Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

"The Uncertainty Has Settled", a feature film shot using Magic Lantern raw video

Recommended Posts

"Are we doing the right thing?" That's the question The Uncertainty Has Settled explores, and you may ask yourself the same thing about shooting Magic Lantern for the big screen! Crazy or inspired? My friend in Berlin, Volker Schmidt was behind the camera on this film, and the decision to shoot Magic Lantern raw video on the 'vintage' 5D Mark II...

Read the full blog post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
Quote

Marijn: "However, The media is letting us believe that the science is settled. No more debate! I believe in the importance of having different opinions to stay critical and focused toward important system shifts. Above all the climate debate is so politicized and dogmatized that the dialog is gone."

The science is settled.  Not every topic has two sides.

Instead of arguing about whether climate change is happening and whether humans play a role we should be studying the topic more and looking to see what changes we need to make.  There are an infinite number of things to debate.  It makes no sense to debate something as settled as climate change.

In any scientific endeavor there are going to be outlier nonconformist opinions.  That is not unusual.  What is weird is how much airtime these screwball deniers get and then they turn around and claim they are being crushed by some global conspiracy.  I have never seen a nonconformist opinion get so much airtime and yet scream so loud they are a victims.

I like the equipment used, the budget, and the small crew but other than that I don't think the world needs yet another half baked climate documentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much andrew for this great article :)

I want to know more about that :

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

There are no particular adapters for the Minolta lenses for Canon EOS because of the shorter registry distance of 43.5mm. So I converted the lenses by myself.

Is there a way to have more detail about the conversion process. I own a nice set of minolta lenses but always had not to use them on canon mount cameras. So I'm super excited about knowing the conversion process :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Damphousse said:

The science is settled.  Not every topic has two sides.

The science is far from settled, for example on the topic of renewables and the management of food, land and the agricultural economy. Further research is needed there to gauge the impact losing all that land to wind farms will have on food supply. Furthermore, it's interesting to hear what Freeman Dyson says in the film about the computer models - that they are a good tool for understanding the climate but a bad tool for predicting it.

I'm no climate change denier but the discussion is getting way too dogmatic on both sides of the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing I disagree with in what they're saying or doing.

1) Can't stand the "sports" aspect of ideas.  I do wonder if people just want to win some rhetorical game and affirm their belief system more than honestly intellectualize.

2) Making a doc with next to nothing is absolutely viable.  My wife and I are doing the same now and have in the past.  We're now shooting GH5, but the fact is, IMHO, that a small crew and gear is ideal for documentaries.  The reality is that a little bit of skill set with consumer equipment allows anyone to make an awesome looking movie. 

ML-RAW for a doc is overkill as far as I'm concerned, but if it floats their boat, grab that tiger by the tail. 

And, FWIW, we plan on making our own half-baked climate change doc in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Journalism has become so polarised. Right-wing or left-wing? 99% of the the debate happens in an extreme bubble on one side or the other. Eventually these extremes guide actual government policy and public consensus. Is it right that complicated problems can be dealt with by having two polar opposite arguments battle it out for supremacy?"

I'm so sick of this thing. Thanks Andrew for bringing this to our attention. This documentary seems very interesting and I'm going to rent it on Vimeo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a feature doc with a 5Dmkii is a pxlerfect example of content is king.

If anyone has missed it, "Indie Game The Movie" on Netflix, etc is an excellent doc also shot on the 5Dii. But I'm not sure they used ML.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Journalism has become so polarised. Right-wing or left-wing? 99% of the the debate happens in an extreme bubble on one side or the other."

 

Absolutely Incorrect. 90-99% of the Main Stream Media is Left (/Libertarian) Controlled and Funded. Therefore the Majority of Right (/Conservatice) Wing Media is relegated to Alternative News Streams and/ or channels with high viewerships but very uninspiring monetary models.

Also a Leftist Reporter or Documentary Filmmaker saying it was an effort was exaggerating the effort only 1000 times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

I'm sure Rupert Murdoch, Viscount Rothermere and Richard Desmond, who between them control the larger part of UK media (except the BBC) will be interested to know that they're lefties.

Those two are relatively irrelevant, and most of Murdoch's Fox News audiences are middle aged. Look at traditional or modern content creators that target new generations, they're all lefties or pretend they are. Of course it does makes sense business wise, "every thing we've been doing since distant past is wrong" sells well. But over-consumption of these contents has made many people lose sanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I'm no climate change denier but the discussion is getting way too dogmatic on both sides of the fence.

No one said you are a climate change denier nor did they reference you in any way.  I quoted Marijn and responded to his movie.

Also given the rather deplorable recent events people should really think hard before saying "both sides".

17 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Further research is needed there to gauge the impact losing all that land to wind farms will have on food supply.

A bit of a strawman arguement.  No one in this thread said we shouldn't study all aspects of alternative energy.  In fact you are responding to a quote that says just the opposite...

19 hours ago, Damphousse said:

Instead of arguing about whether climate change is happening and whether humans play a role we should be studying the topic more and looking to see what changes we need to make.

There is no form of energy generation that doesn't have pros and cons.  We should be studying and debating the pros and cons of different kinds of energy generation.  What we should NOT be doing is debating whether climate change has occurred or whether we should do something about it.  The solutions are not going to be easy so instead of wasting time on settled science why don't we research and debate the things that are still a question mark.

And by the way your comment about farm land is ironic considering the study that just came out...

Quote

Nearly 4 in 10 U.S. adults are now obese, CDC says

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-obesity-rates-us-20171012-story.html

Lol.  What is the bigger problem?  Global warming or not enough farm land!

17 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Furthermore, it's interesting to hear what Freeman Dyson says in the film about the computer models - that they are a good tool for understanding the climate but a bad tool for predicting it.

I'm better educated than just about anyone on this forum and I have a much more solid science background than the vast majority of people on the planet.  No one with a serious science background thinks models of complex poorly understood systems are simple and infallible.  If you follow the climate change science for a substantial length of time you will quickly realize that no one is trending out specific targets and hitting them year after year.  Science just doesn't work that way.  The entire thing is a work in progress.  But that doesn't mean warming isn't occurring or that humans have nothing to do with it.

There is plenty of lively debate amongst climatologists just as there is in every scientific field.  This false narrative that climatologist are just sitting there cashing grant checks and not doing any work is just bizarre.  They do research, publish papers, and debate just like all other scientists.

Anyway we saw this before with cigarettes.  Plenty of moneyed interests told us "the science isn't settled".  We had to sit through congressional hearings about "both sides".  Guys, there are not two valid sides to every issue.  Sometimes people are just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lost interest in a lot of what Hollywood puts out.  It just isn't entertaining for me.  As a result a lot of my viewing has turned to things like news and documentaries.  The problem with documentaries though is a lot of them are either heavily slanted or very light on scientific rigor or both.  I suppose they have to water things down in order not to turn off the general member of the public but for someone like me they come off as fluff.  I either learn nothing or very little.  That's the best case scenario.  Unfortunately a lot the time I find people making documentaries that are purposely omitting or manipulating data to push whatever agenda  they like.  And then the third problem is due to the dearth of scientific knowledge in the general population a lot of film makers simply don't have the background to make an accurate documentary.  I see one groan worthy statement after another in those things.

If I see people putting out misinformation sometimes I will call it out.  If that offends people I don't know what to say.  Science doesn't care about people's feelings.  Facts are facts.

7 hours ago, sanveer said:

Absolutely Incorrect. 90-99% of the Main Stream Media is Left (/Libertarian) Controlled and Funded. Therefore the Majority of Right (/Conservatice) Wing Media is relegated to Alternative News Streams and/ or channels with high viewerships but very uninspiring monetary models.

mv4nnuxuy0-t17h_w0su9g.png

90% of AMERICANS believe global warming is either occurring or going to occur.  There is no "Left Right" to that question.  Are you proposing that 50% of the news media should cater to 10% of the population?!

I can't say it enough.  I am stunned at the amount of airtime the fringe hold outs get and yet still scream they are being persecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you can start an argument with "instead of arguing [...]" but somehow you've managed just that.

 

Anyways, really like the colors of the framegrabs in the article! A lot more appealing than the colors of the teaser which are a bit too oversaturated for my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the wild places i grew up exploring have burnt. Some of the loveliest places in american wine country are burning and people are dying. Puerto Rico has been destroyed. New Orleans is half the size it was. Climate change is entirely real. People in my country are living it and dying it. There is no debate about it. I don't need a lecture from some ancient austrian economist in a dumb suit to know that the glacier i can see from my house is shrinking. i don't need a fucking documentary liberal or conservative to tell me what i can feel when i step outside, what 99% of scientists agree upon. this doc can go twist for all i care. and so can all these "debaters" enjoy your doom, you made it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hmcindie said:
Quote

Unfortunately Poels has no clue how to distinguish fact from fiction, and by his own admission he has no interest in making that distinction. As a result the documentary offers a mix of basic scientific insights, plain falsehoods, and misleading statements regarding climate science.

Okay.  If this guy isn't even willing to stand by the assertions made in his work why in god's holy name are so many people in this thread trying to defend this crap and saying it may be true?!  The film maker himself isn't even willing to hazard a guess as to whether any of this nonsense is true.  Some people are so brainwashed into thinking there is "both sides" to every issue they can't tell BS when it hits them right between the eyes.

Kind of eerie though.  In those two sentences the author summed up my frustration with multiple documentaries.  At best the scientific insights are "basic".  No advanced principles will be explored.  I guess they don't want to alienate the audience.  And whether through design or accident "plain falsehoods" and "misleading statements" abound.  Now that the video equipment has been democratized and there are multiple channels of distribution everybody and their brother is jumping into the documentary business... and the product is uniformly terrible.

Having said that I do have to eat a bit of crow.  If this movie is meant to be some kind of absurdist performance art where he interviews a bunch of fringe people and records whatever foulness pours out of their pie hole sans filter then it does have some artistic merit.  That is at least a somewhat unique idea.  So just record it and let the audience wade through it... okay.  It's an idea.

The problem though as I stated before is I've come to realize the public at large does not have my educational attainment and there is a disturbingly large portion of the general public who are inclined to believe anything no matter how ridiculous it is.   Take the windmills and farms thing that was pointed out earlier in the thread.  What for me is common knowledge immediately conflicted with that statement.  All you have to do is look at big agriculture states in the United States.  Iowa is number two in agriculture... and it is number two in wind energy.  Simple.  Okay they are a swing state so maybe some lefty nonsense is at play.  Let's go down the list.  Texas is number three in agriculture.  How do they rank in wind?  NUMBER FUCKING ONE!  Yes folks.   Deep red redneck right wing big oil Texas is NUMBER FUCKING ONE in wind.  OMG!!!  Bu-bu-bu what about MUH BOTH SIDES?!  We know Cali is ranks up there with wind power but which state is right behind Cali?  Oklahoma....  That's right.  The Orange Moron's EPA chief is the former attorney general of the state that ranked right behind Cali for wind power.  By the way the Texas governor that was responsible for Texas' wind boom is the Orange Moron's Energy secretary.  Can anyone please find MUH BOTH SIDES?!

Oh and how did Texas' governor know wind power would be a great idea in a big agriculture state?  Well he knew it... because he grew up on a FUCKING FARM!  Another fun fact Texas' longest serving Republican governor used to be a Democrat.  He was a supporter of Al Gore's 1988 presidential run.  Yes... that Al Gore.  These guys don't care.  They build wind all over right wing states because it doesn't pollute and it makes economic sense.  They support big oil because the oil companies line their pockets.  They feed right wing red meat BS to the voters to stay in office.  Everyone is getting played and they are winning.  It's as simple as that.  It is amazing what you figure out about the world and the system when you have an education.  So go ahead and look for your "BOTH SIDES".  The right wingers in America are producing more wind power than the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...