Just a Thought

[Filip Plesha]

Yea, better

 

My point was, if you are trying to make a point against religious dogmatism, try not to use the same methods of convincing. Not that I'm taking sides in religious discussions here, I'm just saying let's be consistant

[Hal Smith]

Damn Guys! Play nice with each other. If you have a strong political or religious belief - channel all that energy into a movie.

[Filip Plesha]

If you have a strong political or religious belief

 

well I sure don't

[James Steven Beverly]

Man, now this is getting really interesting. I didn't use this in a religous context but a philosphical one. If my arguments arn't enough to persude you then how come my resume' would lend credibility to them? To me this is shallow thinking, If Speilberg told you to do something, whould you follow it blindly without thinking for yourselves? I wouldn't, because he's not me and as great as he is, this is my work not his. If you have no strong religious convictions why take offence to an obviuosly wise statement. Credibility in this instance lies in within the agruments I've made, not what I've done in the past.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Capt.Video

[Josh Bass]

Hey man. . .

 

 

Remember when, like, this thread was about what Spielberg would do if he had to make a movie using only Walmart stuff?

 

Heh heh. . .man. . .that was a long time ago.

 

 

Man.

[Filip Plesha]

If you have no strong religious convictions why take offence

 

Did I take offence?

Edited March 16, 2006 by Filip Plesha

[Rik Andino]

Hey man. . .

Remember when, like, this thread was about what Spielberg would do if he had to make a movie using only Walmart stuff?

 

Heh heh. . .man. . .that was a long time ago.

Man.

 

Yeah it's ridiculous how a couple of idiots and few zealots

Can start an argument from scratch and get us all worked up.

 

Tim should've shut this thread down a long time back....

But this is just too silly to see it end so quickly.

 

 

Thanks for the laughs folks.

[Filip Plesha]

a couple of idiots

 

now that's examplary forum-talk

[Rik Andino]

now that's examplary forum-talk

 

I'll apoligize for the crude and insulting language...

But I couldn't think of anything else to call a group of people

Who incessantantly argued the unarguable.

 

What is good taste and what is bad taste...?

It's a matter of taste who knows--it's personal, there's no answer.

 

Eitherways I didn't name names...so...

 

Anyways carry-on.

[James Steven Beverly]

Did I take offence?

 

I'm sorry, I'm not reffering to you, only those who are taking offence. I find it fasinating how personal this is getting. Some of these comments seem meant to be downright insultive. Is this because you can't think of anything to contribute? I mean if this discussion (because that's what it is) offends you why read it? This is an intellectual debate as to what constiutes art. My goal has been to show art encompasses a wide veriety of pursuits, endevours and occupations to hopefully open up some closed minds allowing them to look at ordinary everyday subjects as potential art, perhaps finding inspiration in such things to use as fodder for their filmmaking endevours. The topic started off asking the hypothetical question, can a gifted individual make an artistic contribution with the most basic of minimal tools availible to him, which of course led to related and transitional questions, the sign of a good debated. Opening one's mind to the possibilities of a question is what writing and filmmaking for that matter are all about.

 

Again if this is such a waste of time, why are you wasteing the time it takes to read and comment on a subject that you feel is of no use to you? The fact is it's an interesting debate. There are at lease 14 other discussions going on the General Discussion heading's first page alone and yet this one has gone on for 8 pages. Someone must be getting something out of it.

[Daniel Sheehy]

If my arguments arn't enough to persude you then how come my resume' would lend credibility to them? To me this is shallow thinking, If Speilberg told you to do something, whould you follow it blindly without thinking for yourselves?...

... Credibility in this instance lies in within the agruments I've made, not what I've done in the past.

 

Your credits aren't about adding credibility to your statements, rather to establish your authority in making such assertions.

That being said, everyone is entitled to any opinion they wish, however we can't all be right.

 

cred·i·bil·i·ty n.

 

1. The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief

 

Truth may or may not lie in your arguments, their credibility comes from you.

[Jonathan Spear]

"""Yeah it's ridiculous how a couple of idiots and few zealots

Can start an argument from scratch and get us all worked up."""

 

We're sorry, your majesty.

 

"""I'll apoligize for the crude and insulting language...

But I couldn't think of anything else to call a group of people

Who incessantantly argued the unarguable."""

 

That's ok, sire. We're none of us perfect.

 

Again, we apologize for "arguing the unarguable" ( :huh: ??).

 

"""What is good taste and what is bad taste...?

It's a matter of taste who knows--it's personal, there's no answer."""

 

Thank you for clarifying that, your majesty. Your generous words

of wisdom are always appreciated.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

The conversation has probably moved on a bit, but reffering back to the original post, I personally think the film would probably be a lot similar to a blockbuster drama, just less glossy.

 

I mean at the end of the day, having access to big expensive lights and cameras will only improve the look of the film, ok they help out with telling the story but there are plenty of films out there that can tell the story just aswell without all the fancy gear.

 

Not just dramas either. I've seen action films turn out great without ANY extra lighting, shot on little DV cameras.

 

I think almost every professional started out with pretty much zilch to work with. Steven Spielberg used to create war films with an 8mm cine camera, the fx consisted of sticks stuck in the ground at and angle so when the actors tread on them a spray or dirt flys into the air. (It actually looked pretty cool)

 

A friend of mine created so stunning shots just using a bunch of supermarket fireworks. Ok not exactly hollywood standard but they worked better than you'd think.

 

 

Watch the 8 Ball trailer on here:

 

http://www.trickshot-films.co.uk/downloads.html#trailers

Edited March 17, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Filip Plesha]

Nobody says you have to use "big" lights, you can make gorgeous cinematography with natural light too, but film is a visual medium, so it's not "all about the story" as people like Lucas like to say, it's also about how the story was toled visually.

 

The visual component of the movie is just like music, you can't say: it doesn't matter what music you put in, it's all about the stories.

well for such a comment I have one word: go to a library and read novels.

 

ok, that's 7 words, but you get the picture

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Nobody says you have to use "big" lights, you can make gorgeous cinematography with natural light too, but film is a visual medium, so it's not "all about the story" as people like Lucas like to say, it's also about how the story was toled visually.

 

The visual component of the movie is just like music, you can't say: it doesn't matter what music you put in, it's all about the stories.

well for such a comment I have one word: go to a library and read novels.

 

ok, that's 7 words, but you get the picture

 

I'm not saying that the cinematography does not matter, I mean where would Star Wars lye without all the cinematography and SFX. I mean they practically made half of it.

 

But, what I am saying is that you can still create a pretty awesome looking film, with tools from the garage and a few supplies from the market.

 

So many people are always feel bogged down in film because they can't afford nice lighting kits or studios. Be nice to see more effort going into the composition of these shots. Exactly why I really like some of Mike Leighs films. (Secrets & Lies, so basic, but so powerfull)

 

In my next project (god knows when it will be) the only lighting I'm using is natural, along with some bouncers. (Mainly because I can't afford good lights, kind of a cop-out statement...)

 

 

 

(Also just using a Canon 350i, but deinterlace in post)

Edited March 17, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Mullen ASC]

Big lights aren't absolutely necessary. They help you light big spaces, of course, that don't have available light (a field in the middle of the countryside at night, for example). They give you the flexibility of extending daylight shooting in an interior with lots of windows.

 

In fact, that's the main reason small shoots often still rent big lights -- they have short schedules so they are cramming a lot of work into each day and don't have the luxury of calling wrap when they run out of light, yet they have to maintain some sort of continuity if the scene started out in daylight. And real daylight is constantly changing, so if you have a long scene shot over many hours that needs to look like it's taking place in real time, then lighting helps minimize the changes of natural light throughout the day.

 

The other thing big lights give you is the ability to create the effect of a big natural source, obviously, like sunlight shining in a big window.

 

But in terms of creating beautiful photography, no, big lights are not a requirement. But story drives every decision (and budget of course) and the story doesn't always let you take advantage of what is naturally there -- it may have its own lighting requirements. So one good idea is to create a story that allows you to use whatever happens naturally on the locations.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Yeh that's a good point David and I 100% agree. (Although when I said 'big' expensive lights, I more or less meant pro film lights. i.e. arri red heads e.t.c. Need to work on my social skills on the net)

[Filip Plesha]

Yeh that's a good point David and I 100% agree. (Although when I said 'big' expensive lights, I more or less meant pro film lights. i.e. arri red heads e.t.c. Need to work on my social skills on the net)

 

 

I get the feeling that you are the one who worries about not having pro lights.

Pro lights are all about professionalism of the work, about speed, security, versatility, possibilities in changing the quality of the beam etc. But really, if you can recreate what you are after with garden lights (if they give you enough light) and bed sheets, you can do it, and probably nobody could tell what you were using when the look at the print. But it's not about that. It's about a professional level of work: fast, easy, reliable.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I get the feeling that you are the one who worries about not having pro lights.

Pro lights are all about professionalism of the work, about speed, security, versatility, possibilities in changing the quality of the beam etc. But really, if you can recreate what you are after with garden lights (if they give you enough light) and bed sheets, you can do it, and probably nobody could tell what you were using when the look at the print. But it's not about that. It's about a professional level of work: fast, easy, reliable.

Having a studio with an open top section to stick lights through is my biggest priority. I own a few garden flood lights, 150watt tungsten (looking to get bigger ones) that I fixed plugs onto, somehow hiding them in the set, and then controlling the light is a proper sod. (Considering the set is my usually my kitchen, my mum don't think much of me removing the ceiling to stick 1000watt lights through it..)

 

If I had an open top set to put lights through, I could just have 2/3 or 4 500watt floods creating the fill, and I could probably strap some makeshift barndoors on the more detailed lights. But when I have to hide them in a confined space, the makeshift barndoors cause a problem on their own.

 

But then again.... I can only dream about being in charge of that kind of a set. I'll do it one day, when I get some money together and some time off. Already got access to a cheap location to build pretty big sets.

 

For now, all I'm really using the 150watt lights for is for bouncing a bit more light to create either a bit more fill or a little more light on the subjects face or something. Never actually using them as a full on 'spot light', because of shadows.

 

 

 

So I think when it comes down to superficially lighting sets I think getting a good location is more important than using pro lights. However... pro-lights do have certain advantages. (For £195 extra I should hope they do)

Edited March 17, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[James Steven Beverly]

Your credits aren't about adding credibility to your statements, rather to establish your authority in making such assertions.

That being said, everyone is entitled to any opinion they wish, however we can't all be right.

 

cred·i·bil·i·ty n.

 

1. The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief

 

Truth may or may not lie in your arguments, their credibility comes from you.

 

So you would rather accept what I say on blind faith because of who I am that research these issues on your own and come up with your own answers based on your own beliefs. Why not accept what the president says because he's the president . After all, he knows more about government than you do, right? Originality starts by thinkng for yourself.

 

Setting that aside, with the issues of lighting. We have in our midst the kind of person Spielberg might hire. Divid, in your opinion, could you do a professional job of lighting using only what is availible in a Walmart store?

 

My opinion is of course it can be done. The screen play whould have to take place outside and refectors and bead board would be the primary lighting sources. There should be the right fabric and matierials nessesary to make flags and scrims and maybe in the sporting goods dept, netting that would work. The camera dept should have light meters. If the story were written to take into account all the technical restrictions that would be impossed on it, it is doable.

 

Also on the question of big lights, what about fabricating banks of halligens, like the molefays a bank of 12 or 16 lights should but out quite a lot of light

Edited March 17, 2006 by Capt.Video

[James Steven Beverly]

David, sorry about misspelling your name dude, long night.

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble is that for all the talk of being able to shoot a movie with tiny lights or no lights, just available light, you run into situations like a big day interior (which you only have access to for one day) with lots of windows, plenty of natural light -- but your actor shows up two hours late and you realize that you'll be shooting the second half of your coverage after the sun has gone down. Do you tell the producer & director "hey, I warned you in prep that we have to shoot while there is enough light, so let's go home now that it's dark"? Or you might find yourself doing things you wanted to avoid, like pushing the film two stops and shooting wide-open for half the shots... And then the audience sees the final movie and thinks you must be incompetent to mis-expose a simple day interior scene!

[James Steven Beverly]

I'm sitting here laughing my head off . It's enough to drive you nuts... ACTORS! I really love 'em but sometimes if I had a gun on me I coulda shot some of them for the things they did. They always seem to pick the worse possible time to screw up it's like some kind of idiot sevaunt gift or something.

[Brad Grimmett]

Your credits aren't about adding credibility to your statements, rather to establish your authority in making such assertions.

 

cred·i·bil·i·ty n.

 

1. The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief

 

Truth may or may not lie in your arguments, their credibility comes from you.

In this particular case, credibility and authority are unproven and the arguments are poorly formed and circular. It's tough to make a convincing argument when you've put yourself in that position to begin with. Making religious references involving moving mountains probably doesn't help either, unless you can prove it.

[Filip Plesha]

I never really understood this thing about credibility in such discussions.

 

Credibility is good if you are talking about things that require trust, like some piece of personal information, or something you'd use in police investigation.

But these are either technical or philosophical discussion, and have really nothing to do with credibility.

 

If someone gives you some technical information, you really don't need him to have credibility to know if its true or not. You can easily verify it on the internet or books, or wait to see if someone with more knowledge would respond in the same thread. Usually unacurate information is debunked within 5 posts.

 

And when it comes to thinks like philosophy, well there the logic is the imperative, and really either something makes sense or doesn't based on logic, it has even less to do with the person who says it.

 

The most credible people on this forum are John Pytlak and David Mullen, yet when they say something

it is either true or not, and you can verify that by searching for information yourself. The only think that their credibility helps for is that you can lay of the doubt and save yourself the trouble of backchecking the things they say. Same goes for people with lower credibility, like Captain here or other people with no names, or false names. In a logical discussion you can instantly decide wheather something makes sense or not by using your own logic, and when it comes to information, you can check it or wait for someone to debunk it.

 

In a real debate, the debaters can only influence the course of the discussion with arguments, what kind of tie they ware or where they have studied or worked really should have no influence whatsoever

but of course, nobody can halp but to be influenced by such things, and it's a normal reaction for humans, but I don't think we should openly take that as a standard in discussions