What was upstream color filmed on

Skip the AF The only justification I can see to using it as a b-cam, is that some people just can't get over the "physical size" of the GH2 and need to impress clients on set, or something of the sort I'm pretty sure Panasonic recently released some sort of upgrade to the AF that enabled uncompressed output.

Also, being a camera optimized for video, there are a lot of convenience-based reasons one might pick the AF over the GH2. That said, I agree with your assessment about the GH2's image quality -- it's definitely better than the AF Weird he would make another microbudget if he doesn't like that kind of attention.

He obviously doesn't want to give up control. Nice to finally see some decent GH2 films, given the relentless fanboys over the last few years. Its a very nice image, but I didn't enjoy shooting with the camera itself. The idea is not that the films look good for what they are considering the budget, but that they look good period, and they just happened to be shot on the GH2. I'm trying to make the point that people don't have excuses about this or that camera being limited. The GH2 is producing fantastic results with a little bit of work for absolutely dirt cheap, and with pretty inexpensive lenses.

But sadly, that's not the attention the film's getting. Almost every review notes the budget. And now 'The Canyons'.

My point is that if he doesn't want that mentioned, usually as code for 'please forgive the film's tech issues', he needs to get over the 7 figure hump. Given that he chose not to given the profile of his earlier film, I'm making an educated guess he was not interested in giving up the amount of control that an even slightly larger budget means. I won't care what he shot it on unless it looks spectacularly good or bad.

This is completely false. There is nothing "tech wise" in these clips and trailers that give away the fact that these films are under "7 figures". They look as legitimate as anything other feature, minus the gigantic sets in something like StarTrek or Batman.

Monetary "figures" are not what make films legitimate. Only talent does this. Joe - I was surprised to see Ryan in his latest post cite old technology as a reason your work may not be taken seriously:. I would have hoped that NFS would be more along your line of thinking - it's not tech it's talent.

He's talking about getting serious financing for a feature hundreds of thousands or more , not making one for no money, which is a whole other different ballgame. I think, though, as we get even more legitimate gear like the BMCC at lower prices, you'll see people use budget as even more of a scapegoat.

Sorry, but it's the truth. No point in denying it. Kind of ticks me off when I see comments like this, along the lines of "you guys do too much tech and not enough of what really matters. Other topics don't get near as much love. So consumer demand obviously points to more tech-focused content, but then people complain when it's offered. If you want to see more "talent over tech" content, then start spending your time commenting on those articles instead. The only way we can reasonably expect NFS to shift more content in that direction is if we ask them to with our behavior, not our words.

I'm not pointing fingers at NFS - it's more the sad culture we're in when potential shooters keep putting off projects until they get their BMC or new lens or whatever. Talent will get noticed.

Fancy film burns and flares not so much. Tech is so much easier to talk about. It's pretty difficult to talk about an art like acting and script writing in real time, partly because it really depends on what your going for.

Everybody here is aiming for a good looking film on a cheap budget. Plus technology changes so quickly that it's so easy to talk about the new camera that just came out or the new camera that x director just used.

Was wondering when you were going to post this, now how certain are on shane utilizing the camera for the whole movie or just certain scenes? I was wondering the same thing. I saw the picture of Shane and Co. Given the GH2 footage I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Either way, my GH3 just came in the mail yesterday, so posts like this are really getting me pumped to take it out into the wild. I can conform that this film was entirely shot on GH2.

I can say that the GH2 footage looked great on the big screen with nice detail and color rendition. I saw "Act of Valor" in theaters just to see the 5D on the big screen, and the hacked GH2 looked much better. Totally agree, the Upstream Color image blew away Act of Valor. Perhaps it is due to the high-profile endorsements? It all just keeps coming back to how well one uses the tools they have. And how well one knows how to light this even more so.

Just for the record, resolution aside, I've seen work that was done on the good ol' DVXb that is way more aesthetically pleasing than at least half of the lower-budget pictures that shot on RED. Haha well its time it gets some attention, maybe it'll push Panasonic to consider the GH4 more carefully ;. GH5 : 4 is an unlicky Japanese number - there won't be a GH4. Upstream Color is a great example that a well designed shot is more important than any camera spec.

GH2 is looking gorgeous on these examples. Sorry fanboys, but Shane Carruth is only using a GH2 for his feature and a shitty camcorder for Primer, I believe because of budget reasons. As soon as he gets the chance, and that will be soon, he'll most likely use film or RED or something ideal.

So don't treat him like some kind of Jesus figure for your camera. Your comments never disappoint, always so cynical, instead of applauding Shane for achieving such a feet, you go on to discourage everyone else. I like how you spin your comments troll.

I was fortunate enough to talk with Shane at Sundance this year for a couple minutes after the premiere of Upstream Color. I asked him about his choice to shoot on the GH2; he remarked that he did have the means to shoot on RED as well as the F3. Basically, it came down to time and logistics. It was easier to setup, run and gun and use out in the open without drawing attention. He said he felt satisfied with image from the hacked GH2, and seemed good enough for doing film work when he did his initial tests.

I'm sure Shane will use film or RED or something ideal on his next feature. Probably because the budget will allow him to use those 'tools'. Just like the budget on this film only allowed for that 'tool' GH2. The film looks great. End of. Surely that's what counts John? The GH2 is a useful tool, unlike yourself. Oh dear In every bunch of roses , there is always a prick ideals are subjective to the individual I believe and budget Well done guys x!

Just wanted to take a moment and thank you for your hard work. This and the Soderbergh post are very fine examples of what I love reading. Along with the two-hour BMCC presentation and all the usual technical stuff you're giving us, I feel very happy coming here almost every day.

Kudos to using a cheap camera. It's what he had and it did the job. Filmmaking tech is so volatile, with new gear and rumors every minute, and pre-order offerings galore but no product delivery. If you have a film idea shoot with what you got.

However, many filmmakers obviously don't abide by the "shoot with what you got" mantra. How many are waiting for their BMCC before they put down their shot glass and go shoot footage? How many are waiting to see what NAB has before organizing a session? If you think you're talented, there really is no excuse to not have a product to back that claim up these days.

It used to be film was too expensive to buy shoot edit. But now, without even raising any real funds we can make low budget features that look great. At the same time, its experimental, cosmic leanings are not devoid of plot. Of course, some of them are open to interpretation. Readers are encouraged to offer their own theories in the comments. Those gross bugs feed on consciousness. In the unsettling opening act, Kris Amy Seimetz is attacked in a parking lot and forced to ingest a parasitic bug that makes its way into her bloodstream.

Once there, it multiplies and achieves two functions: absorbing her consciousness and making her highly susceptible to hypnotic suggestion. According to Carruth, the idea was partly inspired by real-life parasites that have been documented for their ability to control the behavior of other entities. In this case, the bug is used to service the agenda of a mysterious figure identified only in the credits as The Thief.

At that point, he forces her to drive to the bank and withdraw all her money. While under the spell of The Thief, Kris is forced to copy down the entire book by hand, probably as a means of keeping her mind busy while The Thief gets some rest at least, that seems to be the most plausible explanation. Apr 5, limited. May 7, Amy Seimetz Kris. Shane Carruth Jeff. Andrew Sensenig The Sampler. Thiago Martins Thief. Kathy Carruth Orchid Mother. Meredith Burke Orchid Daughter. Andreon Watson Peter.

Ashton Miramontes Lucas. Myles McGee Monty. Shane Carruth Director. Shane Carruth Screenwriter. Shane Carruth Producer. Casey Gooden Producer. Ben LeClair Producer. Scott Douglass Executive Producer. Brent Goodman Executive Producer. Shane Carruth Cinematographer. Shane Carruth Film Editor. David Lowery Film Editor. Shane Carruth Original Music.

Thomas Walker Production Design. Kina Bale Casting. View All Critic Reviews Apr 17, Shane Carruth is genetically interlinked to Neil Breen via a pig's orchid maggot-infested brain parasite fantasy projection.

I never anticipated writing anything about this movie, so I will try to keep this short. Carruth has demonstrated in both this and his previous effort Primer that he is sorely lacking in acting chops regardless of his eye behind the camera, and while Upstream Color upstages its predecessor in both color and composition, not even Emmanuel Lubezki could have poetically swooped in and made this an enjoyable experience. Upstream Color has finally shown me what the hell people mean when they say an "art" film is pretentious.

Not even Terrence Malick has tried to pull such a f"art"-fest of disjointed, aimlessly pseudo-intellectual sequences out of his ass.

As the movie stands, it is a counterpoint to Philip K. Dick's "A Scanner Darkly". It posits that there is a hopeful world beyond psychological discombobulation regardless of blue flower chemicals screwing up your perception. The fact that the drugs seem to be mental performance enhancers that lead you to meet the love of your life while leaving you completely susceptible to suggestion could either be interpreted as a plus or a minus, but judging by the performances herein, the overwhelming consensus would be that loving someone is akin to doping up and losing your mind so you can squander whatever is left of your life with a person who mumbles over your stammering banter while you wallow fetal-positioned in the squalor of each other's broken failures.

Damn, that's a pretty accurate take on love now that I think about it. On the other hand, loving someone might seem like divine providence or even destiny in this upside-down world where you share a brain maggot with pigs.

Oh dear God make this providence stop! Not even Godard in all of his drugged out misogynist fantasies could have contrived a more materialistic and pessimistic interpretation of the mechanism of love.

But it's pretty because she hugged the cute little pig at the end. Everyone is unfulfilled in the film. Everyone who watches the film is unfulfilled. Art imitates life. Life imitates art. Here: soft focus on the browned chunks of strawberry pop-tart that I vomited onto the rim of my backed up toilet It's my latest composition I call it "upstream color". K Nife C Super Reviewer.

Aug 03, Officially the weirdest movie i have ever seen. Don't go in thinking you will "get it" on your first viewing, because you won't. Beautiful cinematography and top notch editing make this art house film one to remember, and possibly understand, on further viewings. Peter B Super Reviewer.

Mar 01, Strange, profoundly abstract, and inaccessible on a narrative level, Upstream Color is a hard film to describe, and a chore to analyze. The film revolves around an unlikely couple, who both share a bizarre affliction from an obscure organism. It's a film that is not concerned with coherence, with traditional narrative, or with resolution. Like Tree of Life, it's a film that requires a complete surrender in order to be appreciated.

In that sense, what success Upstream Color achieves is because of your pure immersion in its nebulous and chillingly veiled world. Trying to follow Upstream Color in a narrative sense is a fairly impossible task, especially on its first viewing. This inaccessibility was frustrating, at first, but waned after the film's daring, bold, and spellbinding atmosphere took center stage.