SJX
Veteran
The problem is bringing alexa into mix. Why do this? You could have made your point without mentioning arri. Your mention of arri sounds like desperation to legitimize BMD. Doesn't matter how many cinematography oscars you may have.
Blackmagic Design Announces New URSA Mini Pro G2 Camera
- Thread starter Teddy_Dem
- Start date
The problem is bringing alexa into mix. Why do this? You could have made your point without mentioning arri. Your mention of arri sounds like desperation to legitimize BMD. Doesn't matter how many cinematography oscars you may have.
SJX
Veteran
Yes. I think it will still be for many years. Sure you have some fans of cameras who will use them in big projects for some reason. But not same as mainstream use. Like that big DP who used to push canon and even used canon in a big movie to make a point. Made many tests trying to show canon was as good as arri etc. If you look at his tests and can shoot you see what he did. I think he is now pushing something else. No more canon. Wonder why right? Arri is mainstream because is good. End of.
SJX
Veteran
Yes TV is much better today and almost as good as cinema. Almost. Can't make same work with much less time and money. But very good yes. But not cinema. Cinema has other needs. Why arri is standard and nobody cares it's not 4k and it keeps winning oscars without 4k? TV people care too much about 4k and other spec things and also prefer cheaper camera for obvious reasons. Nobody cares if cinema is 4k or not. In TV 4k is used as sale marketing. But cinema is cinema and TV is TV. So call it TV camera instead of cinema camera if it's doing TV. Not the same.
I do not like the color coming from Blackmagic cameras and I have never liked it. The third image from the top is another example why. The skin tone is all one color and there is hardly any variation in it. Yes I know that it is graded to a look. But the skin always feels dead to me from their cameras. Oh and the orange and cyan cross is there again. Look at the highlighted portion of the face in the first image too. Nothing. Flat and without nuance. So often it just washes to one color on BM cams. This is what I mean by "thin" color. Yuck...
Last edited:
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I dunno, I’ve been rewatching ‘Game of Thrones’ in preparation
for the new (and last) season and in my opinion, it is every bit
as good as a movie if not better. Cinematography, quality, actors,
sets, epic locations, whatever you want. In my opinion that
‘TV series’ is as good or better than ‘cinema’.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
It's very weird to me that people still think TV and cinema are different because of the kind of room they are shown in for the first time. I understand that they are a very different businesses, but it's still very odd to me that anybody would think a camera is good enough for a TV series with an $XYZ budget and not for a movie with that same $XYZ budget.
To me, the only difference left between TV and cinema is that one still tries to control where you get to watch it at each point of its life. It's a small difference, and since it's a losing battle, I think it will vanish eventually.
To me, the only difference left between TV and cinema is that one still tries to control where you get to watch it at each point of its life. It's a small difference, and since it's a losing battle, I think it will vanish eventually.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Someone should tell all of the people shooting with C200s, C300 MKIIs and FS7s on the red carpet that I worked last weekend that they are using the wrong cameras ;-)
Being pedantic about what a "cinema" camera is is kind of pointless these days. Arris are used in a lot of TV and everything from cell phones to REDs are used to shoot "cinema" these days.
People REALLY LOVE boxes and putting things into them. With what has happened to the film business, how we are in the Golden Age of Television with stuff like GOT, Breaking Bad, Mad Men
and everything else pulling the big ratings, all of the lines have blurred. And the movie business is dying anyway, at least the going to the theater and paying $20.00 to see a film part of it.
Being pedantic about what a "cinema" camera is is kind of pointless these days. Arris are used in a lot of TV and everything from cell phones to REDs are used to shoot "cinema" these days.
People REALLY LOVE boxes and putting things into them. With what has happened to the film business, how we are in the Golden Age of Television with stuff like GOT, Breaking Bad, Mad Men
and everything else pulling the big ratings, all of the lines have blurred. And the movie business is dying anyway, at least the going to the theater and paying $20.00 to see a film part of it.
Last edited:
That Spielberg dude doesn't agree with you ... or me ... but he is wrong.
With Apple launching its streaming service, the so-called television will dwarf the film production budgets. Which is why Spielberg, despite his protestations to the contrary, is hopping on board. Apple has too much money. About $250B in cash alone. Add Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and Hulu and that's where the "first run" will be taking place from now on.
G
Guest
Guest
It is different. It is like a car you should only use on a track. You CAN drive it on public streets, but you won’t get to experience the total design of the car.
Spielberg knows that viewers at home may not have a system that let’s a film go all the way out.
Some say story is king or first, or whatever, but even Spielberg knows that cinema is everything combined. You don’t get that at home without spending a lot of money, and even then...
Spielberg knows that viewers at home may not have a system that let’s a film go all the way out.
Some say story is king or first, or whatever, but even Spielberg knows that cinema is everything combined. You don’t get that at home without spending a lot of money, and even then...
4K (well UHD) with HDR at home is somehow lacking compared to a digital cinema theater where some kid has probably messed up the projection? The last thing I saw at a theater was so badly out of whack that we were almost getting sick during certain motion sequences. Watched it at home on Bluray and streaming (digital copy from the disk) and it did not show that same problem. Audio is only a small amount of additional money away to having your very own 7.1 system. Vudu now streams SD, , HDX, and UHD for the same price on rentals... And to my amazement our crappy Spectrum connection actually allowed a UHD movie to play without buffering - straight to my smart "TV" (no computer required).
In many ways the serial narratives have surpassed the single narratives because they do everything, and provide 6 to 10 hours of content while they do it, not just a measly 2 hours of content.
The only real distinction that might be able to be made is high end camera vs. field news camera vs. consumer (cheapo) video recorder with some kind of lens.
In many ways the serial narratives have surpassed the single narratives because they do everything, and provide 6 to 10 hours of content while they do it, not just a measly 2 hours of content.
The only real distinction that might be able to be made is high end camera vs. field news camera vs. consumer (cheapo) video recorder with some kind of lens.
As someone who used to be in the AV business - OK, that was loooong ... I mean, looooooooong ago - the video and audio quality of a home viewing experience is far superior to the majority of movie theaters on technical specs alone. Sure, one can have a miscalibrated screen and tinny sounding built-in speakers but the investment requirements for dedicated home movie viewing are no longer budget breaking and haven't been in eons. And now even the 4K projectors can be had for only a few (thousand) dollars more.
And the movie going crowds ... fogedaboutit.
And the movie going crowds ... fogedaboutit.
Spielberg is also not going down to the local AMC to watch a movie with the hordes of talkative teenagers while his feet stick to the floor.
Can the cinema experience be superior to home cinema? Of course. Is it in even a majority of cases? Probably not.
I have a theater in my basement with a properly calibrated projector and 7.1 sound system. I sit close enough to the screen that it more than fills my vision (THX-suggested screen-size-to-viewing-distance ratio). I have my own popcorn machine where I control how salty and buttery it is. I watch mostly Blu-ray. I'd take my home theater nearly every time when I want to seriously watch a movie. Total cost to get the gear I have in my theater is less than the cost of a Canon C200. Quality home cinema isn't anywhere near as expensive as it once was.
I still go to the local cineplex, but that's more for the cineplex experience... certainly not for a superior movie-watching experience.
As for production quality? Shows like GoT are easily as good or better production-quality wise than the majority of major cinema releases. They also get the benefit of being able to tell a story over several hours without causing the viewer excruciating pain from sitting in a theater seat for 15 hours.
There is no difference between a "cinema" camera and a "TV" camera. People use Alexas for TV-centric content and they use 5D Mark IVs for theatrical releases.
To make the car analogy more accurate, you've bought a track car... do you want to use it on Laguna Seca (TV) or the Nuremburgring (theatrical release)? The idea that TV is somehow "lesser" when it comes to production value is ignoring the fact that there is a lot of TV out there that is cinema-quality at this point and uses the same gear and techniques as a "movie."
Not a fan of GoT but, in any case, their CGI is not as nearly as good as the blockbuster movie releases. Which is no slight on GoT, as the CGI budgets for VFX laden releases are far, far greater on a per-minute basis.
As to sheer video/audio quality of home entertainment vs. movie theaters, it is usually a bit of a race, with home chasing the technology of the top theaters. There is, however, the problem of (investment) lag since major chains take forever to update their screen rooms. By the time the upgrade process is done, the Best Buy has the same technology on the discount shelf.
As to sheer video/audio quality of home entertainment vs. movie theaters, it is usually a bit of a race, with home chasing the technology of the top theaters. There is, however, the problem of (investment) lag since major chains take forever to update their screen rooms. By the time the upgrade process is done, the Best Buy has the same technology on the discount shelf.
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Which is what I said/wrote.