markm

Altering colour temperature is not really that big a deal with film. I think Roger Deakin is right these are just tools. Bottom line, it's up to us how we use them. I think digital loses the magic of film and will have a detrimental effect on the industry unless digital can do something about the way it captures and renders colour. If I had the option to make a feature then my preference would be 70mm next 35mm and then HD as a low budget last resort.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1352402270' post='21339'] ps: 200t rushes look very bland ! you would be suprised! [/quote] No I wouldnt But it what you pull from it. The info is there

Andy We must be at cross puposes here I'll try and explain again. The HD sensor picks up colour a certain way Film picks up colour a certain way. The way the colours are captured IE the richness tonality and texture cannot be changed by grading. Only by individually masking off every object and grading it could it be done but that would be prohibitive. My point is film renders individual colours a much better way HD renders colours blandly and without soul.

I also wonder if digital is crippling creativity I know it allows a lot of freedom but it also looks digital. The first three star wars films are a good example where they made real models that look real because they are real and a colour pallete due to film that gives it cinematic hugeness. The actors because of this just look more real. When they shoot they usually had a more real world to get into and that must have some bearing on performance. and then you get the digital models that have robotic camera moves and realistic but somehow cartoon or just not any weight you know a real object would have. Actors having to act in front of greenscreens and do things you know are impossible like yodas fight with chris lee and the HD washed out colour pallete that again doesnt film big. Film does something to the real world that takes us into another world and makes things seem possible its called film magic and that is fast being lost. I think soon Once audiences become jaded by the lure of special effects then the drabness of digital will mean cinemas will lose business and movies will lose their popularity. One thing I never understood is why 70mm didnt become the next big thing. Sad to say but I think because of the cross over to digital then the whole business will end up dead.

Andy I can clearly see a difference here. For me the 200t had a different look which for me was better. The colour was much more alive and rich even though it was heavily compressed. I guess were all going to have our own preferences. Cant help thinking digital is a step down and not up though as things stand at the moment. Looking at the picture from your last post and the last film thats clearly digital and thats how that scene looked in skyfall digital Now if that had been film you would have had a less drab and more beautiful colour rendition that would have enhance grading.

Andy Yes I know. I think the grading is part of it but beyond that the way a sensor captures the colours and attributes them is what I mean. Grading will affect the whole picture and not individual objects or colours. To further explain what I mean Here is a film test I did with 16mm and an EX1 camera. Not a fair test because of Vimeos compression and once you do a DI your obviously on digital so you cant compare film with digital but I think it shows what I am trying to say and no amount of colour correction will correct the sensors rendition (I tried and failed) unless you mask every single object and colour which who knows may become an option. [url="https://vimeo.com/3863393"]https://vimeo.com/3863393[/url] Although the footage is not Alexa raw I think it is typical of all HD footage in its rendition of colours. Please excuse the editing and music. I wanted to make it interesting as well as a test..

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1352330075' post='21264'] Roger Deakins talks about using the Arri Alexa on Skyfall the first digital Bond film made [/quote] I've only seen part one. Very interesting. Roger will not be drawn into which is better Film or Digital. His answer is they are different tools which is true. He also says digital is clearly the future and knows he had to make the transition which as things stand he is probably right although I have my suspicions film might make a comeback at a later date.. I guess if I was in his position you get a head start by getting into digital and finding a fav camera. I hope that digital sensors can improve colour rendition as to my eyes digital either looks over saturated or washed out. Anyway for many DP's its not simply about choosing one over the other its also about being cutting edge especially I think if you're older where it might be easier to see someone as old school. Personally I think the onus is now on digital to become better than film. So far it has come on in leaps and bounds and the expectation is there. At this moment in time overall film still has the indefinable film look that makes a film cinematic which I probably think is down to better colour rendition.

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1352326498' post='21261'] The topic is about the format of Skyfall, not "thoughts on skyfall" and not everyone has seen it, I don't go out of my way to see every movie that hits theaters and I am not the biggest fan of 007, nor do I read reviews of movies because I could care less about another persons opinion, I'll be the judge for myself what I really think of a movie. Don't hold your breath on film making a major comeback to the same amount of use as back in the day. A few people will use it here and there, but camera geeks are the only ones that care about the "true film" look & feel and the average person could care less and Hollywood understands this. Cheaper, Faster, Less Time, More money. The comment I made about cats was completely sarcastic, I don't even own a cat, it was making fun people that buy $6000 cameras to shoot videos of their cat for youtube. I really would like to see some of your film work, is it online by chance? [/quote] Well I had actually almost been swayed by digital after watching the last crusade which was shot on film until I watched Skyfall in the theatre and as you haven't seen Skyfall you cant really judge it yourself can you. If instead of answering my posts with argument and instead going to be sarcastic make undermining statements and refer to those who prefer film negatively as geeks then all you really want to do is insult and promote your favourite cause then what point is discussion.

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1352305452' post='21238'] no spoiler alert warning? thanks you might as well get used to film fizzling out. it's too expensive and a much more complicated process of editing and audio. [/quote] Spoiler alerts? Thought you'd seen the film. Many reviews going up now that go into detail without spoiler warnings Really Dont read threads that have Skyfall in the title its pretty obvious what Im going to be talking about. I reckon at some point there will be a return to film when the enthusiasm for digital begins to fall and yes it is convenient shooting in HD but so what . If your a cinemtographer and the film has a budget then you would shoot on the format best for the film. Would you shoot a film the easy way or the best way for your production. Youd have to be pretty dumb to shoot a film that doesnt look the best when investors have invested millions. Or are you talking about its easier to use when you make a film about your cats? Personally I prefer to shoot on film then transfer to a DI for editing as I dont have a steenback and I'm not Steven Spielberg Although I could edit 16mm film but I think I'll give that a miss as its to easy to mess it up. [quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1352305528' post='21239'] After you wrote your screen play did you send a copy to yourself via registered mail? Just don't open the letter as it is proof of the date of your script. The late actor John Candy told me to do this years back. Also, ideas are repeated all the times. Keep at it and go for it. [/quote] Yep all registered with the writers guild of America four and a half years ago. The screenplay was given to lots of people BBC writers room a forum British film council script doctors etc One of whom completely rubbished it. Of course ideas are repeated and my story line re MI6 is different but its like a lot of my ideas even small stuff are there and probably down to coincidence.

Thanks Gravitatemediagroup Some try to get a film look but Roger Deakins says there are differences between film and digital and he just loves the look of his arri. Maybe its me after all the work I've done in HD Seeing it on the screen like that is nothing special. However I feel its more than that Film has richer fatter better colour that can't be copied with HD's more water colour look. If you over saturate HD you just end up with an oversaturated picture but film will colour in better. Of course this is just my opinion but I thought Casino Royale had better cinematography because of it. I'd also add the end of Skyfall looked more like a western showdown than Bond.

The problem with this camera is the sensor which only resolved about 630 lines and didnt handle highlights and dynamic range that well. Its great they added 10 bit 4.2.2 out and probably a firmware upgrade and not any changes to the camera itself. Maybe they are just getting rid of to much old stock and then ditching it.

The problem with moire and aliasing unless you film everything with a top notch monitor you never know when its going to hit you. An audience will soon be taken out of the story as soon as they see it and will spell amatuer. If the GH3 has this I will be giving it a wide berth unless they bring it down in price to GH2 levels and then I'd only use it for non professional use because it will save space on my computer.

Another problem for me was I wrote a screenplay four years ago and then wrote another five sequels and have big hopes for it. Skyfall has just about every set piece from my script in it. I feel like I wasted a year of my life. Still I guess thats life huh. if my film ever got made which is unlikely I'd be accused of copying Skyfall.

Andy Drove the film forward? The plot was non existant Here is a quote from someone highlightiing the holes. Can some explain to me why the villain went to all the trouble of stealing the data disk, blowing up MI6, releasing the top secret info on the web, purposely allowing himself to be captured just so he could escape, dress up as a (very unconvincing fancy dress shop) policeman, blow up a tube train and then shoot his was into a heavily secured court room just to kill M. Surely he could have just dressed up as a policeman and tried to kill M without all the other add ons? Even better the Villain could have gone to her home like Bond did. The film seemed to me an excuse to replace Judi Dench with a new actor and to give Daniel Craig his own space to act the part cringingly up himself. I accept we all have different opinions and I really set out to like the fillm. When Bond takes M to safety after the court battle it just became so slow and tedious and really didnt feel like Bond at all. His relationship with M was downright weird The bit M and the House caretaker were flahing a torch around for the villain to see and the church scene were just so amazingly insigniifigant Where is the pizaz the glamour the amazing effects. Just have the amazing acting of Daniel Craig and Judy Dench doing her farewell speel. I would say they PUT the actors in charge of to much. The whole thing for me was just plain wrong. Anyway thats just my opinion and we all know that like A holes everyone has one!

I guess they sort of got Bond right with Sean Connery who could play 007 believably I think Pierce Brosnon wasn't that bad and gets lambasted for his looks but he did have the physical fitness as well as the charm. But didnt have the ruthless playfulness to the degree of Sean Connery. I think all the Bonds have been good in their own way and for their time with one exception. I often liked the one liners as long as they are clever and not all of them are. Its also a part of Bond. One liners I think make it more authentic for the psychopathic nature of the character. The point is none of its believable . Skyfall is as far fetched as moonraker. they make it believable because you see it with your own eyes and thats the fun of films like this being able to suspend your disbelief for the moment. No one believes Superman can fly or that Luke Skywalker really uses the force or that indiana jones can jump out of a plane with a life raft land going down hill and fall into a ravine into a river. Its okay putting in far fetched gadgets as long as they are not used as plugs for bad scripts and the actor makes his use of them believable. The problem is Bond is from post world war Britain where soldiers accepted their fate with an upbeat philosophy that if it's your time it's your time. Our new Bond is an orphan with a troubled childhood and with the looks and mannerisms of a thug, believable as a hard man but completely unbelievable as a Ladies man OR as someone with any refinement or abilty to adapt to the lives of the glamourous people he is likely to mingle with. They got one thing right at the expense of everything else. They lost their way in trying to copy everybody else by thinking they were being original they actually became imitators and forgot who Bond is..

I watched Skyfall last night My first visit to the cinema for a long time as Money ihas been very tight these last few years I have to say I was quite unimpressed with the cinematography and I know that couldn't be down to Roger Deakins. I felt the film had a videoey feel to it and had lost the richness film gives. I have long been an advocate for real film but have been shouted down so many times I kind of gave up as HD doesnt look to bad on the computer. I'm wondering if things may have been different if shot at 4k or maybe the prints may have been digital when deliverd to the cinema or a lower standard to save costs. I watched the film at cineworld theatre 2 stevenage. I was disapointed. Also disapointed in the film itself and think they have lost their way with it. The key ingredients of a Bond film has always been the gadgets The women The suave charm and of course the villains and cars as well as Bonds intelliigence at working out stuff.. They have ditched all those things in favour of an athlete with bulbous legs a bodybuilders pose without the muscles and poses that made me cringe.He looks for all intents and purposes like a games avatar and actually the villain. The gadgets are gone as is the charm. His intelligence is replaced by a knowledge not suited to the roughness his character potrays. They gave him weaknesses like substance abuse boozing and a bad childhood this time round. Please I dont want to feel sorry for Bond I want to admire him. But I feel they trashed that. The film itself seemed to want to please the critics and the storyline was just horrible. The opening was the best part of the film and couldnt help feeling they should have had the opening at the end of the film. They started with casino royale saying it was a reboots but now they are trying to reboot it even further back The storyline almost seems opportunistic and fits with the film makers needs to well and it detracts from the story making it nonsensical as we already know the past history through countless films. If they think this is a way to reboot the franchise they are losing their grip. We all know what we want with Bond and that is Glamour gadgets women Fast cars and excitement all the things critics hate and all the things we love. I know this has so far done well at the box office. I wonder how well the next film will do. I also wonder if they made a big mistake ditching film.

Yeah a RED one for £2500 pretty amazing stuff. Unfortunatley I can't afford one at present and will probably be looking to buy after Christmas. Still have my GH2 and that is surprisingly good.

I just can't help feeling the sensors are somehow being sabataged. There is a lot of money that could be lost by the major players. I just don't like the sound of this. I hope all goes well for Black Magic they really have been stitched up by the sensor Manufacturers in my opinion.

I'd still be worried though about things going wrong with a Red camera. To be safe I think you would need to buy two.

Of course not Kingswell No one likes queue jumpers. Or bad practice by businesses. Especially me.

Regardless of the coincidence drive stolen from Red dwarf If they can sell the Red one at £2500 and still make a profit although could be just clearing the stock You have to ask why Sony Canon and Panasonic are selling theirs at £15000. One thing I like about Jim Jannard is he's up front and offers hope. Of course technology has moved on and prices are cheaper He concedes that and his response is to go with the market expectation. That is good business regardless of the reasons they did it.

Tomto that sounds ridiculous Queue jumping is a moral issue and not a legal one.As for treating customers fairly that is in regard to goods supplied and as it stands those in the queue have an option to cancel and fully aware a delivery time cannot be predicted or guaranteed. Even if CVP were to treat the customer unfairly in the normal sense and for what the laws were designed for. IE Overcharging. A faulty item that needs replacement Not returning a deposit etc then the best you can expect from trading standards is your money back. As for a claim for loss of earnings that is ridiculous. The Cameras are clearly on a deposit system precisely because delivry cannot be predicted. Your main argument is queue jumping and your re defining of it. Good luck with that one.

[quote name='Kingswell' timestamp='1351803934' post='20812'] Run a business like that and you're going to go out of business. I also disagree they can do whatever they like with stock. There will be many strings attached in their contract with BMD. Break em and they don't get anymore BMD stock. Blackmagic already did their publicity boost with the very public 'beta' testers. I struggle to even recognise it as a beta test. They specifically picked out prominent bloggers like Philip Bloom and Vincent Laforet for PR. They don't need anymore business-they can't even supply 1% of demand they already have! Lastly I find it alarming that people are saying that its ok to boost people up pre-order lists. There is such a thing as ethics and conducting business in a good moral sense. [/quote] First and foremost is that you don't know whether Andrew went up the list you are just suspicious. The argument ends there. However for fun and to broaden it further re business ethics and nothing to do with the argument on this thread. I would suggest there arent very many ethics in business and nowadays companies built on a good name are hard to find. Most look for strategies to get your hard earned money and some are quite ruthless Sony Panasonic and Canon will all drip feed you products at whatever price they feel they can get. Look at the GH2 and how hackers have unlocked its deliberately locked potential. In every walk of life today from politicians to bankers its become make as much as you can with no regard for others. That is why business and capitilism must be ruled by good laws and incorruptable rule makers However in recent times governments are being paid by big business Americam politics and its political leaders are habitual; offenders These are the people who send men to their deaths in far off countries and in the UK sell out its people. I agree though businesses should think more about customers and their good name However the reality is for all those in power and in business Money is king. For those who are more public orientated I would do my best to encourage and so far Black Magic have been very good. As for CVP they try to outdo the competition and keep prices high in my opinion.They are out to make money. What would you do though if it was your business Would you try to get as much as you can and do what was neccesary? I know I would be no good in business as I'm not ruthless enough to survive. I think its time to stop nit picking on Andrew and take his and CVP's word all is above board anyway.

Kingswell First this is really nothing to do with Andrew and second although you and myself too wouldnt like it CVP can do what they like with their own stock. If they decide to earmark certain priorities like Andrew whose blog will reach thousands of potential customers then that is a business decision for them and maybe even Black Magic who may or may not have asked them to deliver a camera to Andrew or popular bloggers as a priority. Business wants to make money as much as it can. We want great cheap cameras. I would be upset if it was potentially queue jumping but its like the theatre manager coming out and taking someone from the queue and so not queue jumping at all. We will never know the truth if we cant accept what Andrew and CVP have said therefore sour grapes are futile in my opinion.

Is it possible something else caused it rather than the camera?