Robin R Probyn Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Robin, are you on the wrong page bra...there is a thread just for the "nose grease"..somewhere... Oh yes thats a whole different site all together.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 I guess the amount of lubrication on your nose depends on how much pressure you are feeling! haha care to mention who the 'greats' are??? thanks for the tip....I like this one! No but really its a good tip .. and can save you from disaster .... the greats were doc dp,s in the UK in 80,s that I assisted .. this was a well known thing back in the day..! the old nose grease trick .. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heikki Repo Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Even if you are only doing your own personal projects as a one man band, I really encourage checking the gate. Nothing is as annoying as getting back your expensive, processed and scanned film just to see that hair dancing around in the frame... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Perera Posted October 9, 2017 Author Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2017 absolutely even more important I would say....its costing me, out of my pocket: 2 x 400ft rolls of Eastman Doble-X incl. shipping Development of the 2 rolls Telecine HD of the 2 rolls Total: £564(also affected by the bad £/€ rate. All from Spain) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Berger Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) Coincidentally, at 3:50 into this video... Edited October 9, 2017 by Samuel Berger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted October 9, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted October 9, 2017 No need to be defensive Tyler, we're all just talking here... You're the one whose insinuated on numerous occasions that I don't know what I'm doing. So if I sound defensive, you know where I'm coming from. So this, I believe, is maybe the most interesting core notion when teaching new people in workshops and defacto film schools etc how to learn quickly to become a small integrated team that paraphrases, and aspires to, the standard practices for what may be called a "narrative" single camera shooting style....though the same protocols apply to non narrative styles that have pricise intentions and technical demands... I do teach my kids the importance of each role. My kids are assigned jobs on each of their student films and they learn each trade as the year goes on from gaffer through AC. I think it's critical to understand what all of the positions mean and how they work together as a team. Why would one avoid that, it's the most interesting thing one could be attracted to, on a social, interactive level with your crewmates....? It's called money Gregg. When ya don't have the money to pay for decent crew, do you just stop production? We had an AC on the last show I shot two weeks ago. I asked for a specific lens, they came back with the wrong one. They went back and forward twice before they gave up and brought the entire box to me. They weren't inept, they knew the camera inside and out, but they didn't know lenses very well. You get what you pay for and here in Hollywood, it's hard to find decent low-pay crew for the smaller projects, which are what most people work on. I think it's worse to have a bad/inept crew, then no crew for these smaller projects. The thing of being a one man band, with no crew support, is sometimes inevitable, but in no way does it deserve it's own glamorized myth. It really depends on what you're making. The freedom of being a director/cinematographer is immense. You can pretty much shoot anywhere you want without a permit for one. Money is spent on the actual product, rather than crew/food/lodging/insurance. There is much more control over the image as well, outside of a lab issue, it's down to you and nobody else. Trust me, if I had the financial means to pay for a good crew, I would. However, they wouldn't be in the camera department, they would be in the lighting department. With film, I vastly prefer to work alone because if someone makes a mistake in the chain somewhere, I can't afford to re-shoot anything. Plus, I know my equipment better than anyone else who will touch it. I wonder if modern human beings are less able to co-operate with and help each other when they begin learning about film...everyone must own a camera and call themselves a cinematographer, but there is no pragmatic requirement for this.. a group of a few people need a camera, discrete roles, skills, integrated behaviour.... It's more like; those people who were shunned away from the profession due to its expense in the past, have found a new home inside the filmmaking community due to the democratization of the process. Digital technology has made everyone capable of making product for seemingly nothing. So there is a lot more accessible talent out there today, but it's hard to find them in the maguire of people who "think" they know something about the film industry. As a consequence of this democratization, people have learned how to be one man bands. They own cameras and they're out making product on their own. I grew up making movies that way because I didn't have anyone to help and I couldn't afford a real crew. So I learned how to do all the jobs, including cleverly mounting audio gear to my waist... which on occasion I still do today. I don't think it has to do with people being less cooperative, it just has to do with this democratization process and technology that doesn't need the support like film has in the past. The reason I own the cameras I own, is because all of them can be manned by one person without any assistance. When I pickup an Arricam, it's so much heavier and complex to use, it almost requires an assistant. One more titbit, I don't think it's fair to judge people because they don't like working in the "standard" practices. I also don't think it's fair to judge people who shoot beautiful images because they somehow don't "qualify" to be a cinematographer for some reason. I have a 15 year old kid in my class who is an amazing cinematographer and honestly all he knows is what he's done on his own with his DSLR. If you've got the eye, if you've got the inherent talent, that's really all you "need". 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Perera Posted October 10, 2017 Author Premium Member Share Posted October 10, 2017 the 'eye' can never be learned...you either have it or not....saying that there are different levels to 'the eye'...depends on who you are addressing with your work.....the 'eye' for a youtube reel to get local companies to give you video ad work is not the same as 'the eye' to get yourself onto the set of a feature film.....technique can be learned, the eye can't....you can mimic...but that only gets you so far 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted September 7, 2022 Share Posted September 7, 2022 On 10/10/2017 at 10:32 PM, Stephen Perera said: the 'eye' can never be learned...you either have it or not....saying that there are different levels to 'the eye'...depends on who you are addressing with your work.....the 'eye' for a youtube reel to get local companies to give you video ad work is not the same as 'the eye' to get yourself onto the set of a feature film.....technique can be learned, the eye can't....you can mimic...but that only gets you so far Stephen, I don't know how I bumped into this old thread.....You are a bit of a philosopher at heart. I like that. The issues of whether our real creative self is hidden and unchangeable, or something else, is very interesting. Looking inward, how deep do we have to go to find the unchanging self? Even a little short of that the "self" is evolving. So the "eye" can be learned, one can become capable of anything. On a lighter note, I totally agree, these deeper facilities, styles of perception that allow the "eye" were not given lightly, but deserved by prior experience and encoded in the DNA. If those that have it can arrive there, become that, then others can too. Gregg. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Perera Posted September 7, 2022 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 7, 2022 5 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said: Stephen, I don't know how I bumped into this old thread.....You are a bit of a philosopher at heart. I like that. The issues of whether our real creative self is hidden and unchangeable, or something else, is very interesting. Looking inward, how deep do we have to go to find the unchanging self? Even a little short of that the "self" is evolving. So the "eye" can be learned, one can become capable of anything. On a lighter note, I totally agree, these deeper facilities, styles of perception that allow the "eye" were not given lightly, but deserved by prior experience and encoded in the DNA. If those that have it can arrive there, become that, then others can too. Gregg. Yes I'm known to bore people philosophising, pondering, questioning......and I do it as a lifelong teetotal to boot....no help of alcohol or substances hahaha just green tea et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now