Joe M

Another hopeful topic goes awry. <_<

You left out "Ghostbusters"!

Not sure if you're still looking but I came across a nice housing for the DVX on B&H's site. It's around $2000 and can handle up to 250' I believe.

As a musician myself I can say that I have met my fair share of premadonnas and snobs and I have seen a great deal of ass-kissing and schmoozing as well. There are just as many backstabbers in the music business (or ANY business). I think musicians are more easy going because there is a different lifestyle involved. We like to party 24/7 whereas filmmakers seem to be more immersed in nerdery. Nothing wrong with that though. Just different lifestyles.

I was referring to people watching new films in their homes as opposed to at the theater. People don't need to invest thousands to watch HBO in their home. I think people would rather pay the 10 bucks and sit in a nice big theater, chomping on popcorn, while enjoying a brand new movie on a huge screen with a professional sound system. I have yet to see any home theater that even comes close to the real experience that is even remotely affordable. I realize that tons of people have big screen TVs and wall projectors, so why haven't they stopped going to the theater? About these large holographic virtual worlds, I don't know too much about it to be honest. I do know that there is a laser tag place right down the street from me and it keeps being sold off because it makes such little money and the costs far outweigh the demand. This is the same debate that has played out time and time again. Whenever new technologies are developed, there are people who say that the old technology will be obsolete and dissapear but it just doesn't happen.

Right now I can't even afford a plasma TV but I can certainly afford to drop 10 bucks a month, or even per week, on a trip to the theater. How would the middle class citizens be able to afford this equipment and why would they put so much money into it just to watch movies in their own home? This is not to say that the net won't be playing a bigger role in the future of movie production and distribution because it will. Only time will show how. You're way off on this one too. They used to have these "giant interactive rooms" for gamers. They were called "arcades". They are all but gone thanks to online gaming in the comfort of ones own home. The technology is cheap, easy to use, and easily accessible. Unlike a wall sized tv screen.

I think we could all agree that the decline in figures is due more to the less than stellar output from Hollywood for almost a decade. I think that is slowly starting to change. I would make it a point to get to the theater every weekend if there were only something worth watching every weekend. As far as online movies go, I just don't think it could ever be as popular. I personally don't enjoy sitting at a desk to watch a movie and squinting to try and make sense out of the garbled streaming mess, just to have it cut out and re-buffer time and time again. I don't think many others enjoy that either. Thats my $.02

I don't agree with this statement at all. I see directors more like captains of a ship. Most of the time they aren't physically manning the vessel, but it is his/her direction of the crew that keeps them working efficiently (in a perfect world anyway) in step towards the end result. As far as I see it, there is no replacement for a competent director with a vivid imagination, intuition, and the ability to work well with others. I'm not saying that a film will suck if the director sucks. An experienced top notch crew could have an effect that could easily mask the incompetence of a director. But if the director finds and hires that great of a crew then I guess that they have at least one redeeming quality, right? As far as this story is concerned, I think its entertaining. I mean a little kid barking commands at grown men and women to get his shots would be a bit hilarious. But like a previous post said, lets just wait for the movie. I'm sure he'll be getting direction from someone older but we won't hear about it. At least he has a career in front of him already. Good for him.

No problem. I forgot to mention the most important part; shoot constantly. As much as you can. There is no substitute for experimentation and experience.

I'm new to film myself but I thought I'd throw a reply out there to see if I can help you out. For what you want to do I'd reccommend picking up a Krasnagorsk K3 from eBay (make sure its from a reputable seller, of course), or a reflex Bolex H16. Both are fairly sturdy and cheap 16mm cameras and are great for beginners. They are both hand cranked and have short run times so I don't know if that will be a detriment to you or not. You'll want to read up on the costs of film and processing before you leap into film as it's a LOT more expensive than shooting digital and not very practical if you're on a tight budget. I'd also reccommend scouring this forum and others to gain more knowledge. Ask lots of questions and buy some books. Exploit Google to the fullest too. I just got done with the book "Cinematography" which is an excellent introduction to film technology, lighting, and film cameras.

My apologies for posting about a post prod. issue. I just noticed the pinned topic at the top of the forum. I didn't see it when I did my initial post. Sorry!

I read up on rotoscoping and it seems pretty daunting, especially for what I have in mind. I think I'll try to find someone who has experience with it to help me out. Thanks for the tips guys.

I'm gearing up to shoot my first short this spring. There is a scene that calls for 15 people or so to have their eyes look washed out (similar to the possessed look in the Excorcist). Since there is no way my budget could accommodate special effects contact lenses I'm curious about how I would go about doing this in post. The shots would be medium and close up. I'd really like to get some quick extreme close ups but I probably won't be able to achieve enough detail since I'm not very experienced with CGI. Any tips or suggestions? Thanks in advance.

I thought it was great. It definitley kept my interest and did the song justice. Nice DnB track too. Nice job.

Thanks for that info David. When I look through the viewfinder everything seems to have a blueish tint to it in artificial light. Can you notice the effects of the internal filter through the viewfinder or is it only evident once the film is processed? Maybe I should get a manual :unsure:

I recently bought an Elmo 1012s-xl. I have yet to shoot some test footage with it but it seems like a nice camera. It has a few quirks though. The daylight filter switch is stuck on (I think its the daylight filter. It has a blueish tint to it) and the auto mode doesn't work. Thats not much of a problem because I have a light meter and I would really like to get good at manual exposure anyway. My question is about film/aperture. What type of film should I use to make up for the daylight filter being stuck on for shooting outdoors? Tungsten balanced film? And once I have the right film do I have to stop down the aperture to compensate for the filter at all? One last question; how will the daylight filter affect BW film? Sorry to ask such simple questions but this can get confusing after a while. Thanks in advance. -Joe