Jump to content

K Borowski

Basic Member
  • Posts

    3,890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by K Borowski

  1. No comment on fleshtones as they relate to a film's sales, but I do have to say that the flesh tones I saw in the trailer had an obscenely digital look to them. I really hate to sound off like a broken record on this over and over again, but why on Earth would anyone with money make an historical film on anything *other* than 35mm negative??? :blink: As far as a black cast, it goes both ways. "Death at a Funeral," the 2009 remake, was made because apparantly a black audience in the US is incapable of understanding British accents? How is it somehow OK to be racist towards one's own race when deciding a foreign film will have to be remade to get favorable turnout from US Black viewers, but not to allow the opposite? I recall there was some controversy about "Couples' Retreat" marketing, where a black actor was edited out of European publicity posters.
  2. Phil: Notice I am not attacking either of them for not shooting film, rather for portraying themselves as "big industry shakers, movers. You? I know where you come from. You are NEGATIVE, CRITICAL, but you are an equal opportunity critic. You attack 35mm film all the time, usually 16mm as that's what you had a personal failure ("experience") with. For all of your technical know-how when it comes to the programming and use of computers and software, it still surprises me that a mechanical marvel like a 16mm film camera would trip you, your production up, but I digress. You can say whatever negative things you want about Eastman Kodak and I will usually let your comments be because your comments have a basis in reality, in fact. Anecdotal accounts gleamed from industry magazines, which in themselves are gleamed from intentionally deceptive press releases are not reliable sources of information. As such, they really have no place here. Similarly, still photography, especially B&W sheet-film still photography is not something that should be somehow used to justify the use of motion picture film. You notice I am not on here gloating about how much 35mm film I shoot every year either. I provide a niche, specialized service that, hopefully, augments the use of 35mm, 16mm film in motion picture cameras. I have never said, nor pretended to be a leading Hollywood Cinematographer, a major stockholder, or the inventor of color film. But I am sure you can tell that I know what I am talking about. As such, I think one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, nor take what I say with a grain of salt solely because I am brutally blunt, honest, etc. Would you rather work with someone who is nice to talk to on the phone but a major pr*ck to work under on the set? I am as blunt in a post as I am on the set, in the lab. A lot of people tend to take this personally, probably due to insecurity, and therefore brand me as "venomous." I'd prefer that people learn the hard lessons of life here, where there is really no risk of death, poverty, bankruptcy, etc., than in the harsh, cold world of the stock market or film production. I guess the lesson I'm trying to keep everyone mindful of is "If Wishes Were Horses." Wanting to accomplish something is often very very different than actually accomplishing it. On a positive note, Kodak is currently up 1/16 today (that's $0.06 for those of you who don't still trade stocks in fractions in your head.) I found a very interesting article, Phil, that I think you alluded to earlier, that this hasn't been coming merely for the past five years, the past twelve years, but rather almost the past THIRTY YEARS, and they really have no-one to blame for their predicament but themselves. For those of you too young to remember, the term "video" or "electronic" was 1980s speak for "digital. . ." Embattled Kodak Enters the Electronic Age [1983 - Forbes Article] Personally, I had had no idea the writing had been on the wall for that length of time. To put things in historical perspective, in 1983, the Eastman Kodak company was still reeling (pun intended) from having almost completely lost the Video News Film market (stocks that they kept in production, regardless, until 2004). They had just lost the bulk of the home movie market, and they were in fear that production of 35mm dramatic content would rapidly shift next. Note the article almost prophetically refers to the inroads that video had already made into the still photography markets and the "Sony Mavica" the first digital camera, that was already being used to produce content for Japanese newspapers at that time. The article says that a "sufficient replacement for [35mm still] film is 'at least 10 years away [1993]'" In reality, the Kodak DCS digital camera system was already on the market in 1990, at a staggering $20,000 ($40,000 in today's USD). It'd take about 9 more years for 35mm film to be completely supplanted by DSLRs, and it has taken another 13+ years for 35mm motion picture film to be supplanted by HD cinema. I would say Kodak, at this point has at most another 4-1/2 years left. That doesn't give me any pleasure, but I think those of us who enjoy working with 35mm film need to understand that our dreams can't lie around on a shelf for an eighth of a century without consequence. We've had a quarter century, already, past what this 1983 article gave Kodak. That is a pretty damned good run, and I am not ashamed to go down with the ship. If those of you on here wish to keep working with motion picture production in the future, you can either choose to die honorably as I have done, or you can choose to swallow your pride now and adapt. Eastman Kodak's bankruptcy signals the demise of 35mm film as a whole. Even if FujiFilm continues to manufacture it, I am sure my dream about price increases isn't too far-fetched. Maybe it won't be 9%, but when a company enters into a situation where it has a veritable monopoly on 35mm negative film, there is sure to be a board meeting where it decides to increase the price of all its products, eliminate any innovation, improvement. Maybe FujiFilm will continue (in futility) to compete against HD acquisition, but as you've already pointed out, Phil, 35mm simply cannot compete on price. It'd be as if BMW suddenly tried to compete against the Honda Civic on price. It cannot be done, producing such a high-quality product for such a low price.
  3. @Keith Fine, you don't want to be a neg. cutter. Don't play yourself off as someone who is qualified to talk about that job then!!! If either of you want to take my anger personally, that is entirely up to you. I can't think of a way of non-passionately pointing out that neither of you have ANY position to either save or destroy the use of 35mm color photographic film in television or motion picture production. Yet you generate content on here again and again as if you were Kodak's number one customer last year! What incredible arrogance! If either of you make further "contributions" that are devoid of any basis in reality or fact, I will continue to call you out for not being in the real world. I think you are doing all young filmmakers a huge disservice by telling them they can continue to rely on Kodak's existence in the future. Have you ever considered that an 18-y.o. filmmaker may have no idea whether a name on the internet is credible or non-credible? @Jason: I am not attacking your ability to be a hobbyist, enthusiast, student, advancecd amateur. Just pointing out that hobbyists, at this point, are not the ones keeping film in production. Back in the mid-20th century, amateur 8- and 16mm filmmaking used more volume of film than all professional production put together. In 2012, 35mm film production for theatrical film distribution and film, television production, produces the bulk of film sales that Kodak, Fuji, Agfa-Geveart generate. Wanting to shoot some obscure format of sheet film for years and years do not help these companies stay in business. When I hear anyone, absolutely anyone talk about Polaroid, as you did, I ask them: "Oh, so you are a fan of instant film, good! How many boxes have you shot since those investors bought the Polaroid factory in Europe? Oh, you haven't bought any? Then what *qualifies* you to speak about it, one way or the other?" "How can you possibly presume to say that there is a market for this material when customer after customer of that company have had nothing but bad things to say about it, and the Fuji instant materials, which were licensed by Polaroid, continue to remain in production for half the price without any of the technical defects?" [*I continue to use instant film for lighting tests, quick hardcopy in my work.] I welcome opinions, but when people spout off nonsense on here that has no basis in reality, it tends to make those of us that work with film, and experience all of its hassles every day, ANGRY that yet another generation is being brought up to think of photographic film as some sort of magic, perfect medium. The "magic" that you are experiencing is specialized human labor and skill that film manufacturers have been pretending is a characteristic of their raw, unexposed product since the dawn of the film industry. I assure you, if you take a $10 sheet of 8x10" film, put it in a camera, and underexpose it 3-1/3 stops, no amount of "magic" in the emulsion will make for an award-winning image. Rather, repeated trial-and-error use of this material is the only thing that is ever going to place a "magical" image on it. There is nothing "magic" about film, the companies that make it, or the people that are willing to be their shareholders. Just for the record, how many shares of EK do you own, Jason? What about you Keith? Ah, I see, you own NO shares, have NO say in what, how these companies make, price their products, but you are going to get on here and tell us all why Eastman Kodak company *has to* survive? Because you want it to, without contributing a cent, either as a customer or as a shareholder to said company? Please, both of you, quit playing off anecdotal information for fact. I am going to get back to work now, and I am sure that both of you will contribute another 5-6 responses each, trying to refute what I say, or use my anger as somehow being proof that I am wrong. I'm not writing a technical dissertation here, and as I freely admit my future is tied to the future of the Eastman Kodak company and the affordable availability of photosensitized panchromatic color silver-halide materials in general, that I am going to become violently angry at anyone who wryly, sarcastically quips about some anecdotal account as being somehow proof of anything outside of their own minds. In plain, simple English: It's easy to write a critique, it's hard to waltz out onto the stage, in front of the camera, onto the assembly line and do a better job of it yourselves! Please don't presume to think that because you can critique something that that somehow qualifies you to do a better job at it yourselves! To put it another way, *watching* a movie doesn't qualify you to *make* movies. There are probably at least a million young men worldwide who would be infinitely better off if they had someone teach them this lesson. Being a "film fan" is just as harmful to remaining 35mm production as being a "digital fanboy." Neither of these groups has any concept of the actual technical, logistical hurdles on the set. You instead latch onto marketing materials generated by the Eastman Kodak Company, the Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, Sony, Canon, RED, Arri, etc., and then have the audacity to volunteer your time, energy, efforts into distributing free marketing for them! Notice that, while I am an acknowledged fan of photosensitized emulsions, I am among the MOST CRITICAL of the limitations of the media produced by Fujifilm, Eastman Kodak.
  4. EDIT: (Sorry, tried to add a quick reply, got so carried-away that I ran out of time to submit it before my prior posting was finalized. . .) @Vincent From the article: "After we shot the ultimate low light test on the Canon C300 we had some whisky and talked about a wide range of things related to filmmaking. Here is a compressed list of topics we cover in the video: [. . .]" You're placing your faith in the after-work, inebriated conversation of an unpaid blogger and a severely sleep-deprived industry professional? How many of the great photographers, cinematographers that you are a fan of, did what they did as a hobby? How many did what they did to earn a living? The challenge of not only being the best at what you do, but producing something that the paying public, decision makers can *see as the best* is what makes a Hollywood Cinematographer great. Notice I am loosely paraphrasing from "A League of Their Own: 'It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great.'" The end of skill in an occupation will mean the end of above-poverty wages for said occupation. . . This blogger is trying very hard to make it out that if only everyone could scrounge up $[XX],000 dollars from whoever brings home the bacon in the family, that they could all be famous Hollywood Filmmakers. They [whoever paid the $5 to so-and-so to 'write' this article, doesn't want the target audience, digital fanboys to stop and think about what really goes into making a multi-million dollar motion picture. (Hint: The biggest component of any budget is LABOR not state-of-the-art direct-from-Japan equipment.) Sorry to be blunt; I just get an overwhelming feeling of nausea when I witness anyone worshiping a camera, piece of equipment, company, no matter how impressive, old, revered, famous, industry-dominant said company is.
  5. @Vincent From the article: "After we shot the ultimate low light test on the Canon C300 we had some whisky and talked about a wide range of things related to filmmaking. Here is a compressed list of topics we cover in the video: [. . .]" You're placing your faith in the after-work, inebriated conversation of an unpaid blogger and a severely sleep-deprived industry professional? How many of the great photographers, cinematographers that you are a fan of, did what they did as a hobby? How many did what they did to earn a living? The challenge of not only being the best at what you do, but producing something that the paying public, decision makers can *see as the best* is what makes a Hollywood Cinematographer great. Notice I am loosely paraphrasing from "A League of Their Own." The end of skill in an occupation will mean the end of above-poverty wages for said occupation. . .
  6. It's nice that "12 on, 12 off," clauses and protections are lucky enough to be championed by some of the trade guilds and unions, but not others. To put it another way, how many more ACs, DPs, and craftsmen and -women need to die needlessly in late-night car-wrecks, before we are similarly protected by tougher contracts and higher penalties for our ungodly schedules? Sorry, I digress. What possible financial incentive would someone have to obtain as a cinematographer (probably for minimum wage) if there were no longer any need to light a set, budget for a certain amount of lighting equipment, crew? That's not a rhetorical question. Without the lighting, cinematography devolves into the same roll as that of a television news cameraman. How could someone earn a living wage by merely hand-holding a $20,000 camera steadily without dropping it? Cinematography has never been the science of merely pointing a camera at an interesting subject and then obtaining technically-pleasing footage of said subject-matter; it has always been the very challenging field of obtaining a decent exposure whilst simultaneously simulating the light of the fictional world, simulated night time, artificial lighting and a wide variety of multiple other simulated lighting effects that are motivated by something "happening off-camera" in the fictional world you are conveying to the viewer? Crank up the ISO to 20,000 and just wing it? Time to stop paying your dues and take the fallback position in IT. I know Stanley Kubrick wouldn't be a fan of this technology even with F/0.7 spy spy satellite lenses, double-wicked candles, and the light of the moon by which to light. These speeds have been (very famously) available in the world of DSLRs for almost 5 years now. Have any compelling images emerged [in the past 5 years] which are any more emotionally engaging than those obtained with 35mm film for the prior 115?
  7. Jason, Keith: Please do all the pros here a favor and don't post about things you are fond of but contribute *nothing* towards, in terms of your professions, artistic/technical contributions. . . It is like you are cheering on a man being led to his execution for a crime he didn't commit. "We all support your freedom!" you yell, while eagerly looking about to make sure no-one witnesses your uttering these statements. Let me put it another way: What do you think, that shooting "a few sheets of 8x10 Tri-X 320 and processing it with HC110 dilution H, or some 35mm TMax 3200, or some 16mm b&w like I've been wanting to do for years now[,]" helps EK pay its bills and maintain a price on NYSE above $1US/share? I assure you, "wanting" [. . .to shoot film. . .] "for years now," only reaffirms the press's notions that AgX photographic film is a dinosaur unworthy of investment rather than a viable technology for the production of television and motion picture content. Do executives, Institutional Investors, daytraders really want to buy 1,000 shares of EK common stock when consumers are writing ignorance like this, to justify this 131-y.o., former blue-chip company's continued for-profit existence??? This is supposed to be a community full of Kodak supporters, and that is, honest to God, the best you can do, *want* to shoot film, really?!?!?! :unsure: Why don't you just let Kodak roll over and die instead of attaching your worthless hobbyist, former career, flights of fancy to the fortunes of a REAL COMPANY whose employees have to earn a decent yearly income, & pay bills, not run on faith, hope, empty promises, fond memories of a bygone era? I get violently, fervently, ANGRY, seeing unqualified hacks such as yourselves mingling among DPs, producers, directors, industry professionals, and ACs as if anything you say should be regarded with any relevance. Should I buy 1,000 shares of EK on Monday because you have *WANTED* to buy 8x10" sheet film for a "couple of years now?" You are, Jason, a frustration, a middleman, someone who plays one's-self off as a "decision maker" but really just hinders the actual production of any film content because you pretend to be someone important while your wife/girlfriend works the 9-5 job and has to sign the checks for all of your "blockbusters." What is your day job, working at Home Depot, working as a short-order cook at a downtown diner? I am going to go into work tomorrow and do something to [albeit minimally] support the Eastman Kodak company. I am going to use its chemistry, film stock, color print film, and color control strip parameters; you are going to add some more irrelevant posts here, and up the "signal-to-noise ratio" that does nothing but confuse newcomers to the world of dramatic filmmaking as to the viability of silver-halide products and expenses. If an industry has a far higher amount of hobbyists, wanna-bes, and fakes, do you think that *raises* or *lowers* the cost of a 35mm production? I guarantee you if you have to call 250 phone numbers and you have to figure out which 125 of them are full of __it, you have just doubled the cost of recruiting talent for your movie. . . I had a dream last night that Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, on news of EK's bankruptcy, raised all of their prices by 9%. Where do you think a 9% hit to the cost of consumables on a big-budget Hollywood motion picture is going to need to be re-balanced by the production accountant? I guarantee you the number of interns on a 35mm film shoot is going to double if this happens! Either that or one whole hell of a lot more productions are going to drop 16-, & 35mm and switch to HD, including the likes of "Mad Men," "30 Rock," "2-1/2 Men," "CSI," and a whole host of others. WIll either of you get off of your soap boxes and volunteer your time, travel to the United States to shore up the budget deficits that are going to have to be addressed come springtime? Maybe we can use some Eastman Kodak-esque "creative accounting" to hide the 9% price increase on consumables until the completion bond agencies, insurance companies call our bluffs and stop paying the bills. . . Seriously, pass a math class before appealing to a rational producer's sense of nostalgia. Also, unless EK is paying you to repeat their tired, old, cliche propaganda magazine articles, you shouldn't repeat or trust any of them unless you have first-hand knowledge of industry attitudes, trends, and dissenting opinion before you repeat them here as fact. -Take Care
  8. By the way, I heard someone saying that revenues were the worst they'd been in 25 years, not 16. Either exaggeration, or a different measure used? Anyone on here know for certain?
  9. What Ari said: The School of Life™ is where you need to be. At the same time, I wouldn't invest money in expensive equipment. I'd look to intern first and find work under another experienced colorist. Unless you're a savant, this sort of skill doesn't come overnight. Developing a good eye for color correction takes years of application.
  10. @Brian: :-D So, wait, was "Western Front" a talkie? Forgot about "Wings," the Howard Hughes film. There's just a lot of people that look down their noses at B&W film, and if it don't have sound, fuggedaboutit :-/ (Idiots) I was watching "Young Frankenstein" on Starz in HD the other day and it was 100 times better than the attempts I see made to "simulate" it today. This film, Schindler's List, and Ed Wood, probably all got hurt at the box office for it too.
  11. You must have seen the little tongue-sticker-outer emoticon at the end; you quoted it! I'm not trying to one-up, you, David, or anyone else who's posted here thusfar. I think some of the remarks so hypercritical about daylight exteriors are nitpicking. Then again, maybe some of you really DO have that good an eye to tell what's used as a fill light by the out-of-focus specular highlights on a horse's face in a closeup. . . What I WAS trying to say about WWI movies and Wikipedia is that a lot of them were silent, early sound, nitrate movies that aren't likely to be available on your nearest bit-torrent or other illegal movie piracy site (did I mention I threatened to hit a family member with a pipe for using one of said sites, knowing full well my own dependence on this industry for a portion of my livelihood?) As such, if they don't exist in compressed, easily ripped-off digital form, it's as if they never existed. Want to say the movie is "All Quiet on the Western Front," the silent classic about trench warfare made almost concurrently to the First World War, maybe just a couple years after, this film was no doubt one of the best and most well remembered, of many other movies that have fallen by the wayside, deteriorated, self-combusted, or been used as fuel in a studio bonfire. As such, I was playfully suggesting that Wikipedia may be ignorant of the high casualties, probably comparable to those suffered due to the passage of time on actual WWI veterans, of early-era B&W WWI movies. At the same time, Brian, that was your THIRD Wiki quote in the thread. I tend to take threads on that site, outside of computer programming, science fiction movies & television, and current events with a grain of salt.
  12. Sorry, I was pulling you leg, not being serious. I assume(d) you were lumping both of the World Wars together. I can't see much of a difference between the styles used, say, in WWI versus WWII. One other movie set during WWI was "A Little Princess" from 1995. There, the book was originally published before that time period, forget which war it was originally set in. Good to see a similar treatment not given to this movie, just so the lowest common denominator in the audience doesn't scratch his head. @ Brian: I'm sure there aren't as many WWI movies as WWII, but WIkipedia? You know that if it isn't on the internet, it doesn't exist as far as that site is concerned, right? :P Speaking of Wikipedia, the film I referred to earlier was "The Blue Max" with Jeremy Kemp, not "Captain Picard's Brother. . . " Thinking about it, we're coming up on the 100 Year Anniversary of WWI already, so maybe there will actually be an uptick in films. I think it's really cheesy releasing period content at evenly-spaced yearly intervals like this, but I enjoyed the content in this film, so I would like to see more. Maybe that's what you're involved in Stephen, a play for the 100 year mark. As far as daylight exteriors, the only one that stuck out was the deliberate filtration (or digital tinkering) with the closing shots at the end of the film. Maybe I should have watched the movie upside-down, in reverse, and in slow motion to generate as many nitpicks of the photography. God, there must be ice water flowing through some of your veins! :D Since the sun is the key light in most daylight photography, I find it quite difficult to pick it apart as compared with, say indoor or nighttime exterior shots. I can tell when there are multiple lights off of reflective objects, actors eyes, or when there's heavy-handed fill light, obvious stuff like in CSI Miami, but I'd have a really hard time calling out a specific light used for fill in a closeup.
  13. What I meant was the large numbers of films showing up on anniversaries playing to nostalgia. Of course not just hte veterans will go, but how many people here are sons, daughters, grandsons grandaughters, great-grandsons, great-grandaughters. . . I'v e really noticed a tapering-off of WWII movies, though. It's surprising to see anything set in WWI. I think all the principals are now long dead. Maybe we'll see something at the 100-year mark (then again, maybe we're close enough now to fall into that category, this film being the beginning of a streak?)
  14. Depends on what COLOR the laser is. Are you talking a out shining it throught the lens? Haven't you seen the very cliched shot on TV, movies of searchers shining flashlights into the lens of a camera? If it's UV, blue, green, or red light, it'll show up on panchromatic film. If it's not it will not show up.
  15. What does everyone expect a movie in 2011 about WWI to look like? :P I'm sure there have been several since then, but the last big WWI movie I can think of is "Paths of Glory," well at least by name, there's that movie in the '60s with "Captain Picard's brother" playing one of the pilots too, think it's about the Red Baron? (Sorry, that's quite vague). In seriousness, I had thought the genre had died out in the '60s. The WWII genre is tapering off as well. There's something blatant and commercial playing to anniversary dates. Now that all the veterans are dying off, there's no one to sell to. I"m a big fan of military history, but boy there were a lot of seniors in the theatre! I thought the movie was very gripping, so much so I didn't really pick apart any of the setups (frankly, a welcome relief from most movies that are so cookie-cutter my mind wanders to things like lighting setups, lenses, filtration, costumes, bloopers. . .) I'd probably be angered if I read the book upon which it's based or the stage play (boy, getting a horse that big on any stage outside of New York, Chicago, or the equivalent sounds precarious), but not having done so, and the implausibility aside, I thought it was a very gripping movie. There were a couple of scenes that made me cringe, and to think, the movie did it without the prodigious amounts of blood and gore as in "Saving Private Ryan," is impressive. I bet the play and book wouldn't have had the "Hollywood ending" though. Don't want to ruin it, I give it four frames of four-perf 35mm out of five ;-)
  16. This. Reading this post at first, I thought it was a trick question! It's easy to blow out a *blue sky* Film's latitude isn't infinite! Then there's getting what's on the negative onto the print, where you lose even further detail. IDK if foregoing a bleach bypass (which increases contrast and therefore lowers latitude) would have saved the sky in this particular setting. I don't think the production crew *wanted* pretty clouds in the sky for this particular film, do you? Please search on this movie. Dozens of people, including myself, have asked questions on this movie going back a decade. All the information youwant on the look of this movie can be found with a simple search. ( site:cinematography.com Private Ryan on Google would be a good start).
  17. It certainly doesn't help having quality that is, at best 10% better than what a 1080P set can display with an HD signal. Compare to the late '90s, when it was VHS versus 35mm contact prints. Now the quality (2K or digital) is horrible. I don't think fans care about any of this, but I definitely think they're left with a bad taste in their mouths forking out money for a "Premium Experience" only to find they've been duped into paying for what amounts to just an oversized screen. I remember back in '07 being stuck in the front row of one of these "premium sized screens" - fortunately not one that charged more - they should have paid me. I'd imagine someone who goes to see the new IMAX screen at Cranberry Hills PA and finds out that the 70mm 15-perforation IMAX projector has been torn out will have a similarly bad taste in their mouth. 3D sales are (predictably is understatement, as it has happened *thrice* before) tanking. From a business standpoint, a theatre shouldn't maximize profit unless it is convinced the end is near. If you expect your customers to stop coming no matter what, it's good to max out prices while they are coming, otherwise it's suicide. Anyway, I'm sorry, I can't lament 2K projection dying. There's absolutely nothing remarkable about it. 3D 1.4K projection gives me less than what I can expect at home. Why go to a digital theatre at all? (Or a 2K 35mm DI, which, in most cases except SCOPE prints, is worse than 2K Digital projection?) I'm sorry, I just don't get it. . . Is the EXPERIENCE now just the overpriced concessions, admission, and the sticky seats, twittering neighbors? The Nolan/Pfister crew is fighting a losing battle to bring back the showmanship, against all major US Cinemas, the IMAX corporation itself, Studios who don't want prints, or theatrical distribution itself because it is a loss-leader most of the time.
  18. Not sure if you are in some sort of hurry, this is for a class question, or what, but I really see no reason with this question in particular, to post it multiple places. It's a question about heads, not a stock you might have underexposed, some sort of horrible mishap, a shoot in 2 hours, etc. Please follow proper courtesy and the etiquette here of not posting the same question all over the place. It clutters the place up and basically asks people to answer the same question in different spots (think about it). Thanks.
  19. Throw a dozen eggs at the projection window, then go get your money back!
  20. Jayanth: Sorry, I just realized you were a student, which I didn't notice when I first posted. In optical printing, a Bell and Howell printer point is 0.025 color units. 0.30 in each color (red green and blue) is the same as a change of one F/stop with a gamma (contrast) of 1.0. However, because ALL negative films have a lower contrast than the real world (1.0 is a one to one reproduction of the contrast in nature), the LOWER the gamma, the smaller the amount of difference between a stop on the negative. If you multiply the gamma of the film by 0.30, and then divide by 0.025 (B&H points) that gives you B&H units per stop, so you can visualize the flatness as a fraction over 12. So the low con 400T would be 5 B&H points per stop over 12 compared to 6 or 7 over 12. Comparatively, there's almost no difference between 250D and 500T, less than one B&H unit. It'd be hard to see. In any case, I always wonder what ever happens with these student posts we give advice on. Please let us know how things turn out and what you decided to do :-) Thanks!
  21. Sorry, but it's unseasonably warm in this part of the states 45°Fahr./7°Cels. For Christmas not a bit of snow (wish there were some, though I don't mind the unseasonable warmness). I hate to admit that I'm really liking global warming this year :-) & hey, Keith, howabout some distance conversions. What's a meter but a gauge to measure decimal inches and feet with? :P Adrian: You're making poor Patrick Stewart regret ever taking that silly Sci Fi role! ;-) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year for those of you non-Polocks. or Wesolych Swiat Bozego Narodzenia i Szczesliwego Nowego Roku!
  22. This goes above and beyond. You realize that a camera is marginally worse than 8mm right, like regular 8, not super. Do you have an iPhone 4 that you use with "clients?" Does Siri or whatever her name is call out T-stops and focal distances for you too? I mean, knock of the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. You can't expect with the grandiose claims, any serious film or digital shooter to take this seriously, can you? & @Andrew: I don't want you to think I'm bragging about having phone numbers. If/when you join a lot of the guilds/unions, you get a directory. You can call anyone you want in it (although not all people listed have phone numbers personally, some have agents). Anyway, my point is, just because you have contact with big-name people doesn't mean you get to work with them. There isn't all the corruption cronyism that people outisde of the establishment talk about, it's simple matter of work relationships built over decades. Would you rather hire the operator, motion picture camera you used on your last 20 features or some kid who just bought a RED? One thing Bills says is right: It's not the equipment (unless it's an iPhone4 wind up 8mm/16mm or another marginal camera that simply can't cut it for practical budgeted motion picture work), it's the skill of the operator. And certainly who you know is as big or bigger a part of it as what you know. It's been said before and it'll probably be said 100,000 times after, but no one on here wants to listen: WIth very few exceptions, it's cheaper to RENT than OWN. DO NOT BUY CAMERAS BECAUSE 99x out of 100 THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES, INSTEAD YOU'LL LOSE YOUR SHIRT. I say this in all bold because it is amazing to me how many equimpent purchases I've seen that have bankrupted businesses. The equipment I own I bought used, and it paid for itself easily, but it certainly can't do everything. The specialized equipment I need shooting I rent, and that's not a problem. Only if you're some sort of journalist, or doc. filmmaker do you need to own an outfit. Really, anyone that is trying to sell you business, or says you need to own equipment is basically trying to make themselves rich by potentially ruining you. All the big promises you see, why are they keyed to feelings instead of stats, facts? It's like owning a Corvette. Does the salesman tell you all the reasons why you NEED to have one instead of a Chevy Cavalier or does he play to your feelings of owning a status symbol? I guarantee you the latter vehicle will get you from point A to point B just as quickly (unless on a racetrack) as the former. So, a Merry Christmas to aspiring filmmakers, and if you still want to buy equipment even after my warning "Let the Buyer Beware!"
  23. This one phrase makes me really freakin' angry. Who are you, Jesus? Shoot what you want. But just as I get flack for "dust and grain" in my imagery (most of the time it's not noticed, but anyone I *tell* I shoot film all of a sudden sees it everywhere, even where it isn't, be prepared to get critiqued for blown highlights, horrible colors, and horrible flesh-tones. Difference is, with digital, the problems are really there. With film the only problem, really, is cost. People want everything for free. So keep on laughing it up, bragging to your friends about how you haven't had to pay for film since 1999, and ignore the cost of equipment depreciation and the damage you've done to the environment filling up landfills with heavy metals and scrap cameras. This is another big irk of mine "all the toxic chemical film I work with." The water that goes down the drain from my lab is probably clean enough to drink. They have to scrub EVERYTHING out of it. If you shot 8x10" film and switched to digital, honestly, quality wise, you must be full of it. If you can't see what you lost, or worse, don't care what the customer is losing because you make more money now, you are part of the problem with this industry: Bringing down standards [and pay along with it as a result.] The quality that the high-end guys still provide is getting harder and harder to budget for because of back-stabbers like you. The low-ballers, the stay-at-home dads whose wives pay all the utility bills. Funny thing is, Bill, I'm too lazy to capitalize my own name, Simone, people like you brag about all the money you're making because you don't pay for labor and you don't have the time or math skills to calculate your depreciation, equipment costs, and the 20 hour days you put in d*cking around with files that a lab would've done for 1/10 the cost if you were to pay yourself for your hours. I have yet to see one cost study that accurately priced out all the hidden expenses of digital imagery. Of course, the great thing with digital, you can shoot it over to the third world where 10¢ an hour is acceptable for the employees as well as the sucker owner. Here in the United States though, if you want to pay a skilled retoucher an hourly rate, guess what, digital is probably going to be more expensive. So have fun in the future, Bill; I make a (barely) living out of this too, but I didn't compromise my quality and blindly follow the magazine ads and the hype and the marketing to do it. I shoot with equipment older than I am, and guess what, it still takes the best quality pictures available today in late 2011. As for shooting with 100 different cameras, my experience is that people that shoot more than say one or two, don't make squat doing this. They spend all the money they should be paying on labor and utilities on toys. Where are you going to shoot WITH your $80,000 camera? Your wife's basement? I have an office, a studio, and a place to store machinery with the money I could have wasted on three-times-a-decade camera upgrades.
  24. At the same time Richard, with such strict rules of journalism footage not being "altered," why do jounalists find it acceptable to blur out trademarks and ads? Just because something represents a for-profit business means it shouldn't be seen by the public? As for phone numbers, I tend to agree with you, though. A 104-y.o. doesn't need 104,000 calls from the United States wishing him a Merry Christmas :-D Sometimes the blurring is done so poorly, too, that you can still make out the number if you look closely, same with "confidential informants." How'd you feel if your sh** blur job got someone shot?
  25. Personally, I don't really consider this CGI. This is a graphic siimulating the holographic technology of a futuristic space-faring people. And I wouldn't be surprised if it were cell-animated then superimposed. All of the ship computer displays in "2001" were cell-animated by hand then filmed onto 16mm reversal, then projected in sync with the 65mm camera for each shot. Not nearly as easy, but certainly an impressive feat considering the technological limmitations.
×
×
  • Create New...