troilus910

I agree. That's why I said "half the time." :)

I don't want to derail the thread but to quickly answer your question: it's not that they don't like working with him, it's that they're not always happy with the results. Stories have been flying around since Richard Gere showed up to do ADR for Days of Heaven, realized half his dialogue scenes had been cut and became furious . Compilation of gripes (some major, some minor) can be found if you google "To the Wonder: 10 Actors cut out of Terrence Malick Films & How they Reacted" on indiewire. Malick makes unique films and what ends up on screen is not always what actors expect. Nobody else working with stars at this level could get away with what he does. But he does make beautiful looking and often very moving and poetic films.

You kind of nailed it. Mind you if we took half the time we spend messing around testing cameras, reading reviews and forums, etc., and spent that out in the world meeting actors, attending workshops, watching live theatre, etc., it might help solve that problem. :)

Not nearly as much as many people think. The aspect during Hollywood's actual "Golden Age" was 1.37 -- the Academy ratio, in use into the 1960s. That's why TV's are 4:3. Anamorphic didn't debut as a mainstream format until the early 1950s. Even then it was mainly reserved for epics and roadshows. The vast majority of "widescreen" films are flat -- simply cropped 1.37 (until the invention of super35mm which is also flat). My point is that much of what some people consider to be "the cinematic look" is simply one kind of look used in cinema -- and a rather uncommon one at that. Most dramatic narrative film sets are still lit to a minimum of f5.6 and narrow DOF shows of actors are achieved by using longer lenses, not wide open apertures. There's a simple reason for this: actors are moving around on the wide shot and the focus puller needs to be able to keep everybody who's name appears in the opening credits in focus at the same time or he gets fired. You always keep the money in focus. Unless your name is Terrence Malick and you are willing to burn bridges with practically every Hollywood star you have worked with. (and don't get me wrong: I love some of Malick's movies).

Also interesting to think that, moving forward, what audiences consider "cinematic" is likely to be defined to a considerable extent by the Alexa and Red (and their offspring), simply because that is what people will be seeing (and coming to expect) when they go to the cinema. But that is getting off topic I think.

It's worth pointing out that the sensor in an Alexa, Epic, F55, APS-C DSLR or a GH4 with a focal reducer is closer to the size of 35mm movie film that carried the golden age of cinema for almost a century than a 5d3.

I own a NEX 6. It's a great little still camera but it's not up to snuff for anything other than home videos. Lots of moire and aliasing. There are much better options out there. I look forward to Andrew's complete review of the A6000 after his intriguing first look.

Inazuma -- thanks for posting these comparisons. They seem very illustrative. One question: have you tried sharpening the A6000 footage in post? As I recall, one of the characteristics of the Nikon D5200/D5300 was that it came out of camera a little soft but sharpened up nicely. I wonder if the A6000 shares similar characteristics.