Straight Story is a masterpiece :D (I'm serious)

There's a difference between taste and talent.

For instance Hitchcock is a genius. A true innovator who rewrote the book on filmmaking. His brilliance is undeniable. But I don't personally care for his movies. I don't hate them. They just don't really speak to me. But they are brilliant. I can be objective, I can appreciate his films, even though I don't have any of them on my list of favorite films. Same with Bergman. I respect him and his style, but wouldn't list his movies as an influence, or as my favorite films.

Lynch has nothing worth appreciating in his works. They are top to bottom worthless garbage - an affront to Art. He is the "Mr. Brainwash" of film. Calling Lynch a genius, is an insult. It's like saying Mr. Brainwash's mindless "art" is the equivalent to Banksy's brilliant social commentary.

THAT is why I hate Lynch. He is a pretender, not an artist. Anyone who thinks he is a genius doesn't deserve to work with me... and will never work with me. I'm am dead serious.

c'mon guys. Stay in topic. Im shure Vitaliy will upraid us quite soon ;-)

I've literally fired people off my crew for trying to explain to me why David Lynch is a genius. If you think that he is, you understand nothing about storytelling. Nothing. This isn't about taste, its about someone who is a liar. His films lie. There is no truth in them, nothing to be learned of any value. He lies, and says it's his "vision." He takes a giant pretentious shit in your mind, and calls it art.

If you watch a David Lynch film and don't feel like you've been ass-raped, and your money stolen by a laughing midget in a clown suit, who explains to you that "You don't get it... it's art.", then fuck off. He has no idea what he's doing. No clue.

I used to think he was just fucking with people on purpose, which was very Sex Pistols-esque to me and kind of cool, I now realize he's fucktard who lacks even a tiny shred of talent.

Ah cmon Shian Eraserhead, the Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, Wild At Heart thats a pretty great track record. Inland Empire however was just utterly terrible.

@TheNewDeal, there's more to filmmaking than just story

True. But I'm one of those people who thinks we're at the point of diminishing returns with image quality. If anything, the real trend is toward lower quality images. Too much stuff is streamed and Blu Ray never took. Broadcast is 1080i only. They keep making better cameras and that's good, but the demand and supply seem grossly out of balance.

It is not what it is shot on but how it looks that is important. Some film or style will work with even sd video. Horor type of film etc. But watch some sci-fi movie with some pac-man type of cgi and I guarantee you that you won't wait to know if the story was good or not. A good story is at the base of any good movie, but if it not enough if the acting, sound or I guess the last one visual is not good. I am a visual guy, but I have to admit that in the end it is the last factor. Bad acting or sound gets out out even before bad visual except if is some action and scifi ones.

It seems in the $4k for the red one, they gives also ice packs :-)

(As seen on http://www.mindwarpentertainment.com/blog/2009/07/10-things-red-camera-users-need-to-know/ )

@TheNewDeal, there's more to filmmaking than just story

I remember loving the Christie 2k image back in the day, but I think there is something funky with the Sony 4ks..

There is no doubt though: when digital gets it right, it gets it very right.

@bimdas @brianluce

i recently viewed "the master", which used 80% plus 65mm kodak stock, at two theatres. the first had a 70mm optical print of the film by fotokem for optical projection with an estimated resolution of 10-11k. the second theatre had output for 4k dcp. i was shocked totally shocked how bad the digital 4k version looked in comparison, particularly in terms of luminance. i dont care what red or any of these other new digital cam manufactures claim. the current state of digital output in a theatre context is nowhere near what is possible optically. so, while the digital film revolution continues, which means good things for my ability to get access to inexpensive filmmaking tools, it is very sad that this superior art form is going away in favor of efficiency and ROI.

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/09/films-not-dead-yet-part-2-fotokems-workflow-for-the-master-in-70mm-35mm-and-4k/

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/april05/conundrum2/page7.html

a lot of films shot in 4k are downscaled to 2k due to cgi budget

"Although he shot Prometheus in 5K at 5:1 compression (occasionally switching to 3:1 compression for scenes with very fine detail, like water or foliage), he notes that the original photography had to be converted to 2K in post to match the resolution of the visual-effects work. “On a movie with this many visual effects, going to 4K would have quadrupled the visual-effects budget,” notes Wolski." (ASC-Interview)

so you want to see every pore of your preferred actress.

Pores are not a problem as in 4K production you can use plugins that can track face and apply filters to hide flaws.

Most consumer cameras already has similar modes to find and slightly blur faces.