I've believed for a long time that we're getting to the point where the differences between camera choices is very much like the differences between film stocks. I would no more say, "wow, such-and-such a film looks so great because they shot with Vision 320" or "it looks great because of that Fuji 500." To me, that does a disservice to the work of the cinematographer, because they had the greatest effect on the image -- not the camera or the pickup. Strictly my opinion.
I totally agree with you. I guess I am a little hyper sensitive to the tonality/skin tone discussion vis-a-vis Alexa versus Epic since I have been forced to use Alexa on numerous jobs because the director believes in the "Alexa" look. I agree that in the end it is the production design, the Dp's lighting and the colorist that have the most to do with how a film looks.
In the past we as DPs were allowed to pick the camera, lenses and film stock UNLESS there was a financial reason for the studios. ( Often we would shoot Eastman as a camera stock and release prints would be Fuji. I would like to go back to being allowed to use the camera of my choice.
Didn't Red announce its in the works back in 2010?
We need it now not in another 2 years.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|