Sean Cunningham

There were far fewer means to alter a film's look, photochemically, in any surgical way in those examples.  Though, actually, you can see it in many of those earlier films at certain points.  What this look does is extend the sunset palette to any portion you wish.  The look is blamed on DI but it's been employed in photography and standard photochemical processing going back to at least the late 1970s or early 1980s in commercial cinematography.  The catch is, you couldn't achieve it in post production you had to do it in camera with your lighting and filtration.   Even with the DI process, Michael Bay (I know, I know) was still carrying the traditional lighting technique forward so that it was mostly baked into the neg, at least moving forward into the early '00 when DI was already becoming standard.  Witness the best, most attractive, most radiant version of Scarlett Johanson to ever grace the screen in The Island.  Nice as Transformers 2 looked you could tell by this point it was a more synthetic approach to achieving the flesh tones on Megan's rear and sun-kissed cheeks.   The color science is sound.  It's pleasing yet ubiquitous now.  It's not the only pleasing look though.     PS> the old Star Wars didn't even have "a look" apart from the desert scenes shot with a panty over the lens.

Based on the stills I like the color better on the BMCC. Without processing the only shot I saw that was immediately more pleasing was the road with all the high frequency gravel (but you can't use either of these cameras without processing so what they're showing is a worst case scenario, representing a scene produced by someone who doesn't know what they're doing). I've dealt with that kind of moire on the 7D and it's no big deal, while still retaining full luminance resolution. The flesh tones on the instructor in the dojo were better on the BMCC. In fact, even though he's smaller in frame, in the BMCC example, more flesh detail, not just tonality, is visible in and near the highlight area than in the 5D footage. They even conclude this. Here's the catch with the moire though: you only have to effectively filter color and because the BMCC isn't recording sub-sampled color but a full sample, once filtered you're not far from the 5DmkIII's color fidelity recorded with the hack. edit: but please, don't get me wrong, I'm not implying this isn't great or exciting information. It's fantastic for people who already own a 5D mkIII (and potentially most other model owners). I reject the idea that it represents the best choice available for new camera purchase decisions. Nothing to date suggests that's a rational conclusion. There are no deal breakers or makers here apart from fixation on an individual aspect while ignoring a host of caveats.

The problem with the Panasonics is SD media. The ML hack needs the throughput that fast CF media allows.

But you can't mount the glass :(

The difference between Super 35mm and "Standard 35mm" is a slim area used for sound. Not much call for Academy these days.

This is all well and good, but my main two questions are 1) How LONG can you continuously record for? and 2) Any chance it'll come to the 5D Mark II or 6D and work near as well? To at least some degree it appears possible with just about any Canon DSLR. You can already find tests shot on the mkII though the one I saw was something like 1880x720 resolution. If it could do 1920x(some crop factor) and not have to be wider than 2.35:1 you'll see the used market get really active soon (or more so than it is already).

What the ML hack writes out is 14bit 4:2:2 YUV. It's already been transformed to a sub-sampled YUV color space. The thread at Magic Lantern's own forum breaking the news is very clear about this. edit: here's an explanation from earlier in this very thread... http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/2696-big-news-hands-on-with-continuous-raw-recording-on-canon-5d-mark-iii/?p=33856

  http://www.digitalcinemafoundry.com/2010/04/02/why-the-so-called-blockbuster-look-color-grading-explained/

The sensor isn't doing any additional work. It's generating this information already. What's happening here is that work isn't being wasted, disappearing into the ether, it's being diverted to the CF. It's generating this image and then destroying it, in stock form. The sensor doesn't handle I/O. I would be really surprised if this isn't actually less work than the heavy lifting of even the crummy MP4 encoding it was doing on the fly, in stock form. It wouldn't shock me if the camera ran cooler. This is an I/O bound task more than a processor bound task.

Things JJ will bring to the Star Wars franchise:   1) crying 2) lens flares  3) time travel 4) crying

I don't get the "and better" apart from the Full Frame aesthetic, something which already didn't convince me to buy a 5DmkII versus a GH2. It's not a better raw and it has, just going on spec sheets, a stop less DR. It's (5D) 14bit versus 12bit, but it's also 4:2:2 versus 4:4:4. The variable aspect ratio isn't interesting to me. Better low-light sensitivity, that is nice, I will agree there, raw or not I'm sure the 5D is going to be the best thing outside a Dragon to see into the shadows...but then so was the 5DmkII versus the GH2. Several of the reasons why I chose the GH2 over the 5DmkII are still valid comparing this new development and a BMCC. At least at this stage of the game, for me.

Really? I don't see it like that at all, or are you just speaking you've put them out of your mind as a purchase option? I don't see this being any sort of BMD Pocket Camera threat. Someone with $1000 to spend isn't in the same market as a $3500 camera they can then hack. The Pocket Camera is going to be so versatile and useful in situations where this thing is not, they're not going to be able to keep them on the shelves. Likewise, if you didn't already own a 5DmkIII (like me) I don't see this as a definite better option for a new purchase. There are caveats to the BMD Production Camera that convince me the original BMCC is still a compelling choice in several ways. As much as I love the aesthetic of Full Frame I also know that I can get that look on a M4/3 camera with Voigtlander or SLR Magic glass (and in a truer raw too). Jello cancels each other out as they both have it. For projects where I'm a controlling producer as well as the shooter the potential for catastrophic failure that using a hack brings to the table doesn't scare me. I've been around this stuff well enough to know that potential is there in everything given the right circumstances. Still, there are other productions where this camera, however neat it just became, wouldn't even be up for discussion because it involves too many dollars of other people's money and I'd just be a for-hire above-the-line rather than one with veto power. This thing doesn't change how all those adjectives used to describe the 5D in "Bankai" form have already been said many a time about the existing BMCC footage. I've de-moired a whole movie's worth of 7D mush so that part doesn't scare me. Moire wasn't a deal breaker that prevented anyone from buying the Canon cameras they owned before a couple days ago. I see this as an amazing gift to everyone that already owns one of these cameras. As someone who doesn't, it's just really neat on a geeky level. I don't anticipate it affecting my future camera purchases, however.

I've already seen examples posted with on-camera audio.

Even though it's not really "raw", uncompressed 14bit 4:2:2 YUV @ ~2K trumps the crap out of compressed 8bit 4:2:2 YUV @ 4K (1DC). Their target market are a gaggle of fools if they think otherwise. But maybe that's what they've been counting on all along.

This is going to be a factor in some cases. I'm attached to a small collection of scripts out looking for funding right now and the writer/executive producer told me I wasn't going to be allowed to use a hacked camera (referring to my GH2). While being immediately offended I also knew he was raising enough to support a decent camera rental package so I've got him convinced a good alternative would be for production to buy a couple BMD cameras. No matter how cool this development is we'll still likely be going the BMD route, or some flavor or RED rental. He's not going to risk other people's money on potential hang-ups on set, beyond the usual expectation that they can happen with any camera, and I can't really blame him. I might just have to revisit my own plans for my next personal camera, with this in mind, though I don't particularly like the extremely narrow anamorphic options with FF.

I think in later posts it's stated that this is already working, the routines at least, no?   So this would make the 5DmkIII the first and currently only camera shooting RAW motion pictures with the Full Frame aesthetic.  Nifty.

Dunno if you're already planning it, but the collection-type threads on a gaming forum I used to frequent would often have the author and maintainer re-edit the topmost message(s) in the thread, re-adding relevant information posted in replies to the original message so folks wouldn't have to search through the entire thread. Otherwise information this dense gets lost and its intended usefulness as a reference resource gets lost with it and the thread dies.

  Agreed.  He's made two good films in his career as a director (American Grafitti and Star Wars)  and loads of bad or mediocre ones as a producer.  Sometimes Spielberg's talent in collaboration would be enough to make something good but it was never a guarantee.     The idea that Lucas had all of the first three Star Wars and beyond in his head (or written down somewhere) was a myth perpetuated even before the internet.  Almost everything I've ever read about him turns out to be either myth or lie.     They should just let this and Star Trek end.  There are countless good science fiction stories out there that might actually bring something compelling to the cinema.  New pop fantasy scifi even.   PS> there's only one good Indiana Jones movie for my money, only one that bears repeat viewing and only one that I will ever own.  The first. 

Apart from his contribution to the M:I franchise (which I place somewhere between Woo's and Bird's) and Super-8, which was phenomenal, until we spend so much time looking at a non-sensical alien, you can keep him.

  It can.  What someone will spend isn't necessarily the same as what they have to spend (or feel they have to spend).  Soderberg's point was that is what studios feel they have to spend to market a film, any film, here in the States (and another chunk as big overseas).  He further illustrated why they are far more willing to do this for a film that costs $60M than they are a film that costs $6M, because the cost to market both are essentially equal and there are very, very few precedents for low budget films earning $300+Million at the box office or even close.     Those are odds they're not playing and they don't know how to scale back from $30M minimum marketing to a proportional amount based on the cost of a cheaper film.

His success is good for anyone with aspirations of one day making their own feature and getting it to an audience.  Not the fake indies from kids who grew up in Hollywood royalty or the 1% commercial directors who made their millions :30 and :60 at a time already much less the vanity project of an aging actor/actress.     Measurable success for this film is one of those good indicator thangs, on several levels.

Wow, wild speculation based on bad experiences with unknown filmmakers leaves me...unmoved.

It'll be interesting to see how he handles foreign.  Without the limited theatrical release in the US it's got nothing to get foreign buyers excited (the agents that buy for foreign distributors, I'm not speaking about audiences).  The limited theatrical means he's automatically playing at a different level with them as a given.  Otherwise he'd be lucky to get a couple grand for each market until actual sales figures start coming in and the foreign distribs recoup their fees and costs.  You'd be looking at years to make what he's already made from less than 50 theaters.   Lots of schmack gets talked about the average American audience member, often blamed for the blandness and shallow nature of your average Hollywood film but, ironically, the foreign market buyer has as much if not more share of the blame for this because that is the kind of thing that gets sold the easiest and it's the foreign market that's the apple of the eye of the corporate studio machine.   Doing a low-overhead, self-release in N. America (maybe even just the USA) to capture a meaningful overseas buy could be an amazingly powerful tactic for the independent.  More than Red State, this is one to keep tabs on from a strategic standpoint most definitely (along with maybe the Devil's Carnival)

  Um, sorry but, no.  Those "hidden" costs are invariably related to distribution companies and their fees.  That's how the brothers at Miramax built up their company and gained power, by fucking over the filmmakers they distributed for.  If he's releasing this himself...is he roleplaying and giving himself a hard time?  Is that what you're suggesting?   The $300,000 for limited theatrical (less than 50 screens at its highest) with no real P+A budget or conventional marketing is rather outstanding (takes $30M to market a film conventionally, according to Soderberg's revelation).  You aren't even looking at the available information to form an educated guess about what's going on here so your statements are exactly the opposite of "educated".      He's also self-releasing it on DVD and streaming, meaning very little overhead.  The limited theatrical and growing word-of-mouth will serve as a mini marketing campaign for the home video release which could easily bring him three to five times the small theatrical business.  How well it does then will ultimately come down to what he actually spent on it (or raised) and what, if any, deferrals are still owed.   You won't know the production cost unless he wants it to be known.  There is no authority to IMDB or boxofficemojo or any of these sorts of sites.  They get their information from voluntary sources with no oversight or fact checking or even a means to fact check that sort of information.  Someone sends a number and if their account or previous history is deemed trustworthy it gets posted as if it were fact without a single phone call or e-mail or any follow-up for first party confirmation.

Yes, I read 5D at the top of the thread wasn't wanting to speculate how it would perform in that configuration.  My apologies, most of the negative comments I read regarding both the Century Optics or LA7200 adapter generally come across as blanket judgments, as if their famous deficiencies were simply a part of their nature no matter what camera or configuration and that simply isn't true.     No simple answers with any of this stuff and I think that's what scares people who aren't really up for the challenge.  Any configuration with the 36mm sensor cameras is going to offer the most challenges.  I'd be willing to bet even that set of PL-mount LOMO on ebay just might vignette on a 5D because they and none of the other 35mm cine anamorphics needed to accomodate near that much coverage, vertical 35mm being a hair under 25mm at full-silent-app (21mm being the current standard for ana-35mm).