Axel

When we were 15 and lay on the meadow facing the night sky, we exchanged thoughts about, er, [i]everything[/i]. Because we felt as if we were the center of the universe and very marginal at the same time. Conventional time lapse clips visually confirm the medieval concept of the firmament with the stars passing around us. What makes this beautiful clip so touching is that we see the marble drifting away, the eye is no longer earthbound. I would like to have a timelapse film which starts conventionally, at normal speed and at the height of the traffic lights at the end of the street, facing the horizon , and then, with a smooth speed ramp to timelapse, the surface rotates and dives away, leaving the canopy. As if the nodal point of the camera was no longer "connected to relativity" (unthinkable, but true: all these connections are just the limits of our imagination), and everything else moved. Rotating earth instead of sky has been done: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1O66XsbrOA[/media]

I beg your pardon. I should have read the article about the common misconceptions before writing such bullshit.

[quote name='Simco123' timestamp='1342498907' post='14022'] Some people who was featured in that video were average DP you probably might not have heard of had they not got famous because of video dSLRs. They were given the opportunity to play with a prototype or early production models by the manufacturer and released an early clip. It almost seems like each manufacturer when releasing something new would designate someone for fame, they released a footage benefited by the fact the camera will do well anyway. Vincent Laforet is a photographer but he epitomise someone who became a respected film director due to the publicity surrounding his few minute video clip made from the 5DII. Now we have John Brawley who is a DP whose name we would not have heard of 4 months ago but his name is going be sealed in the videographers Hall of Fame and no doubt soon rubbing shoulders with the likes of Coppola, Lucas, Tarantino, etc because he was given a BMC prototype to play with. We have manufactured popstars, celebrities and reality TV shows, I suppose manufactured celebrity DP has made it present known in the last few years because of affordable video capable dSLR and the likes that is more accessable to the masses. [/quote] Exactly. Enough tests, enough techno yak. The GH2 is approved by Coppola? So there. See [i]Musgo[/i] and what it should tell you. Action speaks louder than words. Shut up and shoot. Truism: I rather want to see a film with an interesting story, suspense and spirit made with a smartphone than one more test clip by an Epic!

[quote name='onedogdan' timestamp='1342452653' post='13967']It was shot in 1080? I find the stuttering during pans and fast motion to be pretty distracting, but maybe it's because my GH1 has the same issue, and I'm looking to closely for it? Maybe to a normal viewer who is not a filmmaker would smooth right over that issue?[/quote] Hard to tell. You know, I was an analog film guy all my life. When I was seven and went to the cinema with my grandpa every week, he finally gave me a [i]Dux Kino[/i] for christmas: [url="http://www.super8data.com/database/toys_list/toys_image/dux_kino_68(2).jpg"][img]http://www.super8data.com/database/toys_list/toys_image/dux_kino_68(2).jpg[/img][/url] I began to study film, made some low profile no budget films on Super 8 and 16 mm, later on VHS, and finally owed my living as projectionist. I always hated the look of interlaced video and did my best to mimic film. The amateurs who advised the 50/60p frame rates as [i]better[/i] I always despised. Now analog film became extinct, and times change. I am more sensitive to stuttering motion than ever before. This doesn't mean I think that 24p won't be tolerated by a majority, as Peter Jackson predicts. But I can imagine that video and cinema will use higher frame rates as a standard. What I didn't like in this clip are the sometimes jerky camera moves (EDIT: I prefer to distinguish problems with wrong panning speed asf. from those caused by too low frame rate. Download the 1,15 GB 1920 version from vimeo and make sure your monitor refreshes at 60 Hz). I wonder if the director actually conducted a test for the big screen. Unsteady camera movements are unacceptable on giant screens, they really make you feel physically sick. It is worse, much worse, if your AR is scope. To avoid this, you can get closer to your display, so close that the edges of your image are outside of your field of vision. Cinema technically is about image size. That magnified, can you stand your own camera work? [color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='richg101' timestamp='1342456853' post='13975']Very Babel in its appearance.[/quote] You have good insight to compare this, but even so I think that the instability of Rodrigo Prietos camera is a more controlled, more dosed one. It is very subtle and transports emotion.[/background][/size][/font][/color] [quote name='onedogdan' timestamp='1342452653' post='13967']As a viewer- It's a little overly dramatic in the scene direction and soundtrack for my taste... I'd call it 'well on the way to being a solid film', rather than a breakout hit.[/quote] You can't tell yet. Could be Tarantino class, could just be the typical video store splatter movie, most of which never were shown in cinemas as regularly booked films. But some of them are not just silly trash, but become hits.

Just saw the vimeo clip (am I the only one who feels that the https videos look softer than those in the old design?) and read the thread. Something really to consider.

[quote name='yellow' timestamp='1342069820' post='13777'] Axel, I'm not sure where I suggested that. GH2 would be 709 and not full range. 7D would be 601 and full range.[/quote] Just better: I transcoded a GH2 clip with 5D2RGB with 709 Broadcast Range (the only alternative to Full Range). Then I transcoded the same clip with QT7 (containing the Panasonic AVCCAM importer plugin) to ProRes. Again I transcoded it with AME, same format. Then I opened all three and the AVCHD original into Color Finesse and made screenshots of the first frames' luma waveform - perfect matches! Also, as possible with QT launcher, I opened all versions at the same time - ab-so-lutely identical. Getting better: I opened the .mts with VLC aside the ProRes: Neither any difference in hue, saturation nor luma, at least none [i]I[/i] can detect. You may not trust me, but follow these steps, compare the clips with videoscopes asf.

[quote name='Thomas Worth' timestamp='1342041170' post='13756']Some may be annoyed by the blocky artifacts QuickTime produces around red taillights or traffic lights in night exterior footage. Some may not care. With 5DtoRGB, you always have the option to transcode without artifacts (and for free, too!)[/quote] Blocky artifacts around red lights? This must me a Premiere/AME mistreating of ProRes, as the findings of Pyriphlegethon suggest (page 4, with images). Anyone here to confirm this with FCP? The other day I made a few screenshots of my own comparison: [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/5D2RGB.jpg[/img] Notice that it must read "709", not "701". Also, I know only now, thanks to yellow, that I should have chosen 601 and [i]not[/i] full range, nevertheless there are no blatant problems after cc, let alone blocky reds, which would have been fatal in this red, dark scene ... I know the red shot by heart, because I edited an event clip with Premiere that contained it. BTW: Liquid is hot of course. The FS 700 is hot.

[color=#222222][quote name='Thomas Worth' timestamp='1342003046' post='13737']Remember that the "original" data is useless without a bunch of additional processing. H.264 video stored as 4:20 (full res luma, 1/4 res red and 1/4 res blue) must, in 100% of cases, be rebuilt by the NLE or transcoding program into something that can be viewed on a monitor. It's this "rebuilding" process that sets one NLE apart from another. FCP7/QuickTime does a pathetic job rebuilding H.264. Premiere is better. 5DtoRGB, of course, is best.[/quote][/color] [color=#222222]Very interesting what you said about Premiere before. As I understood you - please correct me with patience - what I see as a preview of the mpeg4 original (all the codecs in question are mpeg4 in the end) in Premiere is also a decompressed version, just one that is not shat as huge file onto my hard drive, it is rendered "on the fly" and not saved.[/color] [color=#222222]I know Premiere and FCP very well, that means at least for a decade. I have access to more NLEs through my friends, Avid, Vegas, Edius. They all may have their limitations or advantages. What would have become instantly known and would have meant the termination of the software, is bad quality output. [/color] [color=#222222]That's my objection regarding 5D2RGB. Thousands of films using the trendy codecs are edited with any of the afore-mentioned softwares and published, and - whether you see through all the intricacies discussed here or not - you never see striking differences that lead you to the conclusion that one NLE is better than the other.[/color] [color=#222222]That I fail to understand these things fully doesn't mean I would'nt be sensitive. When I skipped from FCP7 to Premiere (because my first impressions of the FCP X were unfavourable, to put it mildly), I re-edited some of my begun projects, and that made a good starting-point for a comparison. Though I did not export to Quicktime, I found the results to be of the same quality. Meanwhile, since Lion, the Quicktime gamma shift bug has been overcome at last, and in FCP X you can choose not to transcode to ProRes in the background, but work with the original. With no difference in appearance, using ProRes just enhances the RT-performance.[/color] [color=#222222]One of the advantages of Premiere is it's native workflow. My Adobe-teacher friend (PC) refuses to use QT, and I can understand him. Premiere isn't as fast with ProRes as with the native codecs. Can it be that the PC QT-version is still not fit for 64-bit? I don't know. All I say is, if you like intermediates, work with FCS ...[/color]

[i]Forum [/i]derives from latin and means market place or meeting point. This forum looks empty. You don't see the latest posts (= hear and see the speakers) or I missed something. Only the last five new topics are too few to generate a critical mass of reaction (that needle new pyramid reactions). Fora don't work as formal question & answer boards. I don't consider myself a troll, but more than in gathering mundane information about lenses and cameras I am interested in conversations about related topics, communication, entertainment. EDIT: Found out! Much better. Will be a success.

[quote name='yellow' timestamp='1341921644' post='13670']For many NLE's particularly those working at 32bit precision that's fine it's just the preview, look at the original source files in the NLE's waveform and it'll show above 100% IRE ie: levels greater than 235. Same for lower end, The data is there just needs grading into place and in a decent NLE that will be at 32bit precision rather than an 8bit precision transcode squeezing levels outside of 16 - 235 into that legal range. Pointless and detrimental in many cases to transcode solely to be appearing to get all the data, however for playback reasons transcoding may well be required.[/quote] I feel I understand around 60 % of this, which is an improvement :) The bottom line is, OSX doesn't do any harm to my precious GH2 or 7D footage (as the title says [i]screws it[/i]). But 5D2RGB does. Because for Premiere, the access to the original data is lost. Okay, this is no disaster, since it is the old FCS workflow (or Cineform, DNxHD or the like), and who ever heard about serious quality loss? However, Premiere doesn't [i]need[/i] it. As you said, yellow, it can map the values anew, using 32-bit precision, perhaps a more reliable procedure than to toss away the original. And look what Pyriphlegethon has found out about Premieres treatment of ProResHQ, something that at least didn't happen in classic FCP ... If you know there is improper presentation of the original footage in the players, for whatever historic reasons of ancient norms, and if you know you have the means to correct the aberrations, the problem is solved. Or did I again miss the point? [b] [/b] [b] [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/user/20257-pyriphlegethon/"]Pyriphlegethon[/url][/b]

To be honest, I didn't understand 50 % of what you were talking about. Partly this may be because english is not my native language, but I showed the white feather in german discussions of similar topics as well. Be it as it may, I do believe my eyes. I transcoded a GH2 clip using 5D2RGB "as" s.th. 709 Full Range, 601 Full Range and I exported it as the same ProRes from FCP X. I laid the original and the three ProRes versions into the same story line and compared them with the RGB scopes. Now since I color correct everything anyway, I balanced every of the graphs until they looked the same - the graphs as well as the output video clips. To me this seems to be much ado about nothing. I am glad I only downloaded the "lite" version and did not yet pay 39,99 € for the Batch-5D. What can you make of [i]this[/i]? [size=8pt]Film quiz: "This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a ..." (?)[/size] EDIT: I think nothing can beat the original data. With FCP7 and by transcoding with 5D2RGB you throw away the original. With Adobe you work natively, with FCP X you work with Proxy or ordinary ProRes (not "HQ") to smoothen the background-rendering, but to what data do the final calculations (no matter if [i]share[/i] or [i]export[/i]) fall back?

[quote author=djdevan link=topic=950.msg6981#msg6981 date=1341804751] hi Sir, Thanks for you reply, but is it posible if its Duallayer DVD? which the movie will be in dvd9 quality? [/quote] DVD9 is double layer and says nothing about the quality. As Andrew said, the standard - which makes a DVD compatible to DVD devices - [u]only[/u] knows Mpeg2 SD, either in Pal or NTSC. I congratulate you, that you made a wedding video of only 5 minutes duration. When I did these, he clients demanded much, much longer films. I have no blu-ray drive, and so I only can burn HD content on a normal DVD (then called a "mini BD"). Which applications are capable of that? Final Cut is, because I used it. Probably Toast. The compatibilty to stand alone BD-players is good. The data rate is automatically limited to under 10 mbps, sufficient for most purposes. If you have a PC, you can of course author as real blu-ray. DVDs are not dead yet. Though the resolution of HD is 5 times higher (in theory, the 60D has does not reach FullHD, rather 720p), there is intelligent and high quality upscaling in almost all modern BD-players. More critical is the software with which you [i]down[/i]scale your HD to SD. Almost every tool, freeware as well as professional applications, can encode SD Mpeg2 from HD sources, but the differences in quality can be dramatic. The modern way to deliver video is a download-link. Think about it.

You can have a vignette-free (vignette-[i]visibilty[/i]-free) image  with an ND fader just the size of your lenses filter mount. You can have it with the cheapest as well as the most expensive and best coated ND fader. You can have a very pleasant-looking vignette, one that actually makes the video look better. There are a lot of conditions that contribute to these things. One is a very sharp angle of backlight (the SUN!) in which the front filter pane is hit. This may produce an asymmetric vignette like the various gloss contours in Photoshops [i]bevel & emboss[/i] layer style - and make the shot unusable. It may cause a hefty color shift. It may cause lens flares. It may cause chromatic aberrations. Let me put it this way: If you take the cheapest ND fader without step up rings on a sunny day the chances are good you capture [i]all[/i] of the positive and negative effects mentioned above rather sooner than later. With bigger diameter you will lessen the problems. With better coating you will lessen them further. With a single ND filter (ND2, ND4, ND8) you will eliminate the vignette-problems and lessen the reflexes and color shifts. With a single ND filter in a mattebox you will have no more problems.

[quote author=andy lee link=topic=947.msg6871#msg6871 date=1341610079] Thanks for that I watch it the other day on youtube when I first noticed these rolling shutter issues, This shows slow pans on a tripod  - I am moving the camera alot more than this for pop videos and thats when Im having problems with rolling shutter.[/quote] Shane Hurlbut says in his lectures on how to use DSLRs (he means the 5D M II of course) that if you use the camera in the same way a 35 mm cameraman uses his, rolling shutter is no issue. You stabilize, you pan in the right speeds. You can't work around rolling shutter. So if your movements are too fast for the GH2, stabilized with your rigs or not, you have to use another camera. End of story.

I am too lazy to google for it, but there had been a sophisticated comparison of the RS-characteristics of the GH2 with some EOS asf. - with the result, that none stepped out of line. andy lee seems to be a GH2 hater, a rare but highly visible species. I predict the next issues he will find to be a green cast of the skin tones, intolerable highlight clipping and an overall unreliability of the countless hacks, generalized as if there never had been hacks that won competitions.

[quote author=richg101 link=topic=941.msg6826#msg6826 date=1341495042] Re. OSS, IS, in camera crop stabilization etc.. (not steadicam mounting) do you think these in camera/ in lens anti shake systems add another 'non film' look to our footage?  and if so, which of these systems provides the closest effect to using a true steadicam system?[/quote] I found some clips with the lens you mentioned on youtube, most of them quite shaky. You should link one you find too smooth to illustrate your point. Or you upload one of your own. [quote author=richg101 link=topic=941.msg6826#msg6826 date=1341495042]I have been comparing some footage using a sony nex 18-55 lens with OSS and it is smooth, but i wonder if it is too smooth creating an unrealistic and digital look.  I suppose when you watch a kubrick movie it is all tripod/dolly work with a bit of steadicam - using very heavy cameras which physically add weight and rigidity to the captured material.[/quote] A realistic look and a cinematic look have to be different, no? If the OSS for example causes weird jello effects like the post stabilizers sometimes do (like a rolling shutter in post, because the change in perspective of solid objects - i.e. cars - are misinterpreted as unwanted instability), the audience will consciously or subconsciously realize a technical layer on top of what happens in the clip. This makes the motif of your clip seem more realistic, because the recording device can't be ignored. Cameron used this a lot in [i]Avatar[/i], shaky camera, pumping autofocus and lensflares (in a complete CGI image!). All this to improve the credibility of the blue aliens. Just imagine the shots had all been old fashioned, clean and technically perfect! Kubrick often tried to get a very clean look. Some of the scenes in [i]Full Metal Jacket[/i] could easily be 48p. What does this mean? It means "anything goes". If you want not-too-steady dolly shots, you will have a reason for it. You can do anything, the only one who cares for it is you.

Your error is, that with an anamorphotic lens the dimensions of the exposed area on the sensor don't change, they remain the same, only the AR is distorted. This is nothing a hack can change, because it's caused by a physical lens. There would be no advantage in using more pixels. In the end, one way or other, a crop occurs. Even if you own a Philips Cinema TV with 2500 s.th. pixels horizontally, your source is 1920, cropped in height as with all blu-rays (look on the covers, most are 2:4), but the TV makes a very good upscaling. EDIT: Now I see. You don't want an anarmorphotic lens, you want 2500 pixels recorded! You are right. If the crop is FullHD x 2,6, we actually have a 5k camera, crippled only by firmware restriction. I think this should be changed ;-)

There many of examples of GH2 clips with a lot of movement - moving camera as well as objects, people - and it seems to everybody, that the camera behaves just like the EOS in this respect. Maybe you should upload at least a short clip where the jittering occurs. I have spent a lot of time making own tests with motion depiction in different frame rates and different cameras in the last years, and what I found is, that the terms used by people to describe any effect are unreliable. As a projectionist (now for DC), I understand jitter as the image jerking up and down relative to the frame. Some might refer to the judder they see with too short exposure time (but your shutter is appropriate for 24p), some perhaps to rolling shutter symptoms. To know exactly what we are talking about here, we need footage to analyze. Andrews films are not known for a lot of action, but surely he does [i]not[/i] need to avoid it because of jittering.

Right now I started learning FCP X (after the first trial was a torture to me, not an iMovie fan) with the help of online-tutorials (some very good, i.e. by Larry Jordan). It seems that with the multicam-abilities the newest version has, the auto-synchronization (like built-in plural eyes, although Jordan finds anything else but a clapper board ridiculous) and the new timeline properties (which admittedly I have not yet fully comprehended), this software seems to be best equipped. Also the stability seems to be improved. Turn off automatic analyzing video (as Jordan recommends), and everything's fine (so far).

¡Hola Ruan! Very interesting tutorial. Let me add some additional or alternative things. 1. With FCP 7, I use Log & Transfer (cmd shift 8) to ingest the footage in ProRes. I have the [url=http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii#DriversAndSoftware][u]FinalCut EOS transfer plugin[/u][/url]. The main difference to the normal transfer is the timecode. Every mov in your EOS_DIGITAL would start with 00:00:00:00. With the plugin, the time stamp that your camera runs with is copied to the clips timecode. If your camera is not the 5D or the 7D, but the 550D (T2i) or so, you have to manually "hack" the plugin. Watch [url=http://thebuibrothers.com/blog/2010/03/how-to-canon-t2i-with-eos-movie-plugin-e1-final-cut-pro/][u]this[/u][/url]. Why not Mpeg Streamclip, since it is way faster? Well, you [i]can[/i] do so, especially if you shot the 6 perspectives Ruan recommended, from beginning to end. If you edit a music video in the same fashion a live concert is edited. But music videos sometimes have a plot, a little story, that only alternates with the singer in synch. So you won't shoot every action with the whole song recorded. And if the band moves from the studio to the station to the backyard and you know in advance you will only need this and that part at a given time in the song - you do better by sorting and renaming all tiny clips as you'd do with any other three to four minute short - you [u]log[/u] and transfer. EDIT: Andrew recommends "5D2RGB" (as transcoding tool). I don't know it. Read about it. 2. Synching hundreds of tiny clips (only those that need to be rythm- or lip-synched) to your reference-CD-sound: Don't look for the same start. Look for a "t" in the vocal. Set a marker named "... you [b]t[/b]ease me, third stanza". Make the in-point this t and let the clips snap. Additional: If you press cmd + alt + i, you dont have to delete the audio afterwards in the timeline (like dragging the frame-icon in Premiere). Once the clip is synched, you can grip the border and change i+o in both directions. Works also with a short "s" or a clear "d". 3. If you don't have so prominent audio events in your song, you can use the waveform in the timeline to help you synch. Sometimes the camera-recorded music is too thin a line to find the peaks. Turn it up! EDIT 2: You may have heard of "plural eyes". I never tried it. Sounds great, if you have to synch hundreds of tiny clips. But then you would get hundreds of tracks, and I never have more than 6 video tracks. Also, to synch a clip with he method Ruan and I described is a matter of seconds. However, there are many workflows, and my best friend is very happy with plural eyes. 4. If you have full-length-clips with the talent's playback synched in FCP, you better use multicam for editing. It's very easy. You could nest these "on" - shots, pre-edited, by dragging the sequence into an new sequence, and flesh out the thing with some non-synch story parts as inserts in the tracks above. 5. The widescreen-filter costs realtime. though it actually looks quite simple. Not so, if you edit a sequence-preset to 1920 x 803 pixels, in which you copy the whole HD-sequence. If you made the canvas-view "image and wireframe", you can frame properly by taking the image with the mouse and drag. Export with the sequence-settings. Pro: You have a smaller file size and your clip uploads to vimeo without black bars. EDIT 3: Of course, you can't individually move the nested sequences clips. So either you have a cinemascope sequence from the start or you "select all" and copy the clips into he new timeline.

Good shots. The meaning of life is a topic well treated by Monty Python, who adress it in a way that may sound absurd, but merges the essences of many philosophers lifelong efforts: [i]It's nothing very special: Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.[/i] It is also answered by the rabbis answer to the dentists riddle in the Coen brothers [i]A Serious Man[/i] (The dentist discovers an engraving in the teeth of a goi patient, in hebrew, that reads [i]HELP ME![/i]): [i]We must always help one another![/i] Your film, with many references to Terrence Malicks [i]The Tree Of Life[/i], gives the "answer" for the self-involved average american, much in the way of a (film-quiz:) MindHead advertising (see the Scientology-like [i]The Secret[/i] clips). The title reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j9aPApnxwE

[i]Cronofóbico[/i] is great. The intro theme reminded me of Rick Wakemans [i]The Six Wives Of Henry VIII[/i]. "Fear of time" is a first rate insult the 50p/60p users deserve, because they are afraid of their own motion-blurred shadows.

Good color grading is not the ability to handle the tools, it means to have an eye for the subtle effects and to keep them subtle and consistent. I don't say I'd do better, but I realize a lot of shrill claptrap. If you get away with a sudden change to sunrise as at 3'17" seperates good grading from bad grading. There are too many moments in this short where the crudeness of the effects disillusionated me. How [i]could[/i] they allow the pants and shoes below her dress! Yeah, it was winter ...

We don't ask for ever lower bitrates anymore. We sacrifice 24 mbit for 176 mbit without batting an eye just for the [i]feeling[/i] that the stuff now is less compressed. Though one has to admit that with modern cameras the ominous compression artifacts (such as visible macro-block-patterns or the motion-blur-like smear of MPEG2) have become rare, there are other aspects than just data reduction efficiency to a higher developed codec. Motion prediction begins to recognize objects. Not too far in the future we will be able to point to a moving car in our clip and select it as a whole. If we "add smoke" the software will know the wind direction and so forth. Our tinkering with PTool is incredibly coarse compared to what the original AVCHD is already doing under the hood. Higher resolutions for the end user may come, at least this is an ongoing trend. No problem if this only leads to "retina displays", but if the sizes of the images grow considerably, people won't tolerate 8-bit anymore. There will be a race for better quality, and this is the next challenge for manageable file sizes.

I don't particularly like the films of Wes Anderson, but this doesn't mean anything. At least there is something about them to like more or less. Fantasy-killing fantasy-films like [i]Snowhite[/i] are the reason why cinema as a commercial art form is doomed. The 16mm aspect is interesting. I saw a lot of films blown up from 16mm, transferred from DV to 35mm or simply as such shitty 35mm mass copies that they [i]looked[/i] like 16mm, and in no case did this weaken their impact nor their success at the box office. Content prevails over shiny surface. Let me say it with LOTR: The army of orks is beaten by those with faith and a pure heart. Don't let yourself be corrupted, all ye indie filmmakers! [i]Prometheus[/i] starts in Germany only in 6 weeks. This is the only blockbuster I look forward to. Ridley Scott made some of the best examples for big budget films that really influenced the cinema. One always finds interesting stories in his films. Sometimes only by making an own summary. Do so for [i]1492[/i] or[i] Kingdom Of Heaven[/i], and you will see.