Texan living abroad in the Pacific Northwest.
The Toy Story 2 one that says its referencing 2001...it *may* be referencing 2001 b/c the hallway looks similar, but that shot is specifically referencing The Empire Strikes Back because of the framing, as well as the light turning on in the hallway behind him.
Yeah, Kubrick used his Arriflex 2C for all his MOS handheld stuff. Same camera for decades, if I'm not mistaken.
That's totally completely false logic. You do not need to live in the same space to keep the quality. You can shoot in film to catch the latitude, and then have the ability to do secondary color correction in digital. Film still catches highlights and handles overexposure better...but you can't do secondary color correction without going digital. Something inbetween gives you more choices and looks than going all digital or all film. Back when HD was a new thing, and DI's were just becoming more common, I shot super-16 and we went digital and went to HDcam. It was superior to film or digital origin...before the DI, optical blow ups usually looked terrible. It looked far better than HD (good HD in 4444 color space)...but didn't look as bad as film all the way. The melding of the two worlds is often superior than either one alone. I don't know what's wrong with your eyes, but digital still doesn't look as good as film to me...the fixed array looks cold and lifeless...you can mitigate that by always having stuff moving...blowing leave, smoke and mist, waves...dolly shots...but you can't do this constantly. It just looks weird and cold. But...digital zealots can't get out of the delusion of digital being somehow magically better. But you're free to continue believing that it is.
What?! Are you kidding me? They're synonyms. There is no different connotations of one word or the other...or one time period over another in any English speaking place I've ever been to.
Please don't ever try to do shallow depth of field with steadicam if both you and your focus puller are professionals with professional gear. It will annoy anyone and everyone watching it...not just us picky perfectionist filmmakers.
I don't see it as greed as much as they just make products that scale to their consumers...the mini and Amira have multiple mounts...that is them clearly catering to people using d-SLR crap. And for people using d-SLR crap...they're never gonna need or use anamorphic lenses, so let the people that use them pay for them...that's why a separate license makes sense. A RED Scarlet doesn't support anamorphic...cuz that camera isn't used by people who need it---I had to find a cheap b-cam in town for a film a few months ago that was looking at a scarlet for gimbal work...I couldn't even find an owner of one that *had* a PL mount with one! (I live in a small market, but still...) The production had to rent that separately. So for RED, it totally doesn't make sense to support stuff on their cheap low end camera for things that only high end productions use. The RED One MX supports anamorphic, as does the Epic...when they switched from the RED One to Epic/Scarlet, they were separating their product lines (just like Apple with their MBs and MBP's.) The Alexa Mini is sort of all things rolled into one, so a tiered licensing makes sense for them.