Finally Bloom's review!

[bwhitz]

I'm on the same boat as well. That "mumblecore" crap pisses me right off. For some reason festivals and certain academies of people have a hard-on for these garbage movies... cough, The Hurt Locker, cough.

Is it because they are failed film-makers themselves and for some reason like to shun any film with decent production as some sort of deep-rooted spite for talent? Probably. Seems like anything that's decently produced these days get's tossed away as a "CGI crap fest" and "too corporate".

I think that's kind of the point. They're doing something different. I think the attention paid them is more for their willingness to experiment with the form than the refinement of their screen plays.

OMG. Please wake yourself up out this mind-state. They are not doing something different "in-spite" of the system... That's what they want you to think. The truth is that they were at that time, for whatever reason, not capable of producing what people would perceive as professional. They simply lacked the talent. Instead they relied on that hipster "it's cool to be in your mid-twenties and poor" bullshit. You know a real indie movie that did something different and still looked half-way decent with good acting? Resivor Dogs. Same with Pulp Fiction. Hell, even Clerks looked better in black and white, not to mention it actually had better acting and witty dialog.

You CANNOT be experimenting with the "form" for your first few films. That's such art-school BS. If they were putting out films with the production value of at least an Apatow film... and then came out with this absolutely no-value handy cam crap... then I could see it as experimenting with the "form". But not for your first film. That's called a f-ing cop-out.

 

[Rolf Silber]

And this is what they show on Sundance and gets Silver Bears? .... Be honest guys, am I a total off the track retard, that does know nothing about filmmaking or is there something wrong?

Frank

No. But often decisions for festivals or film-prices are made by people who have some exquisite deficiencies - chose the one(s) that may apply:

Some have seen way too many films and are bored to death by any story so they go for non-story.

Some have seen too many well made films so they lust for down & out & dirty and forget to realize when they pass the point where the "anti-industry attitude" just becomes an excuse for lousy craft.

Some want to be cinematic iconoclasts but do not realize that the art form is called "the moving picture" (those are the ones I love the most.... ;-).

Some think they have to do something for a friend or the friend of a friend's friend.

And: Because they have a lot more free time than people who make films they can become important in the secondary or even tertiary field of film "making" - organising, writing, reflecting, criticising, sitting on boards and in committees and so on..... and so it's a bit like when eunuchs control a whore house: They live the antagonism of wanting to provide a service to the customer but also wanting the customers to not have the fun they themselves can't have..... ;-)

Yes, and some are indeed failed writers or directors or actors or DoPs.

 

[Centro]

Like their style or or not (which I usually don't), "Puffy Chair" is a good movie.

Regarding nano flash/non nano flash... i don't know if to be happy or not that they looked identical : )

 

[swanny]

Like their style or or not (which I usually don't), "Puffy Chair" is a good movie.

Regarding nano flash/non nano flash... i don't know if to be happy or not that they looked identical : )

Happy Centro! One less thing to have on the priority buy list.

 

[Centro]

Happy Centro! One less thing to have on the priority buy list.

Yeah, you're probably right.

guess the difference between the Alfa footage (which i liked a lot) and Bloom's "south" (which i didn't like as much compared to his other stuff) had nothing to do with nanoflash!

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Oh, and back on the subject -- Phililp's review of the AF100. I just went over there to check out the comments, and saw where people were asking him "hey, didn't you shoot on the NanoFlash and simultaneously on AVCHD? When are you going to post the stills of that?"

And Philip's response was "I'm not going to. I looked at them and they're identical. I can't tell the difference."

The more I hear that, the more I am encouraged by Panasonic's implementation of the codec.

 

[Bassman2003]

Upon first inspection, the Nano footage will not be that different than AVCHD or XDCAM 35mbps. This also depend upon if you are using a broadcast monitor or not. Where it shows up is when you push stuff around in post. If you are one to "get it right" in the field then AVCHD is pefectly fine, even with some simple color corrections. If you want to secondary color correct you will have more options with the 4:2:2 higher bitrate footage. Just more information to work with.

 

[paulears]

Only a few years ago, we were editing by dubbing, and not that far beyond that we were glueing video tape together with mag fluid and razor blades. Image quality at best was subjectively vastly worse than what comes out of a $500 consumercam nowadays. Now the precision and repeatability of the technical equipment has improved out of all recognition. Panasonic have produced another useful tool, and the images that come out seem to be perceived as good. The quest for ultimate quality now has us almost deriding a product for a perceived quality difference that is tiny compared to anything we've had before in the quality level jumps each new product forces on us. Every new product now seems to have a battle with people with really polarised opinions. Proper camera shape v DSLR was a good one. Now we have bigger sensors so people are complaining about glass issues and ergonomics. Surely, we should just judge new products on what they are, rather than what they could be, or even worse criticising one product for being different. It does strike me that the new camera format will appeal to many, but not remotely all. Looking at the reviews just shows how they get biased by the reviewers opinion. I like Philip's attitude. Others seem to make statements that 'colour' the review. The small problems get ignored if the reviewer likes the product, or focussed upon if they hate it. People who review equipment of all sorts nowadays seem to be having real problems being objective. People are reading the differences in quality between nano and AVCHD and needing to see these differences - I really like the phrase "I can't see the difference". Is reading about the difference becoming too important?

 

[Duke M.]

The difference between the AF100 codec (or the EX1 codec for that matter) and the Nanoflash are almost non-existant unless there are enough changes in the scene (usually through motion).

None of the images shown so far show any useful stress tests.

If the AF100 codec is as good or better than what Barry tested against the EX1 the AF100 should have a slight edge over the EX1, which has a very solid codec too.

For ordinary shooting the codec is not going to be an issue. However, the Nano will help both of them in those extreme situations, also back up recording, etc.

 

[Ian-T]

Happy Centro! One less thing to have on the priority buy list.

I agree with that. Other than needing the HDMI out for critical green-screening the codec should be "good enough." But for most green screen work I would think one would still have no problems.

 

[Homunculus]

I'm on the same boat as well. That "mumblecore" crap pisses me right off. For some reason festivals and certain academies of people have a hard-on for these garbage movies... cough, The Hurt Locker, cough.

Is it because they are failed film-makers themselves and for some reason like to shun any film with decent production as some sort of deep-rooted spite for talent? Probably. Seems like anything that's decently produced these days get's tossed away as a "CGI crap fest" and "too corporate".



OMG. Please wake yourself up out this mind-state. They are not doing something different "in-spite" of the system... That's what they want you to think. The truth is that they were at that time, for whatever reason, not capable of producing what people would perceive as professional. They simply lacked the talent. Instead they relied on that hipster "it's cool to be in your mid-twenties and poor" bullshit. You know a real indie movie that did something different and still looked half-way decent with good acting? Resivor Dogs. Same with Pulp Fiction. Hell, even Clerks looked better in black and white, not to mention it actually had better acting and witty dialog.

You CANNOT be experimenting with the "form" for your first few films. That's such art-school BS. If they were putting out films with the production value of at least an Apatow film... and then came out with this absolutely no-value handy cam crap... then I could see it as experimenting with the "form". But not for your first film. That's called a f-ing cop-out.

Thank you. My post of the month award goes to you.

 

[Simon Höfer]

I think their second short film captured the emotional situation of the couple really well! You could feel the tension.

And I really loved their latest film "Cyrus". Only the constant zooming annoyed me

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

What? Are you sure about this? If true this is really horrible. So you're saying the 20mm f1.7 pancake looks more like a standard lens rather than an ultra wide? I don't think that is correct.

He's right Steve. But this is a matter of perspective more than anything else.. You will adjust to it faster than you think.

Jay