Leaderboard

Christopher Doyle is the man. some guys make art some guys are gaffers and others are just ... trolls That's all. Eat this All this: -Chungking Express -Days of Being Wild -Ashes of Time -Fallen Angels -Dumplings -In the Mood for Love -HERO -Last Life in the Universe -Invisible Waves -2046 -LADY IN THE WATER -The Limits of Control -PARANOID PARK the wild man: http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/archives/issues/fall2005/features/wild_man.php   :)

  And FX is the only area I'll (currently) claim any expertise in (check back in ten years or so and it'll be a different story).  I'm pretty good in other areas but they are still very much works in progress.  I'm the first to admit that.  It doesn't mean I won't have strong opinions about other areas though.   I'm fully aware that I know less about these cameras than someone like Andrew, and so I keep tabs on his stories and this site.  I know I know less about lenses than someone like Tony, or Rich, amongst a few others, and so I keep an eye on what they say.   Shian is an excellent source of information on grading and lighting.   It's unfortunate that the only other person here (that I'm aware of) with independent feature experience has nothing to say that I'm interested in and nothing for me to learn from.  I only respect him for having the guts and ability to see a project through to the end, which is exceedingly rare.     For every finished independent feature that gets any form of exhibition or chance at reaching an audience there are scores that never will, that are finished and sitting in a closet somewhere.  There's likely ten times or more beyond this that never made it through post production and likely ten times beyond this that never even get through principal photography.   Whether I like what he does or has to say, at least on this point, he has my full respect.

  That's an easy postion to take not knowing how this stuff actually works.  You and the Academy share something in common in that respect.  They don't understand this stuff any more than any other uninitiated.   I've got no complaints about his work.  Eat Drink...was a beautiful movie, that he actually shot, for instance.   I've got complaints about him getting credit where he didn't work.  He was not a participant in the crafting of the imagery of PI.  That's a simple fact.  That's what this thread is really about and the news that he now has an even more respected-than-himself peer calling him out for this farce and not just the VFX riff raff.  What's extra funny, to me, is that Doyle likely doesn't even realize he only knows half the fraud that went down Oscar night.     edit:  I'm not just quoting a story here for the schadenfreude.  These are people that I know that have been affected by this.  My brother, a lead artist (he's basically a department head) on PI , put in more time on that film than Claudio Miranda did.  This is a company that myself and brothers have all worked now.  This is a company that I've followed since its inception in the late 1980s, since I was still in high school teaching myself how to do what they did so well.  This is something I have a personal interest in.  It's a firm and people I have made a personal investment in and who did the same with me.

Lol. This isn't me. It's about some girls complaining about Miranda's work which none of us have control over. I'm pro Miranda. Eat it.

  Contributed to a couple billion dollars worth of other people's films.   I was cutting my teeth creating iconic imagery for James Cameron, only a year after being able to legally buy and drink liquor,  when you were still gnawing on your fudge-sickle, watching Howdy-Doody.  Within a year after that I was a co-supervising artist on his "alimony" project with Katheryn Bigelow and then a whole score of name brands.  Creating techniques.  Figuring it out.  That was my job.  To figure shit out.  Figuring you out, I could do that in my sleep.   Since then I've co-written, co-produced, co-created two features, shot one.   Did you write Bendeyar?  No.  Did you produce it?  No.  Did you shoot it?  No.   Did you raise the money for it?  No.  Did you put your hands on every single frame of it after it was done?  No.  Did you (co)design all of its supplemental art?  No.  Did you run off fresh out of school, no real experience in the industry to speak of, to a country with a few hundred theaters and your Columbia degree to play big fish in a tiny pond?  Could be....   I'm not going take anything away from you, Leang, in your feature debut as a hired director.  Only people who have actually made a feature know what it takes from us to do it.  But if you want to continue with your charade of experiential or artistic superiority to anyone here I will be so happy to oblige blowing you right the fuck out of the water.   I've created a damn sight more than you, boy.

OK enough of this shit. Back on topic please.

Perfect.   In a couple of days I will post the *DIY* soft eyepiece for the GH2. In another thread of course. 

Since I'm waiting for Nikon V1 to get exchanged(see previous post), I decided to give Zach Daniels raw stills a try. https://vimeo.com/61939526 This is the same footage from Zach's original video: https://vimeo.com/61863569 I edited the raw files directly in Sony Vegas Pro. Twixtor worked as you would expect, stretching the clips... I also did some motion cropping, which worked nice. With that much resolution you can make some big moves. The second clip feels somewhat like a crane shot. Lastly, I did some aggressive color grading to see what the raw can do. Needless to say, the raw photos grade beautifully... I was able to pull out plenty of detail.

I don't care where he is born. I'm Australian. I don't like his work. I also don't think he deserved an Oscar. I don't think he was the person in control of the shots after they were lit and therefore he shouldn't be given credit for the final look of the film. I don't mean awards, I mean credit. Perhaps Chilean born is intended to indicate that he isn't Spanish, Mexican, Italian or anything else. There is nothing racist or sub-textual about that. And the wizard thing? Have you not learned that the internet is fairly conservative in its gender rolls, and also for a bunch of nerd guys who shoot camera tests, saying he looks like a wizard is unlikely to be genuinely pejorative?   Also I don't understand what you mean by 'blatant cinematography improvised at an amateur level'. Do you mean it is badly shot or do you mean they chose to shoot with an 'amateur', unpolished aesthetic that doesn't work for you? I would like a little clarification to understand your point as Coppola hasn't made a good film in 20 years and I'm not going to subject myself to this one to check it out ;)   Also, like I've said before, if you are going to make assertions about the real world of film making please put a link to your work or imdb page in your signature. It is nice to be able to give your pronouncements some context. Plus we are all here to learn and share.

Just received mine late this afternoon. The quality is awesome. Definitely a step up in terms of resolution and sharpness. Man, that 1 second limit just kills you, though. I can definitely see some cool things coming from this, however. I now have a new tool in my kit if I want to do something sharp, fast, and epic looking. I might post some stuff later on. For $220, it was a total steal. Also... as I've learned today... 4K closeups means WEAR MAKEUP. :P

  Goddamn, Leang, we can always count on the academic propagandist to say something dumb...   A)  Miranda is a fraud in this instance.  Period.  That's a fact.  Even the smart JAFOs can recognize this if they look at the readily available, public information.  I'm sure he's a swell guy but the longer he keeps the award, the longer he perpetrates and perpetuates a fraud.   B )  An article in an art magazine curated by a French Canadian philanthropist is hardly an example of your bullshit accusation.  Is it questionable writing?  Maybe, but good journalism kinda died a long time ago.     Do you even think before you type between hookah hits?  (you'd be correct if your hyper-vigilant spider-senses told you that was some American sub-text...not racial, even though most ignorant people conflate cultural criticism with racism, but take it however you like).   PS> that's really, really funny, you talking about the "real world" of filmmaking.  

Doyle is like a crazy drunk who also happens to tell the truth.

The fact that the award was a piece of shit shouldn't deminish the work of Miranda, but let's face it Doyle is speaking from a position of strength, his work rates far above Miranda's to date. Miranda's cinematography on Tron Legacy and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is able (didn't like the films though) - but Doyle on Hero and 2046 - that's masterful and in a completely different league.   Christopher Doyle and Anthony Dod Mantle are purists, artists more than craftsmen or career DPs, have lensed some of my favourite cinematography and are inspirational to me personally in their whole approach.   Mantle is himself an Oscar winner for Slumdog - amazing - he's also a digital innovator, one of the first to embrace the format the late 90's with DV. Total respect to him. He's worked with two of my favourite directors - Lars Von Trier, Danny Boyle. Dogville took a paired down approach to staging (to say the least) and cinematography, the complete opposite of Life of Pi but still has bags of atmosphere and menace.   When Life of Pi got the award for cinematography - I felt it was for the technical achievement more than anything else, and that the DP was one of a large team who made that happen. Maybe it's possible the academy members overlooked that and just felt the finished film overall looked great and decided to pin that on a figurehead. I can completely understand the VFX award. The cinematography one was a mis-step as I think there were other guys nominated who deserved it more.

Interesting about your experiences with Zeiss lenses.   Maybe it is to do with the effect on the entrance pupil when the scope is attached. Try looking through the scope from the front object side with and without the zeiss at the rear and cycle through the apertures.       Regarding mixing scope and spherical, ARGO is a good one, - they have scope and spheric going on in some of the same scenes

Yes I'll give em a blast soon and post some examples. I don't have the 100mm though no,   It's quite common to mix anamorphic and spherical so it's not something to worry about I don't think. They're not the most practical things, even the super expensive ones, and getting the shot is more important than having everything anamorphic. Horses for their courses etc...   Ah Russian engineering... I swear whenever I touch a screwdriver something somewhere breaks and I develop new injuries. But maybe even I could fix these...

Wow I'm sorry about it, SLR surely replace it. Mine works fine.

This is a test with a Sony FS700. The biggest downside of this camera is the internal codec, not very gradable, there's a lot of work to be done so you can pull more out of the images without loosing much quality. This was also shot only with natural light, nothing more, soon i'll make a side to side clip so everyone can check the before and after. http://vimeo.com/61725983

I agree with Tony, this method helps teach. You get 1.25 seconds per shot (based on 24fps playback). You only have 1 second to film each shot, so shoot carefully. haha. Piecing together even the making of the latte required a good bit of thought and planning. If I miss the final pouring of the milk, then the barista is going to have to make another latte just so I can get the shot again. Shooting like this with the V1 like this can only improve your skill. I like it because it makes me be more focused on what exactly I want to capture. Instead of just pushing record, filming for a few minutes, and then pulling out the 2 second clip I need. Its almost like when some all digital photographers want to learn to shoot film. It makes them slow down and focus more on composition instead of rapid firing. You don't want to waste the film. You want to make it count. With the V1 shooting 4K Raw, you want to make that 1.25 second shot count. Its experimentation. It should be fun. It should be creative. So let the creativity flow!

This is the perfect no budget music video tool, with 1 second shots you can be like the pros and their 1 second/shot editing shooting style :) Just take a look at any big stars music video and count the shots and seconds. There usually is a longer intro but when the song gets going its all 1 second cuts. http://youtu.be/uelHwf8o7_U This camera FORCES you to shoot more shots and get more setups for the final edit, and that is a WONDERFUL thing!