Axel

Could be an interesting doc, though I usually don't like too many interviews. I wish you best luck with your film.

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1346485280' post='17077']Lets say we don't have alot of gear, only a few lights, simple boom mic to H4N. Its fine when we're in a controlled set/environment, but if we try to move to say a parking garage? Or an office building with bad yellow florescent light? Wouldn't we want to shoot in RAW? Where we have the option to try and fix these issues? [/quote] [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346503849' post='17090'] Indeed, a large production would spend a lot more than they spend on post, to fix issues with a location and lights. We, the ones who are smart and think differently, will be able to do a lot of that in raw now. [/quote] When part 2 of the Zacuto shootout was discussed, everybody agreed with the conclusion that 'forgiving' greater capabilities of high end cameras lost against conscientious lighting and clever planning. This is not rendered invalid by an affordable raw camera. With photos, I admittedly use the raw format in the same sense. There is a temptation to do a sloppy job, because almost everything can be fixed in post. Or so it seems. As a longtime analog photographer and professional darkroom laboratory worker (sounds awkward, from german), I know that 'raw' (undeveloped emulsion) actually came long before Jpeg. Digital imagery are historically the first instances of baked-in compression, and I always scoff at the post-deniers who consider themselves better pros. The point is that the goal of it all is a better image and that you will fail if you believe that a 'forgiving' codec will get you there. In the end, decisions have to be made as to how much the colors should deviate from average, natural looking values to creatively change the mood or express something. I suspect that many who welcome raw for making their lives [i]easier[/i] will just botch around and compensate for being too shirt-sleeved. Raw needs the same care during shooting as any other format to lead to good results. And the post is actually most demanding.

[quote name='pss' timestamp='1346461061' post='17054'] i am a still shooter and so i find the discussion funny....raw is a no brainer....yes, it has drawbacks but the advantages more then make up for it....afaik the only people shooting jpegs are journalists whi have to beam the image back as the event is still going on...everybody else shoots raw....for good reason... [/quote] [quote name='lightpainter' timestamp='1346458740' post='17051'] so LEONARDO...( not the boy in holly) painted a halfe live On ONE PICTURE [/quote] Grading 8-bit is like painting with 256 crayons with La Gioconda sitting in constant light conditions and light temperature through the whole process, with a WB preset and an average exposure as a starting point (also a [i]mental[/i] starting point). Grading 12-bit raw is like an almost infinite flow of colors and shades and the oil paint mixed from scratch. I never worked with raw video, but judging from raw stills, I'd say the creative possibilities are rewarding - why indeed creative photographers prefer raw. With video, consistency is paramount, and you will probably create a grade preset to preserve it. This could very well be quite similar to what you have with a pre-developed 8-bit or 10-bit image. What I am trying to say is, if you can't grade, it is no advantage. Grading - like painting in oil - can only be learned to a certain degree, some techniques. I don't see very many well graded videos on youtube, and so I guess to have 'an eye' for colors is actually what separates the boys from the men.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1346175189' post='16739'] So frame compression is all that matters (given a certain data constraint) for intra-frame compression( that what i was infering between posts #3-6).[/quote] You assume that intra with AVC is the same as intra with DV. But it isn't. The frames exist independently, but the so-called [i]spatial prediction [/i]of AVC turned out to be more efficient in terms of reducing data rates whilst maintaining image quality than the temporal prediction, which needs variable bit rates to compensate for a lot of movement within a clip, ironically [i]then[/i] exceeding the intra frame data rates. So it can be argued, that unless you desperately need very low rates (sacrificing quality when motif and/or camera actually dare to [i]move[/i]), inter is inferior. No doubt it is perfect for web distribution or for amateurs who don't like to take a spare SD card for their summer holiday. Read the Panasonic [url="ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/panasonic/drivers/PBTS/papers/WP_AVC-Intra.pdf"]pdf[/url] to AVCIntra (5 years old already!). There you can see, that there are 2 flavors: 50 mbps [color=#ff0000]10-bit[/color],[color=#ff0000] [/color]1440, 4:2:0 and 100 mbps 10-bit, 1920, 4:2:2. I know it's foolish, but I dream of 10-bit @ 72 mbps. Someone wrote in a comment on 43rumors: [quote][color=#444444][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2][background=rgb(250, 250, 250)]Yep, while heavy editing doing video professionals might hail AVC intra as second coming of Jesus for normal uses its just complete waste of space by needing to store same duplicate data over and over for every frame.[/background][/size][/font][/color][/quote] As if there weren't enough mediocre camcorders for the video dads to choose from! Absurd! But alright, why did he buy a new computer if not to better cope with long GOP worms? Must pay off, no? [quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1346175189' post='16739']My point is that i'd rather see a higher bitrate inter codec on the gh3 than a high bitrate intra-codec. [/quote] But why?

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1346129336' post='16682'] I thought the reason the gh2 was so detalied was that it was a high bit-rate inter-frame codec? The 5d3 does more mbits than this for intra-frame and it gets blocky. [/quote] Panasonic developed the AVC Intra codec @ 100 mbps, 10-bit 4:2:2, broadcast standard. They are experts in making codecs efficient. The GH2s 24 mbps is VBR and mostly around 18 mbps, with which it equalled the 42 mbps of the 5DM2. That's why this sounds so promising.

This sounds fantastic. I am looking forward.

[quote name='Chrad' timestamp='1345987766' post='16502'][font=Helvetica Neue]I'm sure in a few years there'll be a great super 35 RAW camera at an accessible price point, with all the features we've been asking for like higher frame rates, but there comes a point where one has to stop waiting and make the most of what's available now.[/font][/quote] Yep! Reminds me of a song by Joe Jackson (not Jackos Darth Vader father), [i]The Verdict: [/i]'It's not easy, but we [i]have[/i] to try or else our world becomes a waiting room.' [quote name='Axel' timestamp='1345926632' post='16477']• the fastest lenses for full frame may be f1.2. If they are good, they are very expensive. The famous Noktons are with f.95 one full stop faster. They compensate fully for the 2:1 crop ratio ...[/quote] I erred. You heard, that the crop factor of MFT to full frame is 2. The space, however, quadruples: [url="http://ninofilm.net/blog/wp-content/sensor-size-1.jpg"][img]http://ninofilm.net/blog/wp-content/sensor-size-1.jpg[/img][/url] The same as with 2k compared to 4k (which is four times the resolution). I think the field of the MFT camera would be four times as deep (at the same f-stop), or am I mistaken again?

[quote name='vincegortho' timestamp='1345918601' post='16474'] So the GH3 is staying micro 4/3 sensor size then? I ask because, so many people gave panasonic grief about it's small sensor size.[/quote] Because extreme shallow dof was fashionable. I hope that MFT will survive, because it is a very smart compromise: • the sensor size allows for lens resolutions as close as they can get to be covered by actual pixels for HD video without line-skipping. Bigger sensors don't. • practically all bigger mounts can be adapted, but not vice versa. • the mechanics of DSLRs with their clumsy, loud shutter mirror, perishing fast, will soon be realized as hoary relic. EVF and LCDs are getting brighter and sharper with every generation, and they show >focus, >exposure [i]and[/i] >color temperature (which mirrors can't). If you replace the shutter, the camera can be much, much smaller and lighter, provided that the lenses as well are small and light. • the fastest lenses for full frame may be f1.2. If they are good, they are very expensive. The famous Noktons are with f.95 one full stop faster. They compensate fully for the 2:1 crop ratio ... • ... if [i]extreme[/i] shallow dof is desirable any longer in the first place. You see it everywhere, I feel it starts getting old. • The BMCC has an even bigger crop. Who knows? Perhaps MFT also will be adapted to the Blackmagic.

[quote name='stangarcia' timestamp='1345723562' post='16278'] I still use FCP7 to edit because I like using Apple Color. My work flow goes like this: -MTS converted to Prores HQ 422 via Media Encoder -New file imported to FCP7 -Edited sequence to Apple Color. Now my question is, should I be worried about this clipping issue? If so, what is the FCP equivalent of Premiere Pro's Fast Color Corrector? Please help for I am now paranoid! thank you! [/quote] You need not worry. Many complained about the Color workflow, but actually, if you understand the whole color affair as post in the strictest sense (that means exporting the FCP sequence and grade as final step of image processing, even after after FX), it is really fast and comfortable. But best of all: You have the best scopes and the finest control-sensitivity of the tools. If something falls off the range between 0 and 100 (percent, that is, in the luma waveform monitor), you draw it back with greatest precision. That's all. Clipping only occurs on your monitor, 'cause you might not see the values. Once you start using the scopes, you see them and can bring them back. The only thing I wonder about is, why on earth you use Media Encoder for the conversion to ProRes. If you got FCP 7, you should do what's the programs greatest advantage over the competitors: You should [u]log & capture/transfer[/u]. The organization of the assets is FCPs strength. And it continues to be. The top of all editing software today is FCP X for it's unreached access to all your media through tagging, showing the clips as mini-timeline-thumbnails and a lightning-fast skimmer to identify every frame in hours of footage within seconds. Without cumbersome [i]folders[/i] that need to be [i]double-clicked[/i] before you can even [i]scroll[/i] through old-fasioned [i]lists.[/i] [i]BUT- [/i]best of both worlds is obviously FCP X as editor for FC-Studio. Possible through the $ 50 software [url="http://assistedediting.intelligentassistance.com/Xto7/"]Xto7[/url].

Let me quote those last words: [quote name='Coppola'] [font=Helvetica][size=3]... for once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever and it will become an art form.[/size][/font] [/quote] He is not talking about any technical issue. What he predicted became reality at once. With Super 8 cameras and later home video. There were artists, driven by the need to express themselves, who took these simple, so called 'unprofessional' means without glancing at what 'the industry' did with their millions. To an artist, the comparison of consumer cameras to professional cameras is of little interest. [i]Ars gratia artis[/i] (pompous MGM phrase). A real indie doesn't need comparison. If I have to say something, I don't care about if it meets technical specs. If all I want to do is identify myself with the achievements of others, I am pretentious: [quote name='Coppola'] [font=Helvetica][size=3]Nothing is so terrible as a pretentious movie[/size][/font] [/quote] BTW: Great film, I prefer the original cut. One good argument for the use of true anamorphic lenses: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/technical You see the typical lens flares and the funny looking focus transitions very often. What you also see in the specs: Shot in 35 mm, but published in 70 mm. Nobody ever complained about inappropriately low resolution ...

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1345361969' post='16026'] Lmao. You guys should head over to provideo coalition.com and read the pissing contest between Steve Weiss and Art Adams in the comments at the bottom. Pretty passionate stuff.. [url="http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/cameras_why_zacutos_latest_camera_test_may_have_screwed_us_all/P1/"]http://provideocoali...ewed_us_all/P1/[/url] [/quote] These are the voices we are supposed to listen to. Punch and Judy, facepalm. The expression fell recently: We are to [color=#ff0000]learn our places[/color]. Which is the side table. When Big Daddy talks, the kids listen. The "industries" point of view? Zacuto made it harder for them to fight with their clients for better equipment. O me o my, where is the sound effect [i]audience laughter[/i]? My point of view? I have to be content with the back seat. [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/WilhelmBusch.jpg[/img] (by Wilhelm Busch, a german poet of the 19th century)

[quote name='4dbill' timestamp='1345334288' post='16009'] Almost all interviewees talked about telling stories. Yes, it matters for sophisticated film makers and movie critics, but the mass audience, where the most money comes from, do not care. They want to see boobs, special effects and stupidity -- a quick gratification for investing their money ($12 movie tickets) and time spend watching it (Youtube).[/quote] Successful Youtube shorts often don't have a complete story, but the most successful will have some kind of narrational structure, particularly when they are longer than one minute. Only DSLR enthusiasts actually watch impressionistic clips like those from Andrew from start to end. I agree with you in general, but cinema goers surely expect a story. Most of them want to know what's coming, so the story doesn't need to be fresh, they wish to be overwhelmed by the FX, emotional stimulation. This is in order, it's the concept of cinema. Art house audience doesn't like too obviously reassuring stories, that's the main difference. [quote name='4dbill' timestamp='1345334288' post='16009']If the exact contest was shot side-by-side with any of the two cameras tested, most audience members are not going to be concerned about what footage is better than another. They do not understand or care about a little noise, burned out highlights or a slight yellow cast.[/quote] You don't need to know about the technical background to sense cheapness. A good storyteller might overcome the doubts of an art house audience, but in mainstream cinema, the cheap tricks that make up video clips for youtube don't suffice. Like an Armani suit compared to an 80 £ suit by Marks & Spencer you know it without thinking. You should read Stu Maschwitz' [i]DV Rebel[/i], where he stresses the importance of signaling [i]production value[/i]. Now, since the subtitle of his guide reads [i]Killer Action Movies On The Cheap[/i], it can be mimicked. A little noise, burned out highlights or a slight yellow cast are the [i]technical[/i] signs of no budget and must be adressed with care. What can be said about part two of the shootout is that a very high percentage (in most cases 100) of all the differences can be evened by care. Care is the key. In a big production, a few hundred contributors care about their jobs and deliver professional results. That makes the finished film look phat. But: If you take your time on the set, if you re-light according to the needs of your sensor, and - crucial! - if you [i]don't[/i] care about how forgiving your competitor's camera is and how careless he could give, you have good chances. As we all witnessed.

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1345293834' post='15970']If I won the Euromillions, I'd still buy an Alexa though ;) it's easier to use than a breadknife and looks the nuts.[/quote] I believe every letter of your words. If either of us won the Euromillions, if we then ever felt the urge to browse the EOSHD forum, I think our words might sound patronizing to all the ambitious GH2 users. You know, for 700 €, the performance is quite good. Yet, at the same time, our creativity would not grow. Picasso painted when he was destitute, John Huston directed when his lungs already collapsed, Beethoven composed when he was deaf and had painfully swollen intestines. Not that I compare myself to any of them, I just say an Alexa doesn't shoot my film.

[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1345283143' post='15956'] Unlike what we saw here, the following is the best oped on flaws with part 2 [url="http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/cameras_why_zacutos_latest_camera_test_may_have_screwed_us_all/P0/"]http://provideocoali...ewed_us_all/P0/[/url] [/quote] There: [quote]Given no other changes whatsoever, the smartest thing Zacuto could have done was to release part three before part two. Rather than try to trick us all into thinking that these cameras look essentially the same, SHOW US THE DIFFERENCES FIRST.[/quote] Smart? If you want to attract attention, you show someone cutting his toenails with poultry scissors. Zacuto is no scientific institution, they want to sell too expensive gadgets, and they want to become their brand to be synonym with smart video solutions. Do you really think anyone would have survived one of the lengthy shows if they were titled [i]Zacutos fair comparison of cameras from different price classes - Part one, what was to be expected[/i] ? Instead, they called it [i]THE REVENGE. [/i] Perhaps not so many Alexa owners will boycott Zacuto than GH2 fanboys will think about buying one or other rig part from them now.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345151189' post='15836']Evil_thought2 - when are you going to leave this forum? [/quote] evil_thought2 maybe an advocatus diaboli (nickname), but not a troll. I like the way things become clearer by the dialectics of contradicting arguments. One has to admit there [i]are[/i] serious arguments. A forum where everyone only contributes plain facts (or what every well-behaved fanboy wants to believe as plain fact) would be incredibly boring. The best forae are bursting with clashing arguments, for the sake of which they tolerate a rare flamewar (which of course then has to be moderated with love). I [i]am[/i] a GH2 fanboy, but I "liked" evil_thought2. Did I make friends with the bully at school? Sometimes, but I consider this the principle of evaluation. BTW, apart from the sneering "fanboy", evil_thought2s thoughts are nowhere objectionable, but just his [i]personal view[/i]s. What is more, had he made his comments on Reduser.net, he would have been chastised for being too mild. Everybody is self-righteous (self-righteousness is the false pride described as evil thoughts in the bible, google). [color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1345202214' post='15880']Yes, a $60,000 camera is much more forgiving ...[/quote] :D To the owner of a Scarlett, who just invested 20.000 + in his set up, this sounds condescending. He surely doesn't want his camera to be forgiving (which implies that his incompetence to light and expose correctly needed forgiveness), he wants it to shine. And that's where I see the connection between parts 1 + 2 and part 3. The greatest portion of the budget went to the [i]time on set[/i]. I think this is credible. And if you [i]have[/i] hired the best DP and the most forgiving camera (= big budget), the shoot is effective not by sparing one or two thousand dollars, but by getting results that shine. That look brilliant on a big screen. Photographers who believe they can light and expose sloppily because they get absolution in post have lost the point. [color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='galenb' timestamp='1345251554' post='15942']Have you've seen that youtube video of Drew [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPHIEU1X1Bo&list=UU2YdiXc72fMA_d16NDJi41A&index=1&feature=plcp"]showing off the latitude of the GH2[/url]?...[/quote] Interesting. I neglected "vibrant" for "standard" as a highkey picture style. I will test this further. [quote name='DREW']You always expose properly ...[/quote] Which always means absolutely no clipping. [quote name='DREW']The conventional wisdom is just dead wrong.[/quote] He says it referring to the general assumption that the GH2 has poor DR. But the sentence could very well be the sum of the Sermon on the Mount. It's you alone who makes something become true and important. In this example, Drew doesn't apply a curve. He lifts the shadows, but allows the river in the background to become washed out. He could have done much better. He says so though. [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1345251554' post='15942']Lets face it, there's still a lot of confusion around the proper way to work with GH2 footage (AVCHD and quicktime on a Mac issues) and it doesn't look like there's any end in sight.[/quote] You bet. There are no quicktime on a Mac issues anymore. Since AV Foundation, the NLE players don't need a QT wrapper, since 10.8 AVCHD is played natively. What is important for everybody - also on a PC - is the awareness that not all values of your footage may be displayed on your monitor. [/background][/size][/font][/color][/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1344892336' post='15565'] I forgot to mention that I'm actually thinking of trying to rent myself out as a steadicam operator if I get good at it. So the unit I get has to be able to handle wide variety of loads. My question is, do you think the fact that I had an off-brand steadicam would make me seem unprofessional? Asked another way, if you were shooting a commercial and there was a steadicam shot, would you not hire me because I didn't have a "real" steadicam, even though my reel was fine? [/quote] This forum probably has more amateurs than professional steadicam operators. However, I saw quite a few showreels of them and learned about how much they earn. For casting shows, for example, they add production value. Not only do they mimic the grand gestures of cranes and dollies and spice the lousy show with emotions from camera movements, they also make the dandruff look MUCH bigger. Traditionally the studios for such shows are diminutive. By having an extreme wide angle lens, used at [i]exactly[/i] the right height, with [i]exactly[/i] the right distances, you can't help but see a giant arena filled with thousands of fans. These operators have to be masters. They record big portions of the show and charge at least 10.000 € for one evening. They shouldn't fiddle with their arm springs, they shouldn't fall off the catwalk, they shouldn't tilt in the wrong angle. I doubt very much that they trust a chinese crap. One of the best known operators in germany is Norman Bever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyJyIsMwDz8

[media]http://vimeo.com/9827192[/media] This is the intuit focus, a special follow focus for steadicams. It is widely known that chinese products are cheap and look convincing, but are of inferior quality. There are no exceptions, even a simple design like a plastic ball for kids can't be recommended. If it is a technical challenge like a car, a camera or any kind of rig and has a hinge or a screw involved - forget it. You might consider the simplest and smallest steadicam available for your camera, so that you can hold it without vest and arm. Few days of practice and a task for a steady shot are more than half the battle. Then there is software like Warp stabilizer, Mercalli or Smoothcam, with which you can make [i]almost[/i] smooth clips perfectly smooth. Read this: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/757-cheap-method-for-tracking-shot-and-dolly-shots-on-the-gh2"]http://www.eoshd.com...hots-on-the-gh2[/url]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1344782683' post='15400'] Why does each frame in 1080p/60p look more compressed than the same frame in 24p then? It's not just about motion estimation but the amount of detail per frame, and more frames = more data. [/quote] I see. I forgot you shoot higher frame rates only to interpret them as 24p and generate slomos. Then you are right. The consequence is, we need intraframe or at least very small GOPs. Take an extreme slomo, like 1000 x. All you needed were two frames for Twixtor or Pixelmotion, but those would have to be excellent. No noise, no motion blur. But surely you would have to add noise afterwards, because our air also is filled with, eh, [i]something[/i]. If you had shot the scene with 24.000 fps - intraframe - , you would also not only have the main object changing from frame to frame.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1344776311' post='15393']By the way it isn't so much 24p at 24Mbit which is the problem on the FS100 but 60p at 28Mbit, because bitrate is allocated variably per frame. The more frames the more the available data is thinly spread across them. [/quote] That's not correct. With Mpeg4, practically all redundant data over time are reduced. The lower the frame rates, the more radically the content alters from frame to frame, so you'd have less redundant information and need higher bit rates. For 120 fps, you'd need about 30 mbps. Ever did stop motion animation? You only draw the changes, and what changes between two frames of 48 fps is a fraction of what changes between two frames in 24 fps in the first place. In hand-drawn animation, you'd simply draw a few motion blurred objects connecting the key frames, no matter how many phases the frame rate actually demanded. What about camera movement, when [i]every[/i] pixel has changed position in the next frame? That used to be my argument, but the engineers' answer is: If the position changing is predictable, it is a classic motion path, which doesn't even need particularly high bit rates. If it is chaotic ("stressing the codec"), the encoder tends to simplify the details, which by their nature then cannot be recognized as details by the human eyes. Noise, though not detail, is not only redundant. We perceive noise subconsciously as a natural phenomenon. Watch the shadows below your desk in the evening. Are they dead? That's why too low bit rates are a problem - at any frame rate: They iron out the random noise. With 60p you [i]always[/i] see this effect, with or without interframe. That's because you have more than twice the temporal resolution. 24p is a very effective way of temporal compression. As little as possible, as much as needed.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1344485744' post='15168'] AVC Intra 100? [/quote] If the GH3 were a GH2 with AVC Intra 100 and the internal processor supporting the then possible 10-bit 422, it would not beat off the BMCC, it would beat any competitors.

[quote name='tony wilson' timestamp='1344313338' post='15036'] 4.who can dance the macarena better captain kirk or the french scum bald captain prickhard.[/quote] I think maybe Kirk. He is more the physical type, Picard and Riker have more sense of dignity. [img]http://bilder.hifi-forum.de/medium/336986/double-facepalm_56304.png[/img] [quote name='David Dominguez' timestamp='1344315619' post='15038'] I wonder if the noise in the shadows would be less if it was shot using RAW instead ProRes?[/quote] ProRes doesn't cause noise. The noise is clearly caused by the camera. We have to watch this further. The images are great. Best demo so far. There are a lot of shots with almost the DR of the Zacuto test, and looking natural. Very impressed. EDIT: In two years, we will have become familiar with the better tonal range and the better colors. We will detect shots of the BMCC by the iso noise. All current DSLR stuff will be aesthetically unendurable for us ambitious twerps. Reminds me of a song by Aimee Mann: It's not going to stop 'til you wise up.

[quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1344212214' post='15010'] ... as time goes on, we improve based on what we've learned from history's examples. We're just better at making films these days, and that comes from both technology and what we've learned from historic films like Kane.[/quote] If we were better at making films today, we had better films today. Can you name a better film than [i]Vertigo[/i]? [quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1344212214' post='15010'][...] It's just that the bar naturally rises over time...[/quote] ... and limbo dancing becomes easier. [quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1344212214' post='15010'][...] ... and the technology continues to improve ... [/quote] The narrational techniques have been improved by sound and color, everything since then is just improving the quality. The digital effects are of course way better than Hitchcocks awful rear projection, but since you want to believe, you believe. The colors in Vertigo are better than anything the highest paid colorist could do today, although they had to be done on-set. I ask you to name a modern film that tops [i]Vertigo[/i]. This could help this discussion. http://vimeo.com/17631561

[quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1344121589' post='14960'] [color=#ff0000]It isn't intended[/color] for the viewer of a film [color=#ff0000]to think[/color] about how difficult or innovative it was for the filmmakers, or how easy it is for everyone to do now. The viewer should [color=#0000ff]be[/color] immersed in the film and in what is going on in the story. So in judging the true greatest films of all time, I think all the considerations of how difficult or innovative they were should go out the window. But that's just how I see it. [/quote] Warner has an intro tune that is known with the lyrics [i]the fundamental things apply as time goes by[/i]. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnBbcnPNEus[/media] If you don't live with history awareness, you are drawn with the maelstrom of mainstream. The "times" are not a-changing, only fashions and appearances ever change. Surfaces. Without any active exploring of the signs of the past (on which the present is based) you are a prisoner of time, only able to let yourself be overwhelmed by the newest hype, which is not, absolutely not, the last word on the subject, only the latest, and never wiser, smarter or more charitable than what was done before. Everyone can benefit by opening his mind for the meanings behind the things, by stopping to be impressed by mere surfaces. You can immerse yourself in a good novel, and then it can even be an old one like [i]Moby Dick[/i], one which has no superficial connection to your everyday routine. You will see films with more patience and open-mindedness, and you will suddenly realize that all films are dealing with the mysteries of time, that all films always happen [i]now[/i], even if they are 76 years old like [i]Modern Times[/i] (just try to imagine a satire about the absurdness of our current societies of this power and inventiveness - is there anything comparable? And do the tragicomic events not make you laugh and touch you still?). The lyrics above are from the film [i]Casablanca[/i] from 1942. It is easy to reject it for it's unmodernness. It isn't [i]Hangover[/i]. Then you don't imagine the turmoil that people were in then and what this film meant to them. But: If you [i]try[/i] to imagine, your reward will be great. The film was - inflation-adjusted - one of the most successful of all times, it dealt with problems (in the background) the people then were confronted with. Mark just one film of the last years that accomplished this!

[quote name='Anil Rao' timestamp='1343967683' post='14900'] I have to wholeheartedy disagree with the 'hard to appreciate with what's come after' or 'best of all time at their time'. [/quote] The true treasures are recognized by few, but there is no point in evangelizing. I do like Tarantino also, for example, but I never understood, why today [i]Once Upon A Time In America[/i] by Sergio Leone is considered outmoded. The unfolding of a gigantic plot - 3 hours 49 minutes -, with lots of epic subplots, was made compact and even thrilling by the montage (which following Eisenstein doesn't mean cutting together a linear storyline, but [i]composing[/i] wide arcs of thoughts, emotions and abstract ideas out of contradictory elements). The telephone rings, but which, when and for whom? This technique was clearly covered in [i]Kill Bill[/i]. And of course Leone knew [i]Citizen Kane[/i] and adopted the narration technique. Orson Welles felt like a renaissance artist, and non-chronologic narrations had become [i]hip[/i] in the renaissance. When today the kids load another ten thousand songs on their iPhones, unaware that most of them are digitally spiced up copies of classic pop songs whose garage band names sound outmoded to them, they prove the saying that everywhere there are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants ...

The last, the 50th film on the list, is Chris Markers [i]La Jetée. [/i]It was also made exactly 50 years ago. Coincidences: Chris Marker died last sunday, 29th of July 2012. He was also born on the 29th of July, 1921. The film was the inspiration for Terry Gilliams [i]Twelve Monkeys[/i]. Coincidences and paradoxes of time. The first Chris Marker film [i]I[/i] saw was [i]Sans Soleil[/i]. Coincidences and paradoxes of time. Long before that I had seen [i]Vertigo[/i] on tv, but never understood the film. What Scottie in [i]Vertigo[/i] tries to stop, reverse, loop and freeze is time. Marker marks this derisively open metaphor - more a repeating emotional theme - in the slow chase through San Francisco. The turns Scotties car has to make to follow the object of his desire: spirals downwards. The image, her car, always drifts out of vision. The form and the content became inseparable, the perfect film! It's there in the open: You can't stop the flow we all follow down. If you try, you cause suffering and tragedy. The analysis crushed my cineastic naivité.