A crash course in Camera Tech

Have you ever had a conversation with a friend or a stranger who was going on and on about something that he/she was incredibly passionate about, but you weren't so the vast majority of references, and technical aspects flew right over your head? That's annoying. Well, when you are as fascinated with something like art or mechanics, it can be easy to forget that not everyone is as enthusiastic or as knowledgable as you are. For me, this mostly happens when I find myself talking about cameras and their technological advancements. While I do enjoy discussing camera tech and filmmaking gear, it occurs to me that not all of you are as versed on the topic as I am. Since I will be dedicating all of next month to discussing feature films that have been made on consumer level equipment, I think it is only fitting that I provide you with a reference guide so you may better understand and appreciate the films I will be discussing. Consider this a brief introduction to the basics of Camera technology. 

Before I start going over the essentials of gear, allow me to explain my motives behind this essay and the reviews that will follow. As a cinematographer, I have learned a great deal about cameras, lenses, and all kinds of unbelievable bits of gear for making movies. Over the years, as I learned more and more about Camera technology, I discovered my personal preferences for my work and have narrowed it down to a few essential pieces. Cameras have come a long way since the beginning of the digital age. As such, many of them have proven to be more than capable of delivering fantastic and beautiful images right out of the box that is just ripe for the big screen. However, in recent years, there has been such an onslaught of new and improved technology, both in the professional and the consumer markets, that a lot of the "older" cameras have been overshadowed, or even disregarded, as no longer fit to make the best movie possible. The assumption seems to be that unless you have a particular set of tools that provides "X" amount of stuff, you won't be taken seriously and your movie will never look good. 

This could not be farther from the truth. Not only has some of more "less than advanced" camera technology proven capable of delivering high-quality cinematic images, but some of them are even, arguably, better than some of the more powerful and incredibly expensive ones on the market. Speaking as a cinematographer who has shot projects on highly advanced cameras and not-so-advanced ones, I can say with confidence that high-quality images can come from just about anywhere regardless of specs and numbers. It is my desire and my passion to encourage all filmmakers, younger ones especially, to not be afraid of older tech. This is one of the reasons I am dedicating an entire month to movies that were shot on consumer cameras. To bring to light the awesome power of older technology, and to encourage filmmakers to reconsider the popular conceptions made by camera companies, perfectionists, and even other filmmakers. We can do so much more with far less than you think. 

Now, with that out of the way, here are some of the essential things to keep in mind when examing the movies I will be reviewing next month. 

Resolution: 

I discussed this in greater detail in my previous essay, 1080p Still looks great even today. The shorter version is the resolution refers to the number of pixels (blocks of information) within a digital image. The more resolution you can record, the more detail your pictures will retain. The standard resolution for most online content, home video, and consumer cameras is known as 1080p. Recently, a new resolution known as 4K, which is four times larger than 1080p, began to overtake the market, aiming to become the new standard. Today, almost all consumer and professional video cameras offer some flavor of 4K, and a few brand new cameras in development are offering even more with 8K. 

Both 1080p and 4K are incredible options for capture. Speaking personally, I prefer to maintain a strictly 1080p workflow with my projects. While I do own a camera that shoots 4K, I rarely use that option, though I am happy to offer it to folks who want it when taking on film projects. My issue with 4K, aside from it not looking all that better than 1080p, is that a lot of filmmakers are assuming that 4K is required to shoot a film. This is not helped when you consider that Netflix requires all of its original content to be captured in 4K. 

There are so many beautiful examples of gorgeous looking films made in recent years that were not captured in 4K. Most of the Marvel Superhero movies and shot on, what is arguably the most popular high-end cinema camera on the market, the Arri Alexa, which has a standard resolution of 2.8K. 

It is foolish to assume that high resolution is required for high-end cinema. Also, considering how large of a format 4K is, unless you have a big enough hard drive and a powerful enough computer to handle the large files (many indie filmmakers don't), it's just not worth the hassle. Don't be afraid to shoot your movie in 1080p. It'll hold up just about anywhere. 

Color Depth: 

Every camera in the world can see color. What you probably didn't know is that every camera sees color different from one another. Also, every different camera brand tends to understand specific colors better than others. Example: Canon cameras can see Blue better than most while Sony cameras tend to favor Yellow. It's a strange phenomenon to be sure, but an important one to consider when selecting a camera for any given project. However, what is usually more critical, and what many filmmakers seem to be spending too much time waxing about, is 8bit vs. 10 bit. Color depth is the one aspect of color reproduction that pretty much the vast majority of indie filmmakers have built a universal opinion. 

In layman's terms, the main difference between 8bit and 10bit color is that one can see a more extensive array of color variations. Imagine the color Red and all of the changes in-between Light Red and Dark Red. Most consumer cameras can only capture 8bit video, which means they see a decent amount of color variations to create a passable image but does not offer much room for adjustment as opposed to 10bit which can see many more changes to create a near-perfect recreation of the subject. 

Most filmmakers will want to capture in 10bit or above as that provides more information and usually creates a better image. I have used both 8bit and 10bit capture options and, while I love the advantages offered in 10bit, I honestly don't see that drastic a difference between the two. What's more, I don't see the point in casting aside 8bit recording options like so many filmmakers are doing these days. Some of the best cinematic video cameras on the market, especially those built by Canon, Sony, and Panasonic, only have an 8bit internal recording option. While most of them offer the ability to record 10bit video onto an external recorder, I find that most of them have incredible footage right out of the box. I find it to be unfair and counterproductive to cast aside any camera as a candidate for a film project purely on the basis that it does not offer 10bit color. Some of the best looking films have been captured using an 8bit source, so please don't be so quick to judge. 

This feature film which includes tons of special effects (both practical and digital) and full color-correction was captured on an 8bit camera, and it all looks glorious. 

Dynamic Range: 

This aspect of Camera tech is similar to Color Depth. In that, it is also an aspect involving more or less available information. Dynamic range refers to the amount of detail retained in the brightest and darkest part of an image. Most of the time, filmmakers will want a camera that can capture the fullest amount of dynamic range possible. Both for extra options regarding color correction and maximum creative posibilities within the image. High-end cinema cameras like the RED and the Arri Alexa offer some of the most extensive dynamic range possible. 

There are several circumstances where having the most amount of dynamic range is best. Shooting a predominantly dimly lit scene, filmming outside in the blazing sun, and so on. Also, having the most amount of wiggle room to further manipulate the image in post-production. While I have enjoyed using these aspects of filmmaking, and continue to do so with some projects, I cannot help but also feel that it has the potential to create lazy filmmaking. Before the advent of modern cinema technology, filmmakers had to plan out their look and style for the film in question. They had to decide how they wanted their movie to look almost entirely in-camera rather than apply the desired look afterward. Yes, there was still post-production color grading and special effects if needed, but in terms of h.ow much detail was within the image required more discipline. As such, it is my opinion that, while having tons of range to work within the image is still a good thing, filmmakers would be wise to occasionally take a step back and reconsider their aesthetic preferences and how they can achieve them in-camera rather than after the fact. 

Conclusion: 

New cinematic technology has come a long way. We have developed amazing cameras that can reproduce many levels of color detail, substantial amounts of resolution, and dynamic range damn near close to that of the human eye. Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, it seems to be progressing at the price of "less-than-advanced" cameras that have so much more potential for high-quality cinema than most people give them credit for these days. Falling into the assumption that unless they have all the popular bells and whistles on their camera, the are incapable of delivering a genuinly cinematic experience. 

The idea the one cannot create cinema with anything other than a RED is ridiculous! Consider for a moment this older camera, the Panasonic AG-AF100 

For a time, this was the flagship of consumer level cinematic Cameras and still is even today. While some may consider it inferior by today's standards, I say it is still a viable option for high-quality cinema. So, to kick-off "Camcorder Cinema" next month here on this blog, we're going to take a look at a feature film that was captured entirely on this camera. What's more, it's a pretty fun movie in its own right as well. Tune in again soon, and I'll tell you why. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm. I hope you found this crash course fascinating and helpful. Thank you all for reading. 

Avengers: Endgame - Just go see it (Spoiler Free)

This will literally be the shortest review I will ever write. Not because there is nothing to say about this movie, in fact, there is an awful lot to say, but I feel that in doing so I would be providing many unintentional spoilers which would only be doing this movie a great disservice. After the film has been in theaters for a while, I may write a full review with spoilers, but until then, all I can say right now is I loved this movie and will gladly go see it again shortly. At this point in time, if you have been on board the Marvel Cinematic Train for the past eleven years like I have, then you will undoubtedly see and enjoy this movie. I know I did. Those of you who have not yet gotten started or been interested, I would encourage you to consider. Because this event of stories has been well worth the build up. 

This is the event Marvel has been building up to since the beginning. It goes without saying that you must see it if you are able. So please, just go see it.

NEW THEME MONTH - Camcorder Cinema

Hey everyone!

As you may have noticed, I have not been posting a lot of reviews lately. Mostly because, aside from Avengers: Endgame, and maybe a few other smaller films coming out next month, I'm not honestly all that interested in going to the movies at the moment. Plus, things like new projects and life stuff has made getting to the theater just a little too complicated at the moment.

So, in the interest of getting new content on this blog, and because I'd like to do so, I am dedicated the whole month of May to a special kind of movies. Films that were shot mostly or entirely on a consumer level video camera.

Be it a found-footage film or a Summer blockbuster, if it was shot on a camera you could find at your local Best Buy, I'm gonna talk about it.

So be on the lookout for some fantastic movies you likely have not yet heard of that was shot on a simple camcorder. I hope you enjoy reading about them as much as I will enjoy writing about them.

Until then, have a great time at Avengers: Endgame. I know I will

SHAZAM - What's in a name? AWESOMENESS!!!

I may have mentioned a few times here on my blog that I am a big fan of superheroes. They embody the best aspects of humanity, inspire good deeds, and encourage us all to be the best versions of ourselves we can be. Growing up with classic characters like Superman and Spider-Man, then becoming enamored with movies, I naturally enjoy the title wave of high-quality Superhero movies we have been getting for the past decade. Though, until recently, when it came to Marvel Comics vs. DC Comics in terms of decent film adaptations, Marvel had been reigning supreme while DC was running in place failing to catch up. Yet, despite a dark and sad rocky start, DC and Warner Brothers seem to have finally become on par with the likes of Marvel Studios with their latest offering, SHAZAM. This is not only a fantastic and entertaining film in its own right, but it is also a genuinely heartwarming and historic moment in Superhero movie history. While I have never really preferred what Comic Book company any given Superhero has originated from, merely being a fan of Superhero's as a whole, I have been longing for the day when these films would come from a Studio outside of Marvel. As much as I love their movies, I do not want to live in a world where they are the only ones who not only deliver a good film but care about these characters and material as much as I or any other Superhero fan does. This is a beautiful moment in cinematic history for us all. Superhero fans rejoice!

For those of you who may not be as familiar with this character as I am, or in case you need a quick refresher, I will leave a few links explaining his origins as well as the reason for his unique name at the end of this review. I assure you, this character has quite the history. Even better, this movie does him justice. 

Based on characters created by Bill Parker and C.C. Beck, the story follows a young orphan boy named Billy Batson (Asher Angel) surviving on the streets of Philidelphia and jumping from various foster homes as he searches for his long lost mother. He gets one last chance with a progressive and pretty damn cool family consisting of a pair of sweet yet badass guardians as well as a team of multicultural foster kids. Billy quickly becomes "friends" with one disabled boy named Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Grazer) who is a massive fan of Superheroes. After saving Freddy from a pair of bullies, Billy is mysteriously transported to a magical realm where he is confronted by an ancient Wizard named SHAZAM (Djimon Hounsou), who informs Billy of a powerful evil force, known as The Seven Deadly Sins, who have found a host and seek to destroy all things. The Wizard instructs Billy to say his name, and in doing so, Billy becomes The Champion (Zachary Levi). An avatar of the Wizards magic so he may battle evil and fight for justice. Only one problem: Billy has no idea how to be a hero. So, he enlists the aid of Freddy to help him out. Now, Billy must learn how to harness his real potential and become a hero. That is after he finishes showing off his powers to bystanders, gaining online fame with his viral videos, and pretending to be an actual adult so he and his friends can try buying Beer at the convenient store. Then he can maybe try and save the world. 

SHAZAM is a remarkable, entertaining, funny, exciting, and heartfelt movie. There is so much to love about this film that it would take too many paragraphs here to go over it all. So, for the sake of keeping this a relatively short review, I will go over a few aspects of this film that I loved the most. 

What I loved best about this movie was how down-to-earth it felt. While it still succeeds in delivering the goods that you would expect from a Superhero movie (cool action scenes and so on) it chooses instead to spend most of its time developing the characters and being a fantastical journey about growth, family, love, and what being a hero is really all about. In that regard, it's very similar to Black Panther in that it is a story driven character piece first and an exiting Superhero movie second. The only real difference is that while Black Panther was more of a social & political drama, SHAZAM is more of a comedic yet earnest coming of age story. In fact, the movie I was reminded of the most was the Tom Hanks classic Big. Which, coincidentally, is the film which the makers of SHAZAM took most of their influence from when making this film...and it really shows. 

The writing for this movie is smart, witty, funny, emotional, delightfully faithful to the source material, and just downright enjoyable. The characters are well rounded, the conflicts are relatable, and the themes of family, personal identity, and heroism are executed so unbeleavably well. Not to mention the jokes are incredibly funny. Make no mistake: this is not a great Superhero movie because it's funny. No. It is a great Superhero movie because it is honest and sincere. The jokes are really more of a bonus. 

The entire cast, from the heroes to the villains, is outstanding. The chemistry between Zachary Levi and Jack Dylan Grazer is especially entertaining and overall joyful to watch. You get the impression that they both had a blast making this movie together. 

As you have probably figured out by now, I love this movie. It was so enjoyable, so surprising, and did so much to restore my faith in Superhero movies not produced by Marvel, that I cannot recommend it enough. It made me feel like a kid again. Speaking of, when I saw this movie in the theater, the cherry on top of the whole experience was seeing a young child in the audience wearing a costume of the titular character. I was so overjoyed that I thanked the kid for doing that. It was that kind of movie. If you are a fan of this character, if you have kids who are fans of Superheroes, or if you just need a wonderful time at the movies, then you owe it to yourself to go see this one. There is a little bit of something for everyone.

For those of you who may be wondering, there are two post-credit scenes. Without spoiling anything, the first scene comes right after the initial end credits and is an important and surprising one to see. The second is after all of the other end credits and is mainly a riff on an old Superhero joke. While it is funny, it is not essential, and you will not really miss anything important. My personal recommendation is to stay for the first post-credits scene only. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

It is a heartfelt, entertaining, enthralling experience the likes of which does not come around very often anymore. This must be experienced on the big screen so please don't miss it. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you fall or reading. 

The history of SHAZAM/Captain Marvel 

Why are there two Captian Marvels? 

Pet Sematary (2019) - Mildly improved from the last one (MINOR SPOILER WARNING)

Stephen King has built up a rather strange and occasionally entertaining relationship with cinema. To the point where his name might as well be its own sub-genre. His stories which have been adapted to the big screen have mostly fallen into the "so bad it's funny" kind of execution like Children of the Corn and The Tommyknockers, while few others have successfully been elevated into iconic screen gems such as The Shawshank Redemption and The Shining (the Stanley Kubrick film and not the mini-series). Pet Sematary 2019 seems to fall somewhere in the middle. There are occasional moments in this new adaptation that cause me to suspect that a great deal of the film was removed by Studio executives who only wanted to make a quick buck off of the name recognition, while the filmmakers had intended something much more profound. Even so, while I cannot say I found it particularly scary for the most part, I did find it pretty shocking at times. If only because it did genuinely throw me for a loop that I was not expecting and delivered a little bit of a new perspective on the story. Even so, it was still just adequate at best. Still chilling and enjoyable in its own way, but not as profound as I suspect it could have been. 

Based on the book by Stephen King (which I have not read) and previously adapted into a feature film back in 1989 (which I have seen), the story follows a doctor named Louis (Jason Clarke), his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), their two children and pet Cat as they move into a new house in rural Maine. Upon arriving they meet their new neighbor Jud (John Lithgow) and discover a secluded Cemetary for pets who have passed away. The misspelling of the word in the title refers to the children who wrote the sign at the entrance. After some time has passed, Louis discovers that their poor cat has been killed in an accident and resolves to bury him in the titular Cemetary. However, to prevent the child from dealing with the loss of the family pet, Jud decides to take Louis past the Cemetary to an even more secluded part of the woods to bury the Cat. Soon afterward, the Cat returns from the dead, though not quite the same as before. Despite the strange secret looming over Louis's head, he decides to just move on as if all is as it was. That is until tragedy strikes again with another death in the family. Stricken by grief, Louis must now decide if he is to use that strange magical burial ground again, or if he should accept that...sometimes...dead is better. 

As I have stated before, I have not read the book this movie was based on. However, I have seen the original film adaptation. Therefore, the best comparisons I can make in this review is how it holds up to the first adaptation. Both films deliver a decent atmosphere filled with chills and occasional laughs. They both feature sympathetic and layered characters, explore a profound and relatable fear (in this case parental grief), and deliver appropriately tragic endings. The significant difference between the two films is in their execution of said ending as well as their build-up to them. Which, to explain any further, I must go into SPOILER territory.  

If you wish to avoid SPOILERS, then please skip any paragraph featuring the SPOILERS prompt, and that is written in RED. 

SPOILERS: 

Okay, so in both films, the tragedy is that the child is accidentally hit by a Truck on the road and is killed. Overwhelmed by grief and unable to deal with it, Louis digs up his dead child and reburies him in the magical graveyard causing his child to rise from the dead. Except their kid is no longer the sweet and innocent child Louis knew before. Something murderous and evil has returned in their place. In the original adaptation from 1989, the family only had one child. A baby boy named Gage no more than two years old. In the 2019 version, the family has a baby boy and an older nine-year-old daughter named Ellie (Jeté Laurence), and it is she who gets killed in the freak accident. While the originals undead baby boy was a little chilling in its own way, it was, at least in my opinion, a little too silly. Because the boy was never really scary on account of his minimal ability to emote. Granted, it was not entirely the boy's fault given his age, but still. In the 2019 version, this change makes the scenes with the child more terrifying, primarily due to Jeté Laurence's incredible performance. This kid outshines everyone else in the whole cast with her conviction and tour de force performance. This kid had better get more roles after this because she is terrific. 

For those of you who skipped the last paragraph, the short version is that one film has a much better child actor than the other. 

Speaking of the acting, the cast, especially Jason Clarke and the kid mentioned above, do a remarkable job with their roles. Needless to say, John Lithgow especially is a welcome old favorite of mine. While he may not be as memorable as Fred Gwynne, who played the same role in the 1989 film, Lithgow succeeds in making this version of the character his own and delivers his usual professional power. I hope to keep seeing more of him presently. 

The visuals, sound design, and special effects are a big step up from the previous film. Even when some of them don't seem to go anywhere. As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, the film feels incomplete. As if there was a major plot point or story element that was cut out at the last minute by unwelcome input coming from upstairs. Of course, there is no way of confirming this, but it is my personal suspicion. 

While I can confidently say that I enjoyed my time with this movie, I must admit that I was not as impressed as I would have liked to be. The acting is good, the visuals are appropriately chilling and well updated, and there are parts of the story that did genuinely catch me off guard, but I was rarely ever terrified. For a movie based on, supposedly, the scariest Stephen King story, that's saying a lot. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Maybe.

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Maybe.

Why? 

It's a decent improvement that offers little if any new takes on this classic story. Fans of Stephen King's work will likely get a decent kick out of it, but for everyone else, if you didn't like the first adaptation, you're not likely going to get anything out of this. Except for a genuinely fantastic performance from a talented child actor. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

The Highwaymen - Disappointingly dull

You may recall that last year I dedicated an entire month to reviewing Netflix original films. Mostly because circumstances caused me to put my theater time on hold, but also because I find that Netflix, as well as many other online platforms, are becoming wonderful alternatives for distribution of high-quality cinema. While I still hope that movie theaters won't go away, I am glad to see that filmmakers and producers are taking advantage of the freedom that services like Netflix have to offer. Because they are technically a premium network, they are usually comfortable with letting creators do pretty much whatever they see fit to make the best possible product. This can lead to the dilution that Netflix, and by extension any other internet-based distribution platforms, are automatically immune to the repetitive and boring practices of most major studios. Who, as of late, spend too much time playing everything safe and refuses to take any risks. The sad truth is, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, the internet is not immune to producing dull, lifeless, and dreary slogs of products masquerading as high-quality entertainment. Look no further than The Highwaymen, which is, regrettably, the most disappointing Netflix film I have seen so far. 

The story revolves around the efforts to find and apprehend or kill the notorious crime duo of the 1930s known as Bonnie & Clyde. As the two criminals go about committing horrific acts of murder, and the then newly formed FBI failing to find or capture the dangerous duo, the Govoner of Texas Ma Ferguson (Kathy Bates) is forced to consider an alternative option. At the suggestion of a colleague, she reluctantly assigns former Texas Ranger Frank Hamer (Kevin Costner) and his old partner Maney Gault (Woddy Harrelson) to track down the murderous couple before any more blood is spilled. Now, the two older men must dust off their skills, and deal with their personal baggage with each other, to bring in or bring down Bonnie & Clyde. 

This is an excellent idea for a movie. From what I understand, this is the first time that the antics of Bonnie & Clyde have been told from the perspective of the ones who brought them down. We have a new take on an old story, a classic buddy-cop set up with two older Cowboys upstaging the younger FBI agents, and tons of opportunity for action, humor when applicable, and commentary on violence and the various methods of law enforcement. Sadly, The Highwaymen didn't take it upon itself to deliver such a film. What we have here instead is yet another case of bleakness mistaken for greatness, an unbearable lack of levity, and commentary that fails to make the mark. Not from lack of trying on the writers part. 

While the film does sport an impressive script that technically succeeds in providing potentially dynamic characters, as well as delivering commentary on the strange fascination with celebrating killers and the moral grey area of justice, it is not handled with the delicate balance and delivery that it deserves. This problem in particular I personally blame on the director. The film was directed by John Lee Hancock, late of The Rookie, The Blind Side, and Saving Mr. Banks. All of which are decent films but also share a similar tone and style. That of a brightly toned world and a family friendly mindset of storytelling. Because of this, I strongly suspect that Mr. Hancock was attempting to step out of his comfort zone to try something different. While I applaud his efforts, if that was indeed the case, I don't think he's really cut out for movies like The Highwaymen. The script is really much more suited for someone like Michael Mann or even Christopher Nolan, people who have experience in these kinds of darker stories. Sadly, we are left with a director out of his league. 

Kevin Costner is not much help either. To be honest, there are very few movies with Mr. Costner that I actually like, and that has to do with his style of "acting" being best suited to the tone and story of said movies. Kevin Costner seems incapable of putting any amount of believable conviction into his performances preferring to go with the overused tough & stoic man approach. Usually, that kind of thing would be appropriate for a story like this, but his version of it, in particular, drags the movie down more. The good news is that his lackluster performance is mostly saved by the ever-reliable Woody Harrelson who is always entertaining in whatever he's in. Even when the quality of the movie isn't all that great, Mr. Harrelson manages to elevate it with enthusiasm, charm, and conviction. I could watch this man read the Phonebook on stage and be completely entertained. 

I was genuinely looking forward to this movie. I liked most of the cast, the general idea, and the exciting parts that were showcased in the trailers. Sadly, it seems that all of the best moments were reserved for the advertisements. The films lack of levity, lackluster performance from the leading man, and misguided direction have all cultivated into an overly long slog of a film that I'm pretty sure put me to sleep once or twice. If you have a Netflix account, you would be wise to stear clear of this one. Just watch Zombieland instead. It makes much better use of Woody Harrelson's talent. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.