Pathology

Not a bad film, not for those that are squemish though! I dont think the acting of the main character was all that good and I kinda predicted what was going to happen. I think it tried to do the Se7en thing but the impact was no where near, I didn't feel as much sympathy for the victims at all. On a cinematography point of a view I thought there were some great shots in the film and I liked the overall cold look the DP obviously tried to put across, it seemed a little de-saturated with the contrast reduced to give a flatter look, I think the film was shot HD as most new films are heading for this option due to budget, but I could be wrong. Ekkehart Pollack is the cinematographer, I will definitely be checking out some of his work.

The Ruins

Just watched this film, and I felt the need to write about it because I thought it was a pile of ****. I thought the acting was good but the whole film is a let down. I would have gone for a more isolated and psychological feel between the characters. I liked the idea of isolation and mysteriousness but it just didn't seem to be pulled off enough. It's almost like a horror comedy for all the wrong reasons. Anyway that's just my opinion some may like it but it wasn't my cup of tea!

In Bruges

Just watched this and thoroughly enjoyed it, the comedy in it is quality and right up my street, however I do think the film could have been a little shorter. Bruges looks like a well nice place as well, wouldn't mind going over there sometime! From the guy that done Six Shooter. Recommend watching it! Colin Farell plays a well good part.

Synopsis:

Bruges, the most well-preserved medieval city in the whole of Belgium, is a welcoming destination for travellers from all over the world. But for hit men Ray and Ken, it could be their final destination; a difficult job has resulted in the pair being ordered right before Christmas by their London boss Harry to go and cool their heels in the storybook Flemish city for a couple of weeks. Very much out of place amidst the gothic architecture, canals, and cobbled streets, the two hit men fill their days living the lives of tourists. Ray, still haunted by the bloodshed in London, hates the place, while Ken, even as he keeps a fatherly eye on Ray's often profanely funny exploits, finds his mind and soul being expanded by the beauty and serenity of the city. But the longer they stay waiting for Harry's call, the more surreal their experience becomes, as they find themselves in weird encounters with locals, tourists, violent medieval art, a dwarf American actor shooting a European art film, Dutch prostitutes, and a potential romance for Ray in the form of Chloë, who may have some dark secrets of her own. And when the call from Harry does finally come, Ken and Ray's vacation becomes a life-and-death struggle of darkly comic proportions and surprisingly emotional consequences

Roger Deakins

I've just recently joined Roger Deakins website and I have been browsing the forum, if you sign up as a member you can also gain access to his lighting diagrams from films such as No Country for Old Men, Jarhead, Hudsucker Proxy and The Man Who Wasn't There, its definitely worth checking out if your into cinematography and lighting, he even replies to most people's questions in the forum which is very helpful.

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/light/lightIndex.php?cat_id=4

Follow Focus

Decided to do further research of cameras as i was wondering what the small attachment on the side of the camera was on the previous post's picture, turns out to be a follow focus.

Taken from Wiki:

"A follow focus is a piece of equipment that attaches to the focus ring of a manual lens via a set of rods on the body of a film or video camera. It is ergonomic rather than strictly necessary; in other words it does not contribute to the basic functionality of a camera but instead allows the operator to be more efficient and precise. It is usually operated by a focus puller (often called the 1st assistant camera, or 1AC) but some camera operators prefer to pull their own focus (the act of changing focus is called "pulling" or "racking" focus)."

Depth of Field

Ive recently joined a cinematography forum and have been researching the technical jargon associated with cameras, as brought up in my review. One thing that has interested me is trying to get that cinema look, where a background is highly out of focus whilst the object or character is sharply in focus. Having done some still photography for sometime now I know that this technique is produced using f-numbers, affecting the depth of field. The lower the f-number say f/2.8 the larger the aperture would be, this creates a shallow depth of field, giving that blurred background look. larger f-numbers would keep an entire scene in focus, ideal for long shots, however this would give a smaller aperture, therefor less light would enter.

Above is a picture of a redrockmicro system attached to what looks like a sony hvr-z1e, this allows 35mm lenses to be attached to dv and hd camcorders through the use of stepdown rings and lens adapters so long as they arent over 72mm. They can give greater lens control allowing for a more cinematic look to a piece of film. I've seen some videos on youtube of them in action and some of the shots look great and really do look quite like 35mm film. Something I would defintly consider using if only I had the cash!