Bruno

I am European,I've lived in 4 different countries so far, including the UK and the US. In this post I've spoke against the conservative storytelling of mainstream American cinema, which you seem to like so much, so yeah, you're either the only person who's right in this entire discussion, since no one else seems to agree with you, or you're the one not making any sense.

Did you just make this up or are you so misinformed and brainwashed that you actually believe this? Either way, I don't think this is the right forum for your extremist ideas. Also, Tarantino is spelled with only one R.

That's not our ideology Mark, it's YOURS, and you can't seem to understand that. It's your choice to watch these films or not to watch them. It's not up to you or anyone else to determine the molds and rules of any artist's art, and it's certainly not up to tou to determine what we should be watching. You have the right to not like it, but that's it. You also have all the right to condemn and diss a piece of art you've never even seen, it just doesn't do much for your credibility... Right is not just right, and wrong is not just wrong, there's way too many shades of grey in between, real life is not that basic or simplistic and neither should art be.

  That sounds more like imposing rules that limit our freedom than anything else. You're going in circles. People are not evil because of art, if anything it's the other way round, art is portraying the evil in people. People were evil and did atrocious things way before Tarantino or even movies in general came up.   What you're defending is called censorship, and unfortunately it still happens in a lot of places around the world. They're not any better than us, and not free from evil at all.

The Basterds were never supposed to represent the entire Jew race, they were what they were, a group of FICTIONAL UNREALISTIC rogue soldiers out for revenge (QT's favourite subject). Brad Pitt's exaggeration of character was in my opinion very important in setting the tone. You're reading too much into it. He didn't change history for the sake of a religion, how could he? Nothing will change what happened to them for them. He changed it simply for the audience's satisfaction. It's just a movie after all.   You should give people (including kids) more credit for their actions and choices. A person is not good only because he/she has never seen/known evil. Controlling what they see to shape their morals goes against our freedom, both artistic and as a person. Have you so little faith in mankind that you think every single person will join the dark side as soon as he/she sees it?   And seriously, you're assuming way too much considering you haven't even seen the movie.     This is a great interview/conversation, in case you guys haven't seen it.

  I actually disagree and think it's great. Wouldn't say it's his best because in a way it could never beat Pulp Fiction at how fresh it felt when it came out, but in IB the opening scene alone is worth it, might be the best scene he's ever written/shot. I'd hate to see it split into 2 movies, any evidence that's what QT wanted? Never heard anything about that.   It was a shame that they split Kill Bill into 2 movies in the first place, which was always meant to be just one.

  Exactly. What annoys me the most is when people come with their little rules and set ways of making things. It couldn't be any further from art.   There's no right way to write a character, whether hero or villain, there's no right way to shoot a scene, there's no right cameras for cinema, there's no right focal lengths or aspect ratios for cinematic results.   While so many keep following formulaic ways to make movies and other types of art, history is being made by the ones who do things differently and abide to no rules or conventions.

  Kids are people, and every grown up has been a kid at some point, how is this making your words into something else?

I never watched Tarantino films because of the violence, if you ask me I never even thought of it before now. And now that I think of it, the violence is there to serve the story and the characters. To me, his films are all about great characters and well written scenes and situations, if a character happens to be violent, well why hide it? I don't think he's ever used it gratuitously.       Films should be formulaic and all follow the exact same steps? Hell no!   Yes there are rules that help you structure a story/character, but you got them wrong.   1) Wrong. Hero characters don't have to be good, they have to be sympathetic to the audience, those are VERY different things. (ex: Dexter, Ocean's Eleven, Brooklyn's Finest, House of Cards...) 2) I don't see why that is not the case in Tarantino's films. Put yourself in the place of the characters and the violence is totally justified. 3) Wrong again. Plain villains that are evil just for the sake of it are poor movie villains. Villains have their reasons, however twisted they might be, and in their perspective, they're right and the hero is wrong. All other villains are flat comic bookish poorly written uninteresting villains. 4) That's why there are ratings. That's why certain ratings can't be shown on TV before a specific time. I know there's other ways it can get to kids, I know I watched all sorts of films as a kid. I also know I never stabbed or shot or hurt anyone or anything.   And btw, Fury Road is Australian.

So people are blank canvases who absorb whatever they see without questioning anything. Where does common sense fit in all this?   The morality and politically correctness you talk about is exactly what makes conventional American cinema dull and plain, it's everything cinema should not be. It's art, not propaganda.

They found a fix for this problem:   http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4319&start=80

Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about.   Inglorious Basterds is a masterpiece.   Django is not as good but it's still way better than most crap on cinemas at any given time. His films are way over the top and always great fun, while being highly cinematic at the same time, I don't know where you got the idea he's trying to portray realism in any way. His characters are as far from realistic as it gets.   The violence in Django, IMO, is spot on, the balance is right where it should be, brutal and unforgiving for slave violence, as it should if you don't wanna glorify it in any way, as you shouldn't, and then funny and lighter for the "standard" cowboy shootouts.   If someone masters what he does in any way, that person is Quentin Tarantino.   If you watch a violent film and commit violent acts because of it, then you've got a problem mister, I don't think the film is the one to blame. Not at all. Actually, if I watched a film where people are nice to each other all the time, helping old ladies cross the street, etc. I'd probably be more likely to get violent if you ask me!!!

I can see more and more showing up sooner rather than later, both these platforms (arduino and raspberry pi) are quite powerful and allow for amazing stuff to be done with DIY electronics.   They've already proven themselves many times over in areas such as electronic music gear, it's good to see them applied to the camera world.   http://craft-camera.com/OPEN-SOURCE http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/3224

Despite all the indie community complains, and camera features aside, Canon images do look better than most of their competition, but they didn't have a high end cinema camera until now. The C500 might not be an Alexa or a RED but it's as close as Canon have been from a high end digital cinema camera, and apparently good enough for large productions to take the plunge.   Up until now, we/they didn't have much options regarding high end digital cinema cameras, now there's a bunch of contenders, but it's not like we must pick a winner, like he says, it's like different film stocks. The director preferred the C500 for his film, so that's what they're using.   If he had picked a 5D, then it might have had serious drawbacks, but the C500 is a perfectly capable camera, and I'm sure they won't lack in ways to stabilize them to avoid rolling shutter issues. The RED cameras have rolling shutter issues, and they used to be even worse, and it didn't stop them. (I think rolling shutter affects us indie shooters way more than large productions, since we tend to shoot handheld or in less than ideal conditions)

  Dude, a 5DmkIII costs $2700, the mentioned Ximea camera brain alone costs $1500, needs a computer/monitor/etc. and has a tiny sensor, good luck making it slightly useable with less than the cost of a 5DmkIII. And even if you do, it will not look like a full frame camera.   Just raising questions many people are probably raising themselves. Jesus.

Post Stabilization rule #1: If the artifacts caused by the post stabilization look way worse than any rolling shutter artifacts you've ever seen, THEN DON'T USE IT!!! Not much of a test really, is it? :)

  It already has the Technicolor Cinestyle profile, and it shoots cineform raw, what do you mean?

That was the whole point, good luck!

So you're basically saying that you'll buy a camera that already exists (ximea) and then write a manual on how to make it work with a laptop or a mini computer, which is how it is supposed to be used anyway. You're not giving people a choice of sensors, you're browsing through different camera models with different sensors. The way I understand it, you're not building any camera at all, just playing with how you can use an existing camera, which might be misleading. You're referring to different camera models as "sensors", which is not accurate.   I think you should be clear about it and state that in your campaign. Basically it looks like you want funding to research how you can hook up the Ximea cameras to computers and laptops in order to use them for filmmaking, that is different from building a DIY camera IMO.   Also, I think your campaign lacks commitment, since you don't even yet have one of these cameras yourself. You mentioned how it would be hard to justify spending money on such a camera instead of going on holidays, well that doesn't show much confidence in the project in the first place! I understand you're not trying to make a lot of money out of this, but you must understand that such a proposition is not very appealing to the people on this side.   Then there's the price of all this. If you could get a working system that costs less than $1000, people could be interested, but when you start talking about a $2500 or $3000 system, then what's the point? You mentioned $1500 sensor upgrades, when in reality what you actually mean is getting a new Ximea camera model in 2 or 3 years (assuming they will have one). Well you can buy a BMCC now for $3000 and in 2 years sell it for $1500 and pay another $1500 for the latest model, same costs, no risk or doubts whether or not it will be feasible, so you're not offering any advantages here either.   I might be missing the point here, but pledging money in exchange for a manual for such a system is not appealing to me at all.

As I read your ideas I get a lot of questions :)   I assume you'd use the small HD monitor as the mini-PC monitor, right? However, would it be controlled by touch screen in the monitor itself? Have you found a ready made OS that would run in that computer and be able to run the required image capturing software and be controllable by the monitor's touch screen capabilities (if that's possible) instead of a mouse and keyboard?   You mentioned the Ximea cameras, but you said you'd use different sensors, do those cameras have easily replaceable sensors? Would the sensors you have in mind work right off the box with those cameras?

These guys are a VFX Studio that built their own camera, it sounds very similar to what you're trying to do:   http://www.one-cam.com/

  I think this may be the biggest problem with your campaign. You haven't done it yet! You're basing it on assumptions. You don't have a product that you've developed that needs financial help to take it further, you have an untested idea and what you're selling (the manual) could be worthless if it doesn't work.   What you're asking people to pay for here is an investment that crowdfunding campaigns usually make by themselves, in order to have something to show BEFORE they start their own crowdfunding campaign.   This is only my opinion though, wish you all the best!

Shooting at 500 ISO might be a good idea as that's the camera's base ISO, but I don't know about overexposing it by 2 shots. It totally depends on what you're shooting, but if by overexposing by 2 stops you're getting blown out highlights, it's quite likely they'll be gone forever since you're shooting (highly) compressed footage.   If you want to brighten the dark areas to avoid noise issues, using a flat profile would be a much better option, or even better, light the scenes properly! :)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by default settings, but the default settings, whichever they might be, will be using a picture profile, and it might not be the best one for your shooting conditions. You say amongst your main concern arenoise and dynamic range, well the picture profile can have a strong impact on those factors!

I don't have any experience with the FS700 specifically, but when shooting compressed footage, having some sort of flat image usually helps getting better results. Flat images are easier on the encoder and allow it to make a better job. I don't even mean anything extreme like the Technicolor Cinestyle on the Canon DSLRs, but flat is usually preferable.   Of course this means you need to do some grading, but if you're looking for good looking footage, you should anyway. Grading is one of the most important parts of getting a good image look, especially on digital, and all that you shoot before grading should be in favor of getting to grading with the best material possible.   Also, there's probably no single magic setting, shoot as many tests as you can, I wouldn't want to start a feature shoot without knowing all the pros and cons of every profile, ISO choice, etc. and how they react to different lighting conditions, etc.