in NY. Of course the cinematography was superb. Deakins did a great job of keeping the overall look consistent with the original while introducing some interesting stuff as he always does. Not too much groundbreaking stuff, but Deakins is the utmost pro and storyteller - he does whatever fits the story. Except he was let down. The story had some promising plots and subplots, but it seems as if they condensed a trilogy into one. Harrison Ford showing up at the third act? That was a mistake, undermining K/Joe's character arc by replacing it with the daughter subplot. Too fast, too cheap. The Sean Young resurrection was fast and cheap. In the end, it felt like a mashup of themes from the original, Star Wars, Alien Covenant, etc., all on a Christopher Nolan soundtrack. It never broke through. Never had that moment. I doubt it becomes a masterpiece - they didn't break new ground nor effectively till old ones. They should have just focused on one major plot, K/Joe's character study, and settle for beautiful and elegiac, like Assassination of Jesse James. So no, not transcendent. In the end, a DP can be better than the story, but it won't be enough. This movie was already done, but better, in Metropolis, the 2001 animated film. Deakins would have murdered that remake.
  2. Again, reading comprehension: I said “Will be.” I don’t need to repeat all the reasons why I think it will; just read these posts a couple times before responding. Also, how is it that you have a medium format camera? Damn, what a waste.
  3. Keep your panties on. The question was video not film. Reading comprehension is tough, I know. Third grade was tough, but I made it. I don’t ask my focus puller shit. We both know how to work within technical constraints. The issue in question is whether full frame digital will be a standard. I’m saying yes. It doesn’t even matter if I get to be right...because it’s happening. The argument is over. Also nobody cares about m43. If you work with it, great. But no, it’s not a standard right now. Get over it.
  4. Shallow DOF doesn’t have any drawbacks in of itself. It depends on the intended effect and the technical contingencies. Also, you might find your aperture control affects your depth of field more than sensor size. Try it. And, yes, historically, video camera sensors have been increasing in size. Right now it’s at super 35mm, which wasn’t a standard a decade ago (Red One came out 10 years ago). Alexa 65 and Red 8k are already full frame. It’s definitely going to happen in less than 10 years, and on the horizon are medium format sensors.
  5. Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4. Full frame, full readout sensors will become a video standard.
  6. Anybody know how the c200's low light compares with the 1dxii? My 1dx ii seemed pretty clean at hi isos with organic noise pattern, all at 8 bit 422 mjpeg
  7. Low light? Can somebody post a high ISO / low light still or video? Aside from the resolution penalty (who cares), I'd like to see what the noise patterns are like.
  8. I guess I'm trying to see the upside of it, since one could get raw from blackmagic without so much hassle, for not so more money (especially the 2.5K). If one already has a 5D III, completely makes sense.
  9. How does the quality compare to Blackmagic's raw, 12-bit CinemaDNG RAW (4000x2160) ?
  10. The lowlight is very good? I heard the opposite. I'm curious how it compares to the 1DX II if you still have both models. The high iso/low light on my 1DX II looked remarkably film-like and organic; the noise structure looks more analog than digital. I imagine the Sony A7S II to have the clearest image in the low light, but even then it doesn't quite shed its digital look.
  11. Preference for either the Sony or Canon's color science is subjective. The A7SII's advantages in low light and the 1DX II's autofocus are not. Each has its pros and cons, leaving it up to the project to determine either's suitability. Both are great cameras. I'd be leery of putting too much of an emphasis on the out-of-box image for either camera. Too many factors play a role in the final image. Neither camera is going to make your movie for you.
  12. Curious to see how functional the touch bar on the new macs will be with final cut.
  13. I'd say it depends on your needs and style of shooting. If you're in a sound-controlled room, yes you can get away with a quality mic into a quality recorder. But when you increase the number of subjects/actors, or need better isolation because of the shooting environment, or meet the expectations of the client or studio, then you need more tools. in many situations a mixer would be essential - regardless of how good a cameras preamps are. In the end, that's why you really do need a person for location /production sound, for the majority of shoots. You need experience and the tools to capture sound in the most appropriate way. Can you shoot without one? Sure. But it would have to be very limited to a specific situation, or your results will be compromised. Maybe that's ok - I know eng guys often use a mic with a wider pattern and just shoot close with a wide lens. Depends on your needs and limitations. But for a more dynamic single operator you should have a mic with decent reach and rejection, and two sets of wireless mics. And a mixer with quality preamps. Even for a single subject interview in a treated environment, I would send a lav into one channel and the mounted/boomed mic into the other, for safety. Again, clipping, self-noise, batteries, too many potential problems, avoided with not much more effort. It depends on the project, but sometimes getting out of the way and letting the story come through means doing things right, which can mean hiring a sound guy. Even if that sound guy is your buddy you roped into holding a mic for eight hours.
  14. You must definitely be a video guy, raw dogging a schoeps into your dirty camera's xlrs. I previously owned that mic, and it's beautifully clean and transparent. But it can sound thin and it's pickup pattern is both forgiving and promiscuous. No mic can read your mind. Not a problem in a studio, but like you noted, on location it's different, you really need to maximize that s/n: mic placement, proper gain staging, etc., and you need the right tools. You really need to raise the gain if you can't boom tight enough, which is often on an indie set, where challenging conditions (lack of noise control, short crew, limited takes, etc.) calls for quality mixers and recorders. And I'd highly recommend redundant audio for a one man band, for safety. Doesn't have to be complex.
  15. The Fostex is built like a piece of shit MyFirstSony. But it records some clean sound. And it's dirt cheap used, as is the marantz. Sound Devices are excellent, i own a mixpre-D, but they're heavy and relatively expensive. If you need everything on the camera for handheld, you can easily attach a high quality handheld recorder such as the aforementioned sony pcm10 and/or one of the newer zooms..the u-series look pretty good. And that will capture better sound than your C100 or any other video camera. I'd do it even for safety, can't even count how a secondary track saved a shoot - batteries crapping out, levels, etc. Funny, I've been through a lot of cameras, but lenses and sound gear have stayed with me. Loyal like dogs. Cameras are bitches.
  • Create New...