Andrew Reid

  When you pull a sensor down from a very high native ISO of 3200 for example to 400 it is true that your lower ISOs compromise the image. I.e. dodgy highlights, banding, etc. We see this on the low light kings FS100, 1D C. This is a problem waiting for a fix. Of course what you describe with F32, high shutter speed, stack of NDs is not the answer and you're right to point the issue out. This sensor probably isn't a general purpose one!   Red Dragon is rated at 2500 native I think.   I think some stuff is already looking too plastic and too clean. I actually WANT a bit of grain. But there's no denying how excited I am about the low light possibilities.

The largest CMOS sensor, I think went into a telescope.   I too expect this to go to a very small sector of the scientific market.   All it is really is a low megapixel count full frame sensor.   There's no place for it in Canon's current DSLR or Cinema EOS line-up.   This is a shame as I'm really into the creative possibilities of ultra low light shooting.   I am currently writing a script which involves a scene shot entirely by moon light at ISO 12,800, T0.95.   Imagine being able to stage a scene on top of a mountain with the milky way as the backdrop.

This is the show where the prototype is on display in Japan from Tuesday - Security Show 2013 (www.shopbiz.jp/en/ss/)   The original press release - http://www.canon.com/news/2013/mar04e.html

Full frame 35mm 16:9 format Hyper low light sensitive - even larger pixels than 1D X sensor Prototype to be shown in Japan between 5th-8th March If you think the C300's low light sensitivity is impressive, here's Canon's new image sensor for digital cinema cameras.

  Canon know they need to do something to shore up this end of the market and DSLR video. It has been a bit of a disaster. Their overall profits have plunged 40% and that is mainly due to the low end of the market.

It is odd that we've had to wait until nearly NAB 2013 to get it.   So could be big.   If not, I'll consider it somewhat a slap in the face as clean 1080p HDMI is something that should have been there in version 1.0 and they said "the hardware couldn't do it" even though the cheaper 7D could.

Make sure sharpness is turned down to the minimum in-camera (slider all the way to the left - but select '0', not 'A').   I use the Sharpen filter. Unsharp Mask gives the same results to my eye, but Sharpen is more straightforward - just slide it up to between 20-70 depending on how much you think the shot needs.   Also make sure noise reduction is turned off in camera and that the 1080p mode selected is on High quality.   When rendering out from Premiere, I suggest to use H.264 with a VBR target of 24 and max of 44.

Full screenplay for Django Unchained http://twcguilds.com/assets/screenplay/django/screenplay.pdf

Do you realise how good value the British passport is? All these beautiful countries on our doorstep and the EU giving us free travel without a visa. The European Union also saves us a fortune in import tax when buying from within Europe and importing to the UK. Sure there are downsides. What relationship doesn't have those? But if right wing politicians had their way I'd not be living in Berlin that's for sure. UKIP is really just the same old xenophobia with a fancy 'independence' dress on.   Happy for political discussions but the anti-EU rant has nothing to do with the thread topic and the violence debate so no more please.

If society is indeed crumbling, then I still think Tarantino is pretty far down the list of those responsible.   I can only speak for where I've lived, so how about we start in the UK and the abolition of grammar schools. That closed off a vital way up the ladder for the truly talented. Then Tony Blair had the great idea of sending EVERYONE to university. The grand idea of this was to improve social mobility. It is actually destroying the country. So many people are going to university whether it is right for them or not. It is devaluing the degree and the WHOLE system and quad-troubling the cost of it for the student. Most students who go to University now in the UK are guaranteed a good social life for 2 years then a massive debt problem and absolutely no job at all. They will mostly be stuck working in retail or admin roles, for the rest of their lives. Well done Mr Education, Education, Education.   He has created a huge section of student population who do no quality work and put socialising at the top of the list of importance to such an extreme degree that they may as well still be at high school. We should send some people into the workplace at 18 and put them on a wage. Only then will they have a responsibility to themselves to actually work for a living. At university most don't FEEL the responsibility to work and succeed. It is all too easy, dismissed and taken for granted. It is just 'what you do'. It's normal. It used to be the EXCEPTION.   Also neither universities or schools inspire their students enough. Most leave not knowing what they want to do for a living. Some are completely dispassionate about everything. Some lack a constructive interest, so sit around doing nothing instead - well maybe some shopping and drinking every day.   The schools meanwhile - long time since I've been - but they seem to get more dumbed down by the year and there's a real discipline problem. Some kids after school on public transport are basically feral and answer to nobody. Many of the teachers are good and trying their best but a lot are more immature than the pupils. There's a causality to it and a lack of rigour, a dumbing down. I played cricket in my Geography lessons. The Spanish teacher spent a good three quarters of the lesson telling us silly jokes. This dumbing down is a result of intelligence being less valued by British society than it used to be. People now seen as being snooty and superior when in actual fact it's a vital quality of any civilisation if it wants to progress and be competitive and great. The dumbing down is also happening at our institutions, like the BBC, which frankly just aren't great any more.   And consumerism. This is a big one. It has replaced sport and socialising as our biggest past-time. It fills an empty void in peoples lives because so many people are left unfulfilled by a lack of opportunities and genuinely enjoyable social situations. Instead of doing things that are satisfying, social and constructive - helping someone out with a project, having a conversation, building something, making art, using your skills, joining a band, using your education - flocks of people have taken to spending their leisure time accumulating useless shit that they are brainwashed into thinking they want and need. It's so anti-social and selfish.   Consumerism effects everyone in fact not just the materialistic and bored. Through a hyper capitalist system our cities and towns have had all the real life and most non-commercial activities lobotomised and replaced with retail chains and bars. Then people wonder why they lack self control, are in debt, and constantly wanting a new iPhone. Our communities are becoming hideous. It's a mark of how powerful consumerism is and how all consuming regardless of your education or intelligence it effects us all. Absolutely nothing is being done to stop it and everything to encourage it.   In Berlin they are literally performing a cultural massacre in the name of consumerism. The open spaces where people meet, where artists drink in the sunshine, paint a wall, set up a studio, make films, form bands, etc. etc. are being concreted over by satanist commercial enterprises that won't be happy until our cities are replaced entirely with one concrete & glass dystopia after another in the name of personal gain, profit and greed.   Then there's parenting and peer pressure - Family and friends have a far bigger influence than a film director, or even the whole of popular culture put together. Frankly some people should need a license to have children. It isn't a human right, it's a privilege. There's a generation of bad parents passing their flaws and criminal behaviour down generations before it gets righted, at great cost to the rest of society.   So in the end what do you have?   People as a commodity, people with the wrong values. They don't value each other, and you get anti-social behaviour on a grand scale. Nothing to do with the movies, although I am sure they add a stylistic flare to the skull cracking and name calling.   The same violence which would take place regardless of whether Tarantino made Reservoir Dogs or Mary Poppins.   On some of the other issues you might have a point Mark!

  Don't you think this would be just a little bit patronising? How about the audience makes up their own mind rather than their hands being held?   Are you saying that all films should do this?   Some films are educational and enlightening of course they are. Yes we are better of for those. Better off for the quality and the information. I've enjoyed a better education through television and film than I have through school. (Though that doesn't say much for the school system in the UK).   The best documentaries shine a light.   But fiction is fiction and when it comes to morality - sometimes the good guys lose.   Sometimes the violence is glorified.   Sometimes the director's position is on the side of the bad guys and in some pieces good characters are not always the right thing for the movie.   This film Killer Joe is an interesting example - where all the characters are absolutely reprehensible human beings - and from what Sean seems to be saying, without spoiling the plot too much, it turns around and puts a mirror up to the audience. You - yes you! You're sick for enjoying what these sickos did.   What a great Hitchcock-esq thing that is! It has more moral impact than any good vs evil story.   I have not seen it yet so cannot be sure if that is the case though.   I do agree with some of your points Mark but I think the main area I differ is still on the subject of Tarantino himself. His films are very clear when it comes to who is moral and who is amoral, especially Django. A tale of bounty hunters being rewarded for murder is OK in this film and you will see why when you watch it. Furthermore the violence is comic book style as was the case with Kill Bill, it isn't photo realistic like in Saw. It isn't gritty and it isn't believable. The gunshot wounds and blood in Django are firmly old school Spaghetti Western, almost amateur... comical... And the bad guys are so despicable they deserve what they get.   I recently witnessed a talk by a director at the Berlinale film festival here in Berlin... He was an American dude who'd gone to Indonesia and basically glorified a load of real life murderers for the communist regime. They'd murdered and maimed on a horrific scale in the name of the authorities and as far as I know they're all free men. He'd invited them to enact their murders in his film. Bizzarely the director talked about these people as friends, happy they'd made his film (kerching) possible. He refused under direct questioning from the audience to have a moral position on these people - these REAL LIFE murderers. The murders themselves - they love the film!   Yes Tarantino shoots violence in a glorious way and characterises some extremely cool and sexy villains. But it is all part of the theatrics. The difference between Tarantino and the director I mentioned above? His film is no fiction. It is when it is real life you have to worry. In the end fiction, culture and real actions in real life are separate no matter how many corrupting memes or violent films are floating around in peoples minds. It is PEOPLE who kill people, not films or video games. How would the real victims of these men have felt about them being given a glossy platform in this film? If the director came here and got real members of the IRA to enact their killings on BBC 1, whilst giving no moral position or even buddying up to them, I'd love to see what the public reaction would be.   But because this is Indonesia, a poor country with a troubled past to be abused and exploited, he feels he can get away with it - and probably can.

Killer Joe for those who don't know is by the director of The Exorcist, William Friedkin is now a 77 year old guy. As if extreme violence was somehow unique to this generation of filmmakers? Violence was pretty bad during Friedkin's upbringing. WWII and Vietnam and a very violent society with less equal rights as we have now. That generation didn't end up sending us to the dogs, rather they look like angels compared to how most young people are painted as villains today.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzRa3GAqNBY   Not seen the film but it looks interesting.   Though the trailer has a bad case of BANGING STEEL DOORS from the sound FX library.   In Iceland there's an effort underway to ban all pornography (online and in print).   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society   Is this really a world we wanna live in?   Experience shows that if something is repressed, it goes underground and becomes a much bigger problem.   The mainstream actually makes it more insipid, more watered down - as soon as something is banned it is seen as being more potent somehow.

Interesting comment from the actors round table from Matt Damon, Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx (Django Unchained), John Hawkes (Lincoln), Richard Gere. and Alan Arkin (Argo). I've embedded it if you want to watch the whole thing (highly recommended) but if you click the link you go straight to 44m 50s which is the point they begin to debate violence in movies and its effect.   www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTi634iZ7o8&t=43m50s   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTi634iZ7o8&t=43m50s   What Arkin says is that it isn't the violence itself that is the problem, rather people's reaction to it. When people in a theatre are revelling in it, it shows a lack of moral code, a lack of values.   It also brings that violence out of the screen somehow - you become part of their values system. It's the same thing when an audience laughs at a joke that you don't get. You can't identify with these people, can't emphasise and that is frightening when it is 100 vs 1. "Hey - you're laughing at amorality, you're laughing whooping at this trash?!" I have had this experience myself many times in a cinema.   He also says that when it is shown dispassionately - it scares the hell out of him. I.e when a film shows a violent act with no consequence, no commentary and no judgement.   A lot of mainstream films do this - and yes it is indeed worrying. I know one trailer that just consists of a lot of nastiness, and ends with the sound of someone getting their head blown off by a shotgun. "Movie out August". Crowd whoops. I sit there thinking - what the hell!? That is just nasty, and people - they're embracing it!   So where I agree with Mark on the forum here is with the films that use violence in exactly this way - like some kind of disposable visual FX. Where I disagree with Mark is on Tarantino and that filmmakers should still have the creative license to hold a mirror up to life and show how it actually is, the good and the bad - and that sometimes the bad wins out.   In the recent Hansel & Gretel (Witch Hunters) by the way - which is an awful bloody film - they use violence against woman almost as a background visual FX. This is completely different to the way Tarantino is handling it. The Human Centipede is another example of a filmmaker who lacks a moral code in his work. It is done to grab attention and profit. Filmmakers do have responsibilities to the audience in terms of quality - but I still wouldn't go as far as saying they needed to be responsible for people's reaction to violence and the weird way in which some will revel in the wrong things and take the wrong influence from it. As I said, filmmakers have a creative license to tell a story however way it goes whether it has any morality in it or not, they shouldn't change to suit society or to conform.   As far as the trash goes - yes, I think it's bad for culture, bad for society. But you still can't censor it. It is impossible in the age of the net.

Interesting comment from Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) on Twitter   https://twitter.com/TheDstauff/status/307661130384408576

Well they are two very different films. If an 8 year old is up at 10pm watching them, that is bad parenting. But the reality of the world today is that whilst SAW 5 is on the TV downstairs, some kids are upstairs on the internet watching REAL scenes of torture and sexual violence.   Yet the answer is not censorship. It is all about values and self control, taking responsibility for what you and your children value and take an interest in.   I would want my kids to be upstairs playing with a camera and making little theatre performances, not doing something unproductive.   There's absolutely no evidence that a violent popular culture creates a violent society though.   You are right that our civilisation seems to be getting more amoral - but I'd put that down to the steady discrediting of religion by scientific progress. I am not religious myself and never have been but I still think spirtuality and storytelling play a role in building strong bonds between us, which we're then less likely to want to smash to pieces by murdering or mugging someone.   We need less alienation, stronger social skills and a new religion that doesn't involve shopping. The most secular places like cities have far more crime than the small town with a church at the heart of it and whilst some of that is down to the fact there's more opportunity to commit crimes in a city and more population, in a small town you are accountable to your fellow human beings and to the church. When people aren't directly accountable for their actions you have a problem.   When someone commits a violent crime I don't believe it is because mainstream culture is too violent and they've been corrupted - it is because they're not being held accountable to society for the bad deed, and they're not even responsible to their friends or parents for it.   I think filmmakers need to be really careful here that we're not going to be held scapegoats for these people's lack of responsibility. They'd quite happily blame someone other than themselves and so would their feckless parents.

  This is one of the stranger things with anamorphic - that actually 2x anamorphic from digital 4:3 gives you 2.66:1 - it is 2.40:1 on film because the sound track takes up part of the 4:3 frame making it even squarer.   When you crop your 16:9 material to 4:3 in post it should be cropped to 1440x1080, then squeezed to 1440x540 for 2.66:1. My advice is to make a 1440x1080 template in Photoshop and drop it in behind your video track so you can crop the clip by percentages to match 1440x1080, as not all NLEs allow you to scale a clip on the timeline by giving values in pixels, stupidly.   For the final format I recommend upscaling the 1440x540 to 1920x720 and adding a film grain scan so the resolution loss from the side-crop isn't as noticeable.   Ideal situation would be to have the camera give us more than 1080 lines to play with a native 4:3 output but the manufacturers JUST DON'T GET IT

  If Tarantino is subverting the traditional ideal of good / bad then he's doing so in a fictional portrayal of life, not reality. Films are a reflection of life and subverting the norm is part of art.   If it were a literal portrayal it would be boring and it wouldn't be as artistic.   Artists have a creative license. You can't go round telling filmmakers that they have a moral influence and therefore should fundamentally alter their films, their visions and their writing based on what is best for society. That leads to totalitarianism, where the film industry is controlled by moral guardians like it is in China - where everything different or risky that gets off the ground in the TV industry is crushed or censored by the government "for corrupting the society".   Look you can't fuck with society like this.   It is an organic thing, wildlife. Just as a documentary filmmaker wouldn't interfere with nature whilst shooting a piece on a starving elephant in the Congo, you wouldn't as a filmmaker take on the role of police or teacher.   Tarantino has given us characters.   It is up to us whether we accept them as role models or not.   Django is actually a pretty good role model for a lot of people.   He hasn't reversed the role of the "good guy" so that he has become a white-guy hating gun wielding savage. It is about freeing the repressed from their shackles and about speaking out for what you believe to be right and just. Those that don't do this risk becoming Samuel L Jackson's character in Django.   Even if there was concrete evidence of filmmaking subverting an entire culture and damaging society it is impossible to police, especially in the internet age. You can censor Tarantino, not give him that oscar or that accolade on the basis that he's damaging society somehow, castigate him and not give him the title as master like I have here - but what good would that do anyway!? The most irresponsible form of culture is not Tarantino's work far from it, and sometimes 'the cure' is worse than the ailment.

  Exactly, it's a choice. The dark side will always be with the human race, the ability to be cruel or nasty is in everybody. It is up to your own values and morals which side you gravitate towards and the mere presence of violent movies doesn't swing somebody dramatically from good to evil as if they are some kind of robot, no not even kids.   If anything movies are a reflection of existing morals / values of society, hence Saw, The Hangover Pt II and Bikini Spring Break.

Well, again I don't think it is the role of cinema to be a role model for society. What would the art of cinema look like if that was the case? It'd just a be a load of preachy morality tales?   It is up to people to take responsibility for their own morals and to stop blaming bad outside influences.   I can now completely understand why Tarantino gets annoyed at having the downfall of civilisation laid at his door. It's ridiculous quite frankly!   Like this guy for instance - opening with a rather dismissively put 'congratulations on the movie', followed by 8 minutes of trying to pin a link between the ills of society and the director.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk

  Again Mark you need to see Unchained. The strong morals in the film are on the side of the good guys and the bad guys are utterly despicable. DiCaprio said his character was the most vile he'd ever played!

  I know where you're coming from with this Mark but to lay the blame at Tarantino's door is pointless.   The real issue is the unfiltered freedom of information brought about by the internet - but only when combined with a lack of values in society and parenting.   As well as every wonder, every horror is now accessible.   I personally think it should be up the person whether to open themselves up the horrors or not. The brutality, sexual violence, amorality, consumerism, vanity and worse.   It isn't the internet's role and certainly not the role of censors or the state to instil a set of values in people.   Values comes from the community and parents.   Most kids would rather not watch bloody gore and all the other horrible shit you can find out there - be it in a movie or on the internet. Making it commonplace doesn't legitimise it. Tarantino uses the N-word hundreds of times in the course of the film but it's such an integral part of the overall effect, to take it out or change the vile language would harm the characters, making the theatrical villains far less vile. Why water it down?   Tarantino is very clear with the comic parts that the joke is very much on the racists in this film. If it wasn't for the bad language and violence teachers would be showing Django in schools as a powerful and stinging condemnation of racism and discrimination. You are absolutely on the side of the good guys whilst watching this thing. It doesn't glorify the bad guys in the least bit. It completely dumps on the fascists from a great height.   Although I enjoyed it, Inglorious was pretty far from the masterpiece this is, because he didn't get the characters right. Didn't like Brad Pitt in it especially.   I think you should go and see the film Mark because only then can you really get it.   Tarantino's films all have a strong good vs evil element and a strong moral message, whereas something like Saw 5 just has a load of nasty sadistic violence for the sake of it. The real worry for society isn't Tarantino, if anything it is what kids can find readily on the internet at any time of day like Saw, Human Centipede - and MUCH worse. But again it is up to them and their particular set of values to switch off to it.   I am sure there will be yet another lost generation who doesn't, but regardless of whether the stuff is out there or not - it isn't the primary reason why they are so stuffed up in the head.

Great to finally hear a good explanation for why the two modes look different. For me the difference is subtle, and don't forget to check the look of motion cadence, since this should look nicer in the ALL-I mode.

Thanks for all the contributions. I'm really enjoying it here at the moment.

There's plenty of them out there Caleb and this is by no means a full list! Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise) Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained) Christopher Nolan (Inception, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige Memento) Paul T. Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love) Wes Craven (Scream, Nightmare On Elm Street) Baz Luhrmann (Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge) Not forgetting the legendary anamorphic work of Andrei Tarkovsky (Solaris, Stalker, Mirror) of course.   Anamorphic is still the standard for film.   That the Alexa is the only camera to shoot 4:3 for a true Cinemascope aspect ratio with 2x anamorphic is utterly absurd.   The camera manufacturers need to drop 16:9 sensors for cinema production. It isn't a cinema standard, never has and never will be.   Here's a piece on anamorphic production on Arri's website http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/learn/tutorial_anamorphic_production.html   Although the resolution benefit is less with digital than on film, it is the whole look that has captured me, it is spellbinding. I like the very wide 3.55:1 you get from a 2x lens on 16:9 actually but recently I have taken to taping up the left and right of my screen to give me composition in 4:3, then I crop that in post and do the 2x squeeze to produce 2.39:1. I'll upload some of these projects in the coming weeks.

Image credits and further reading: Django Unchained / Robert Richardson at The American Cinematographer Magazine ~ Django Unchained echoes spaghetti westerns at Kodak camera and television Learn the ropes and unholster your gun - The EOSHD Anamorphic Shooter's Guide I honestly can't remember the last time I was so gripped by a mainstream piece of cinema. For the first half I had a permanent grin etched on my face for at least an hour, and for the second half I was on the edge of the seat with the kind of tension and sheer terror that you rarely see with the pacing of most mainstream movies - Ridley Scott did it with Alien and Tarantino's completely mastered it here. The first act is like the journey of a roller coaster up the tracks and then for the 2nd half it comes rocketing down and you're terrified. Django Unchained is a towering achievement - and here's how it was shot.