fuzzynormal

I just can't believe I went into an IMAX screening and watched a projection that looked so mundane. The trailers, the advertisements, the "turn you cell phone off" segments all looked fine and then... the actual movie started and it felt like I was watching Vimeo with the HD button turned off. Damn annoying considering it was a $16 ticket. I've been going to IMAX films since I was a kid. My fondest cinema memories are of watching dry nature films shot in massive IMAX. It was so cool. This MI movie, however, truly looked like a digital projection that should have been shown on one of those small multiplex room screens, just blown up to fit the larger IMAX space. Even aside from the lack of resolution, the shooting in the film was sloppy as hell. A few scenes were crafted quite well, but so much stuff just looked ... lazy. I dunno. Maybe the larger format betrayed a lot of that usually gets overlooked. ---------- EDIT: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=68152 BTW, The production credits caught me off-guard too. The film is underwritten by some interesting players. That might have something to do with their distribution choices and how they decided to finish the prints. Beats me. But ultimately the IQ was sub-par. This was truly a real-shot-on-honest-to-goodness "film" that ended up looking quite a lot like low quality video. Not because of the actual production value, but because of the post processing and how they decided to distribute it.

Just watched the Revenant trailer at an IMAX theater today. The motion cadence looked lousy. Curious if the projection was messed up or if that's just the way it looks digitally projected. Was, sadly, not impressed. Also, MI: Rogue Nation looked like (poorly) upscaled 720, so I'm suspicious if the theatre messed up the projection? It really looked quite mediocre. I mean, the damn advertisements they project before the screening were higher resolution, easily. Anyone else see this film and notice any peculiarities or is the culprit a poorly managed movie house?

Might be a good candidate for a crowd-funding campaign? Seems to me there's space in the motion picture market for these sorts of niche products. As a documentarian, I'd be interested using a camera like this specifically for talking head shots. The ability to get pleasing DOF in tight spaces, like an academic's messy office, would be an useful advantage. That reason alone is why I'm still using a 5D.

As an tangent...why are these modes activated in default by the manufacturers? As for Avatar; could care less about the frame rates on that one, the story was a joke and therefore so was the movie.

You're on the right track. Resolution is somewhat irrelevant if you don't know basic production skills such as lighting and audio. If if you shoot Nikon, best bet would be to upgrade your camera body, I think. In in the meantime think about how you want the mic and light your future productions.

Lackey Moths? Known as tent caterpillars where I grew up in Michigan. I remember one year as a kid they were friggin' everywhere. Step on 'em and yellow guts squish out. Ah, I'm channeling my inner 8 year old.

When in doubt, tell a story. Always tell a story. Visual montage is common. Good storytelling is not. Do you know the story behind this subject? Can you find one and make it interesting? Hard to do, right? That's why to do so would be special. Also, many many action videos are wide angle. Almost al of them. It would be a challenge to create one with a longer focal length. Say, a 50mm s35 equivalent. At the very least it would look different, and that's not "generic."

Don't know how technical and wonky you want to get, but if you want a cheap (free) change to your stuff, I suppose you could try the Magic Lantern Raw hack on your old 5D and see if that sort of reboot of your imaging reinvigorates your work. The expanded ability to push and pull your image in post is much more challenging and rewarding than acquiring higher resolution, IMHO. But, it depends on what you're wanting to do.

Documentaries; rearranging reality for a deeper truth.

No, I did. All I'm saying is that when you're a considerate pro, you go get what accomplishes the gig. You're gear agnostic. Now, people with pro careers and great skills obviously do rent Canon because it's a workhorse and does the job. On the other hand, internet scrubs like me... we pixel peep, have emotional attachment to our consumer gear, and even whine about a Canon not matching the feature list of a 2K photography camera. And, yeah, a pro Canon video camera not matching certain video specs is even true. But it doesn't mean you go shoot your next gig with a Gx7. Anyway, I responded to the claim that watching the video would end internet rants. I know that statement was just rhetoric, but I was trying to say in response, "No it wouldn't," and the reason I say so is because people at the low-end level are irrational about things. They've been known to personally value equipment over creative ability. A good pro would avoid that.

Why the snarkiness?

I'm already a corporate video genius though. Nobody can make a talking head as boring and dry as I can.

My ambigious point being: if you're a pro and have a great skill set, you're not worried about GAS, you're just doing the job with what works for your situation, such as a c300, or an Alexa, or a 4 million ISO camera, or a RED Minotaur, or a BMPCC crash cam, or whatever. And you're probably not on internet forums like me, waiting for FCP7 rending to finish on a crappy corporate video job...

Only for people that don't value their skills over their gear.

I think you got a bunch of kids that want to act like they know a lot --so the contrarian opinion mixed with criticism makes them feel like they're offering insight. It's a curse and blessing of being young...and, yes, stupid.

It's a specialty camera. Higher end production companies will buy it for specific purposes. It looks like big boy grown-up stuff. Hobbyists and corporate video small frye like me can stay content with consumer gear. But look on the bright side (pun intended) --what this camera is doing impressively now will be commonplace in a handful of years. Contemplate the repercussions of that.

Congratulations on buying a camera. It was obviously the right one for you to purchase. You made the right decision for you. Go and do stuff with it. Or not.

Are you able to actually do filmmaking or is the blog your main occupation these days? Curious because my colleague wants to make a go at on-line reviews as a career shift, but I'm constantly discouraging him to do so. I don't know... He's a decent writer and loves buying stuff, so maybe he could pull it off. He's also much more productive than me and could handle both things simultaneously. I certainly couldn't.

He pretty much says the same in the interview, actually.

I heard an interview recently with Vince Gilligan (WTF podcast) and it gets entertainingly tech wonky for a few minutes about 20 minutes in. He basically explains his pipeline for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Bottom line, they did blind pre-pro tests with a bunch of digital and film cameras and they couldn't pick out which was which. But, he said he still wanted to shoot on film. And he had his own reasons for it. If I'm gong to listen to anyone talk with authority about making cinema, it's going to be from a guy like that. In the meantime, my analogy is that you're choosing a tool. A paint brush. You can use one made from the finest horse hair or one from nylon; still gotta know how to paint, right? ...And finally, there's a crazy wildcard in all of this. Watching film PROJECTED is a whole 'nother experience. Any of you actually remember what that's like? Or gone to see an old movie house spool up a classic film for a screening? If not, you should. When the entire pipeline is non-digital, the details accumulate in a unique way that you can only get from analog. Sure, it's quaint, but it's also very charming; like listening to Duke Ellington on a lacquer 78. It may not be the highest quality, but maybe that's not always the point.

Give it to me, I'll try a few things out, and give you a detailed report 4th quarter of 2016.

sure, you can play that game, but if you're an earnest filmmaker you wouldn't want to. As for average looking people in a 3 minute film: http://youtu.be/uaWA2GbcnJU cheesy and simple, but more powerful than T&A.

These types of wonderful technological shots are great and impressive. Now. To us in 2015 they're pretty, full of DR, sharp high resolution images. Looks cool, right? Well, here's where I project into the future a bit and make a prediction that might seem weird and off base, but here it goes: None of that tech stuff is going to matter in a handful of years. Your 14 year old nephew, who was born yesterday, is going to have at his fingertips the exact same capabilities you just witnessed in that video...and millions of other kids and motion picture enthusiasts will have that same capability. That jaw dropping IQ and DR and color science just won't matter because it'll be readily available at Wal-Mart for $200. The drone to fly it will cost $145, $110 after manufacture's rebate. Let's not overlook the reality that this younger generation armed with this technology from the time they leave the womb is going use the narcissistic-social-media-shit out of it. They'll probably spend less time OFF camera than on it. So, we can all go ga-ga over how nice the video looks, and it does, (It's a nice video. I'd be proud of it if I did it) but without a good story behind it, all we're witnessing a glorified contemporary slideshow. Which is fine, for the moment. I firmly believe that those of us that hang their hat on the fact that they can attain technically superior images are going to be in trouble when that capability is so commonplace it's irrelevant. But, that's my opinion. Really really great IQ is reaching a democratization. 16K? 50 stops of DR? That'll rival human eyesight, so where do you go then? 3D? I dunno. Maybe; not sure. Regardless, what story you decide to actually tell with that capability is going to be the only thing that is important because the tech stuff just won't have the same value. Hey, I could be totally wrong. But I just feel it's going to be how you use the tool rather than the fact you have it. Also, editing. People that are good and inventive at editing. Man, they're going to have an incredibly in-demand skill set. View "Watchtower of Turkey" to see how that ability harmonizes with inventive visuals.

Anything with some semblance of a story, really. Combine that with good cinematography and it should be a winner.

​Well, that microphone looks kind of sweet.