Panning 'mud', reasons why and firmware update

id like to point out that the 1500 price comes with a great autofocusing (but slow) lens 14-145 which you can keep as you throw the old "muddy" body away when a new m43 body comes out.

im guessing the lens at least costs atleast $900 with the body at $600.
 
He chose to, to thumb his nose at the hollywood system. And the result was his most dismal, horribly-reviewed box office disaster. And everyone, even the biggest XL1 fans, have to admit that the film looked horrible..



Barry,

That had absolutely nothing to do with camera. Not one pixel. Story, timing and execution of that script in lined with performance that are tailored to that; are some of things that either sink a movie or make it a masterpiece.....

Never a camera........

The Canvas doesn't dictate the painting, and it's emotional connection the the audience. The idea and how it's executed does this almost everytime....



I can prove this you know.


If I take a cell phone video camera and point at the God Farther which is recapturing many generations from the actual live set it was shot; to be a final video on a cell phone video clip. Then watch that performance no matter how the quality of the video results, this film will still be captivating. And nothing less.

No different then listening to a great song that has been mixed in stereo; still has the heart that is intended even if it's on a beach coming through a 10 cent single speaker radio from an AM radio broadcast.

You can't erase the intended heart put into a piece of art no matter what the medium used to capture it.




Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Myspace:
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }



.
 
Barry in relation to mjpeg can you expand on lousy? Do you mean because it's inefficient or aesthetically speaking?
Old and inefficient.

With enough bandwidth it can look decent, but it takes a lot more bandwidth to get decent MJPG than it does to get decent DV or, well, I-frame MPEG-2, or any other modern video codec.
 
btw, anybody get 28 Days Later on Blu-ray? That's the way to see it. ;)
Hah! Excellent! And netflix has it on blu-ray too... I'm tempted just to relive the glory. But even on a 67" set, it's not gonna be blown up quite like it was from six rows into the theater.

But yeah, if anything can recapture the magic, that'd be it.
 
Barry, if my intended target is television, do I have to remove pulldown on 24p or can I edit and render with the puldown for broadcast? Thanks.
 
I don't think I'd try shooting a $100,000 movie on a GH-1.


If your shooting a 100,000 movie,

You take a slice of the budget; use partial for a down on a business lease to acquire a RED camera or get a loan and do payments from that budget while filming the movie and then, when the film is done sell the package for 80% of what you paid ( pay the loan off ) and that would be cheaper than renting a RED in total.

Now you have a top quality image and hardly much from the budget went to that camera in the end!



Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Myspace:
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
 
If you had to choose between a great dp with a Can Xl1 or a crappy dp with 35mm film, which would you choose?

The music analogy works for me as well. Some of my favorite recorded music is extremely lo-fi.
 
That had absolutely nothing to do with camera. Not one pixel.
My understanding is that he intentionally uglied it up.

The Canvas doesn't dictate the painting, and it's emotional connection the the audience.
It can certainly affect it. Most certainly it can. To put it in reverse -- seeing a film in Imax can absolutely impact the way a person perceives it, versus someone else who watches it on an iPhone. Same idea, but from the other side. If you disagree, you're free to, but I think there's a reason that film crews work so incredibly hard on the lighting, the production design, the costumes, the makeup, the hair, the music, the score, the image, the framing, the blocking, everything -- because they know it all counts.

There's a reason Spielberg still insists on editing on film -- he wants to respect the medium, he wants to see it projected on a larger-than-life screen.

But then there's the Dogme folks, who outlawed lighting, production design, costumes, makeup, hair, music, and score, and instead focused on the only thing left -- performances. So good films can be made either way, but I absolutely guarantee you "Aliens" would not have turned out the same way had it been shot on an XL1. And "My Date With Drew" would not have been anywhere near like what it was, had it been shot on a Panavision Millennium on a Fischer Dolly. The specific cameras/mediums chosen had a very direct effect on the artistic impact of both works.
 
If your shooting a 100,000 movie,

You take a slice of the budget; use partial for a down on a business lease to acquire a RED camera or get a loan and do payments from that budget while filming the movie and then, when the film is done sell the package for 80% of what you paid ( pay the loan off ) and that would be cheaper than renting a RED in total.

Now you have a top quality image and hardly much from the budget went to that camera in the end!
Exactly. People don't understand just how cheap these things are to buy, use, and sell!
 
Barry, if my intended target is television, do I have to remove pulldown on 24p or can I edit and render with the puldown for broadcast? Thanks.
In the earlier days (i.e., pre-2004) pretty much all TV editing of film was done with the pulldown intact. The film was transferred to 29.97 video with pulldown, and edited as 60i and broadcast as 60i.

Nowadays you could still do that, but I'd still prefer to remove the pulldown. Now you can author a 24p DVD (or even a 24p blu-ray) or a 24p vimeo etc., so the pulldown does get in the way of modern delivery devices.

But yes, it's still a perfectly valid tactic to leave the pulldown intact, if you intend to broadcast on a 1080i network. For a 720p network it's a bit dicier. I'd recommend trying to get rid of the pulldown.
 
If you had to choose between a great dp with a Can Xl1 or a crappy dp with 35mm film, which would you choose?
Neither. I'd choose option 3, a great DP like Macgregor and I'd beg/borrow/steal an appropriate camera for him to shoot on. I'd cheat on that Kobiyashi Maru test!

The music analogy works for me as well. Some of my favorite recorded music is extremely lo-fi.
Point in fact, I don't know how many of you were actively replacing your music collections when CDs first came out some 25 years ago, but I was in a music store and CDs used to be marked with a code of "AAD" or "ADD" or "DDD", to show whether it had been recorded, mastered, and delivered in analog or digital. And I heard two guys talking and one of 'em said "dude, man, I won't buy *anything* that's not DDD."

Kind of rules out every stitch of recorded music prior to 1985 or so, no Beatles, no Elvis, no Stones, no ... well, you get the point.

But then here comes the real kicker: let's say the Beatles were all still alive, and they did decide to reunite in the studio. Would you really want to record them on a 4-track analog cassette recorder, like they used in 1963? or would you commit that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to the best recording equipment in the world?

Thought so. :)
 
The music analogy works for me as well. Some of my favorite recorded music is extremely lo-fi.

we put a lot of effort into getting a lo-fi sound using valves, plug-ins, filters, ambient vinyl noise etc. Just like you would use old lenses, filters, lighting and post to get a filmic look.
 
It can certainly affect it. Most certainly it can. To put it in reverse -- seeing a film in Imax can absolutely impact the way a person perceives it, versus someone else who watches it on an iPhone.


Barry,



There's a difference, Imax productions for the most part are visceral expanded realties in documentary form.

They rely on the ""ahh"" factor with high resolution, to captivate the audience with very very large screens rather than Hollywood narrative story telling.

Both are very different, and your mixing apples and oranges here.

The Godfarther is not trying to be The Blue Planet anymore than The Blue Planet is trying to be the Godfather.

Different mediums with Different technologies; and not the same kinda of entertainment as narrative films.




Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


Anamorphic DSLR Lens Test Images... links:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1638289&postcount=97
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1637705&postcount=84

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Pappas/573417404
Myspace:
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts

Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.PappasArts.com
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }



.
 
Neither. I'd choose option 3, a great DP like Macgregor and I'd beg/borrow/steal an appropriate camera for him to shoot on. I'd cheat on that Kobiyashi Maru test!

That wasn't an option. Art is about how you react to your limits. That friction often makes something unique and great.
 
Back
Top