6 replies to this topic

[James Steven Beverly]

Between Sherlock Holmes and Iron Man Downey's got it made! Here's his latest foray into superstardom just out today:

 

http://movies.yahoo.com/marvel/

 

[Keith Walters]

Between Sherlock Holmes and Iron Man Downey's got it made! Here's his latest foray into superstardom just out today:

 

http://movies.yahoo.com/marvel/

Yep. And the Alexa is certainly banging out the blockbusters

[James Steven Beverly]

Is it being shot on an Alexa? Well, at least it isn't a f*%king RED. So far, I've enjoyed the series and you can't deny the box office. It woulda been nice if they shot it on film though.

[Keith Walters]

Is it being shot on an Alexa? Well, at least it isn't a f*%king RED. So far, I've enjoyed the series and you can't deny the box office. It woulda been nice if they shot it on film though.

Shelly Johnson, the  cinematographer who shot "Captain America"  actually posted about this on this forum

 

http://www.cinematog...e=2#entry355445

 

Captain America was mostly shot with the Genesis, but the final scenes where Steve Rogers wakes up in the 21st century, were done with the Alexa, and they remarked at how much better a camera they thought it was. The main reason they used the Genesis was simply that there weren't enough Alexas available at the time.

 

The Avengers (one of the top-grossing films of all time) was mostly shot on the Alexa, with a few exteriors shot on film.

All Marvel 3D thus far has been shot flat and post-converted to 3-D. Thor was shot on film and post converted, but not terribly well IMHO. Captain America was vastly better, and The Avengers was better still.

What I find particularly satisfying is that you don't realize how much of it isn't  actually 3-D, the 3D effect being implied by lens choice and depth of field.

[James Steven Beverly]

IF I have to shoot digitally, it will be on a Genesis or an Alexa. Genesis would be my first choice but I have heard some great things about the Alexa. I am at heart a film man, really a 35mm  anamorphic man. Unless you go to 70mm, anamorphic  is the best image possible for a motion picture.  I LOVE scope but of course it will depend on the project. Comedies for example, tend to benefit from the intimacy of 16:9. This is a generalization, but it does generally hold true. I WILL shoot film until the last dog is dead as they say.

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Is it being shot on an Alexa? Well, at least it isn't a f*%king RED.

 

Hahaha, talk about fanboyism. This place isn't any better than "fanboy" forum like reduser, really. Hatred, hostility and celluloid fanaticism, have I missed something?

[James Steven Beverly]

Yeah, you missed a butt load, bud! First of all, the only camera I have ANYTHING against is the RED. The reason is, I feel it is ruining the art of cinematography and encouraging sloppy work. It also is screwing up the editing process because rather than making a decision and creating an artistic vision that is unique to the artist, the "director" shoots EVERYTHING at EVERY angle the dumps it into the editor's lap and MOST of what's there is poorly lit, badly planned and amateurishly executed. Anyone with 20 grand can become a "film maker". MOST of which really shouldn't. In addition to that It's also in not a very good camera. It has tons of problems and the RAW format adds to costs significantly. The Alexa on the other hand is fine,even superior camera for the right project, I.E. anything with a ton of CGI or if the budget is miniscule, otherwise, I'll go with film every time and if the artistic aspects dictate, anamorphic or in some cases techniscope when the aspect ratio is integral to the film's aesthetic.

 

The reason is not because I'm a fanboy, I haven't been a "boy" in a while now, kid. It's also not because I'm a celluloid fanatic, (BTW, they haven't used celluloid to make film in a very long time either, it happens to burn really easily in case you didn't know...just FYI), The reason I am dedicated to using film is for my audience's sake, Despite all the hoopla about digital acquisition and I have seen some HORRIBLE examples of digital acquisition lately, film still is the only format that captures images at a molecular level. It has qualities that are extremely difficult to recreate accurately after digital acquisition. Also, many actors like the idea of having their work shot on film as the film industry does have a sense of tradition about it so it sometimes makes it a little easier to get actors to sign on for a particular project if it's being shot on film especially if it's a low budget movie. They often feel that if the film maker is using film in which planning and expertise are required, it's going to be a "real" movie.

 

As for hatred and hostility, you're the one that seems to be getting hot under the collar, I was actually kind of making a joke about the RED, though it is the way I really feel about that particular camera. That's not to say YOU can't use the RED if you want to, that's your choice, you use the format YOU want, and I'll use the format and aspect ratio, I think is appropriate for my projects because THAT is EXACTLY what's gonna happen anyhow. OH and one other thing, just so we are clear on it, we are NOT going to turn this thread into yet another "Digital vs. Film" BORING, inane, ridicules, absurd, asinine pointless debate. You want to get on board with that, check the history, here. It's all been said every way you could possibly express it so many times it's pathetic so just  LET IT GO.