Nathan Chaszeyka

Hmmm, well I tend to underexpose the screen (regardless of color) by one stop. But maybe y'all know something I don't . . . ;)

Kevin Zanit

Same here but that has been with DV and DVCProHD. I have had great results. Perhaps the lighting differs when using other formats or film.

Is a tagger with a spray paint can a painter? Catch my drift?

A tagger with a spray paint can is very broad. Similar to a person with a camera in his hands who is capturing motion.

There are many many "taggers" out there who paint large, detailed and ornate murals. While what they are doing is illegal most of the time, it does not stop these specific works from being art, and the artist behind them from being painters, in my opinon.

Reality is I don't give a flying *blank* what people call themselves. How does it effect me? It doesn't.

 

R,

You've spent a lot of time on this thread proving your feelings to be the opposite.

I can see we'll be at this until the cows come home.

 

Video shooters can call themselves any thing they want, but if you want the title of cinematographer, you'll have to shoot film. Period end of story.

 

I wish some one like Steven Spielberg could chime in here. Since he has publically stated he will never shoot HD, I have a suspicion he would agree with me.

 

R,

Spielberg won't, but other excellent directors have chosen to shoot HD, as well as other cinematographers therefore he is not the definitive answer. The point/counter-point will never end.

For what it's worth, I'll chime in on the side of the discussion that the title has more to do with the creative role of the person behind the camera and not the format.

You may call me whatever you want, I've been called worse before. :D

Wow, I wish we could have arrangements made according to those guidelines around here. ESPECIALLY the day rates.

I have a couple questions about your question....

The title of your thread says bluescreen, why have you chosen blue over green? Or is that just a misnomer?

Secondly, my experience with greenscreen work is rather limited and I primarily have been on the post side of things when working with it BUT, why do you feel it necessary to shoot such a wide angle shot? Most of what you are shooting will be empty green spaces that will first be cropped with a matte before pulling the key.

The stock lens on the HVX is completely capable of getting a full shot of the subject, why do you need the extra space in the shot? The composition of the subject can be put together by the compositor.

You should look at: http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?172

The problem is that with every DP there is a different preference. The 4400 is using the HVX on the show now where the F900's won't work

http://www.chrisoben.com/discoveringthehvx200_dcs_web.pdf

Barry Green from Fiercely Independent Films in Las Vegas makes & sells these.

(Sorry, I don't have the link at the moment.)

 

MP

For what it's worth Barry is no longer residing in Las Vegas. I believed he has moved on to the east coast. North Carolina maybe?

I guess that's it, then? They did some crazy stuff to it in 28 days later that made it like quite a bit nicer, at least. It also seemed the "Ghetto" footage was more brown/monochrome, and became more bright and colorful, and more saturated once they were in beverly hills. Maybe that's just my imagination.

From what I remember reading, that was by design and not your imagination.

it might be that you did not shoot 24 frames/sec advanced, and then you did a pulldown when you captured, thus removing frames that were not supposed to be removed. try re-capturing, or simply putting the captured footage in a normal sequence, w/o applying any pulldown. it might help.

 

never really done this - but that's what it sounds like to me...

I have had the same issue happen with my own footage and the DVX 100a. I agree with George as this was the solution that ended up working for me.

Well inspite of Entertainment Weekly giving the news Pirates Of The Caribbean movie a D+.

 

(EW's own Lisa Schwarzbaum is definitely in the latter, calling the flick ''a theme ride, if by ride you mean a hellish contraption into which a ticket holder is strapped, overstimulated but unsatisfied, and unable to disengage until the operator releases the restraining harness'' in her D+ review)

 

It still managed to break all the box office records:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060709/ap_en_mo/box_office

 

So if this movie is as bad as EW says, why did so many people pay to see it? Are the critics that out of step with main stream America? Or do these "Blockbusters" get hammered because they are all about VFX and marketing vs "substance". How ever you define substance.

 

It's interesting how Crash won best picture, but I have yet to meet a single non-film industry person who actually saw it. In fact I think so few people saw Crash that it reminds me of the Canadian Oscars (Genies), where no one in Canada has ever seen or heard of the winners.

 

R,

I did not read any reviews of the movie at all before going to see it. I figured hey, I get to see $100+ million go off before my eyes for $6.50, may as well see what happens.

It was utterly disappointing. I would say that a rating of D+ is about fair, if not even a little generous. One of the biggest let downs in a long time for me.

I would say that you are right on with it being hammered for all VFX and no substance. That was exactly the problem with it.

Much of the pro-gun lobby in the U.S. consists of irrational, or illogical thinkers who think "It's my way or the highway.", and "Might makes right.", and similar drivel.

 

Wait. Did both of us just make a wild accusation? No: You're the one with the gun, so of course you're right and I'm wrong. However, my admition of this makes me the smarter one.

No, blanket, black and white lies got us into, and keep us in, the "situation" in Iraq. Further, the exact same people (including some Democratic politicians) would now have us believe a "bloodbath" will ensue if we "cut and run" (gag me) from Iraq now. A bloodbath will _ensue_? Wait, you mean what's _already_ transpired -- at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Americans and non-Americans in the region injured and killed -- doesn't fit any sane person's definiton of a bloodbath?

 

Likewise, as much can be said of similar arguments against gun control in America. Pro-gun folks say, "We've got to have guns, otherwise a bloodbath will _ensue_!"

 

Yup, those pro-gun and pro-war folks sure are the rational, logical thinkers!

I'm sympathetic to your situation, but I'm not convinced (based on the information presented) you have no other options other than to arm yourself. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but rather your firsthand account doesn't convince me we shouldn't have rational, strict gun control in America.

 

Just so it's clear, let me repeat that by "rational, strict gun control" I'd include adequate funding for police and courts to do their jobs, and for communities to "protect" their citizens through education and social services designed to reduce the "need" for criminal livelyhoods.

Yes, most crime in America is committed by white folks against white folks, then next by white folks against non-white folks, and then next by non-white folks against everyone else. Easy access to guns greatly greases the entire process so it's one smooth-running machine.

Yet another post filled with rhetoric and cleverly hidden insults that do not address any real issue.

I did not say that I own a gun, so I'm right and you are wrong, but you stated your opinion and claimed that it made you smarter than me. If your ego needs it Peter, by all means ask me and I'll proclaim to all the members of this internet message board that you are smarter than me.

I'm not a pro violence, pro war, pro gun, nut case. I'm an advocate of having my personal choice to own a gun, and I'm a staunch advocate of you being allowed your opinion as well Peter.

I will point one thing out to you...If "reducing the need for criminal livelyhoods" means that you think we can rid the world of poverty and therefore the resultant crime, I appluad you. If you believe that this is truly possible, you are truly an admirable person with a good heart. I will however point out to you that it is hardly a rational belief for the earth is over populated and the resources are underdistributed. Poverty, scarcity and therefore the resultant crime will always exist as a matter of scientific numbers that cannot be denied. Regardless of your standpoint of my personal choice and current right to own firearms, I find you to be a dreamer who denies the truth of reality in favor of amicable irrationalities.

Shall we stop with the senseless insults of one another at this point and respect each other's opinion?

Once again, contact me if this goes somewhere worth rejoining.

"Much of the anti-gun lobby in the U.S. consists of irrational, or illogical thinkers who believe that blanket legislation will solve the problem and keep them from having to apply a real effort to social equality and peace."

 

Yeah Jim Brady and his wife certainly fit the bill. Whackos!

 

R,

While trying to participate in an educated discussion with reasonable information, you continue to pick out individual sentences and exaggerate them as though I'm Charleton Heston's personal propagandist.

In a thread littered with unbased personal opinions with no facts supporting them, just hearsay evidence, I have presented factual statistics that largely back my opinion. An opinion that simply put, states that crime as a whole is the problem and not guns. Guns are an enabler to the crime but with or without them, the U.S. will continue to lead the world in occurances of crime. Firearms bans will only be dodging the real issues that lie beneath. My best analogy is this: It's like saying "Drunk drivers use cars to commit crimes and kill people, we need to ban driving."

There is my argument. With the current tone of the thread, I'll add nothing further. If the intelligence of this discussion rises above that of an 8th social studies class please contact me via email and I'll be happy to rejoin the conversation.

"I'll avoid the invitiation to get into a U.S. vs. Canada debate with you over your inflammatory "Gee thanks."

 

You think "gee thanks" is over inflamatory? I suppose people have to walk around on egg shells when you're in the room if think that's over inflamatory.

 

"Doesn't the fact that the guns are smuggled into Canada from somewhere else, go to show that gun control cannot solve the problem? "

 

If the US would start some logical gun control, then guns would be harder to get in the USA, therefore harder to smuggle into Canada as well. Simple fact is that the USA has a ridiculously high amount of gun crime compared to well...the rest of the planet, and at the same time has very loose gun control laws compared to well...the rest of the planet. Now you're telling me there is no correlation there? Come on.

 

"I have quite clearly shown in my previous post that crime and gun related crimes are not a result of access to guns, so the issue must run deeper."

 

You must be joking, I'll assume this is the comedic part of your post. If what you say is true then all the anti-gun lobby in the USA has to do is read your post, realize they are beat, and quit.

 

R,

Generally people find me amiable and easy going, never once have I been told they feel the need to walk on eggshells. I'm simply participating in a discussion and I didn't find your remark "over inflamatory" I found it inflamatory in an unneccary way.

You obviously haven't read my previous post, otherwise you wouldn't be making unfounded, exaggerated statements such as "compared to the rest of the planet". If the planet only involves Canada then that is one thing. In actuality though, there are a lot more places besides Canada, and many of them have much looser regulations on gun control then the U.S., many of them with much lower gun related crime rates as well.

I wasn't joking. I'd like to believe my jokes are funnier than that, come on man give me a little credit :) . Much of the anti-gun lobby in the U.S. consists of irrational, or illogical thinkers who believe that blanket legislation will solve the problem and keep them from having to apply a real effort to social equality and peace. These are the same people who would have us just pull anchor and head out off Iraq right now without paying any mind to what that would leave the citizens of that country to deal with, it's a bad situation but blanket, black and white solutions won't make the situation better. Much of the same is to be said about issues with firearms. I have not once said that there isn't a problem with violence in America. I, happen to live in a situation where, I am not comfortable with the idea of not being allowed to own a firearm, particularly for the defense of my home and loved ones.

I live in an area where home invasion/murders are common gang activity. My home was the target of one of these attempted attacks. My girlfriend, a very anti-gun woman at the time, was home alone. The police would have had no chance to help her had the perpetrators been able to make their way into the house. Luckily, we have a good neighbor who was willing to step in in my absence.

My girlfriend's attitude quickly changed about choices in personal defense and regular firearms training was embraced.

If gun control becomes guns banned, what would her options be then? Raped and killed because she doesn't stand a chance in a knife fight with two large felons?

Oh, and for the sake of Peter DeCrescenzo, these weren't "Brown" people. Crime comes in all shapes sizes and colors.

Now guess what, the vast majority of hand guns used to committ violent crimes in Canada are smuggled over the border from guess where? If you said the USA you'd be right. It isn't enough for America's nutty gun laws to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, but Canadians have to die as well.

 

Gee thanks.

 

R,

I'll avoid the invitiation to get into a U.S. vs. Canada debate with you over your inflammatory "Gee thanks." statement and keep this to the topic. With the exception of this one remark...if crime is a problem in your country address the criminals with your spite, not your neighbors with unnecessary blame.

Doesn't the fact that the guns are smuggled into Canada from somewhere else, go to show that gun control cannot solve the problem? Criminals will go to whatever extent necessary to commit crimes. Crime is, generally speaking, an unrational action, committed by an unreasonable person.

I have quite clearly shown in my previous post that crime and gun related crimes are not a result of access to guns, so the issue must run deeper.

"The access to guns is not coming from retail outlets, it is coming from the black market which is not being fed by retail outlets."

 

Ok so you would have me believe that the criminals in the crime invested areas of America never buy their guns at the local gun shop, wait the five days, and have a BG check etc etc?

 

Every gun crime committed in America was done with an illegally acquired weapon? The legit weapons from gun shops are used only for target practice?

 

Ok I've got it now, thanks for clearing up that point.

 

R,

 

As to the amount of guns in Canada. Yes there are many rural people that have hunting rifles etc. The big difference is that Canada draws the line at letting people walk around with a concealed weapon ie a hand gun. The law makes perfect sense and draws a clear distinction that hunters need not worry about.

 

It floors me, and I mean floors me, that the NRA fights things like a ban on automatic assualt rifles. I mean come on you gun lovers what $^%##*^ does some one need an M16 or AK-47 for? How many deer do you want to mow down at one time? What's next, private ownership of rocket launchers and ICBMs?

Ok now you are walking into territory where I have some knowledge that I don't have to look up.

Off the top of my head, I believe that the statistic is that 85% of the violent crimes in America that are committed with guns are committed by criminals with past violent offenses. For your information Richard, these criminals are individuals would would be turned away once their background check was run because a felony pre-empts you from owning a firearm.

Assault rifles were banned, homicide rates did not drop. The criminals found other guns to use or bought their assualt rifles illegally. Interesting how this supports my point that the criminals will find what they need.

It's also interesting how in Canada, the country you so boastfully brag about gun safety in...the violent crimes that are committed with firearms are overwhelmingly committed with illegal, unregistered guns.

As to the amount of guns in Canada. Yes there are many rural people that have hunting rifles etc. The big difference is that Canada draws the line at letting people walk around with a concealed weapon ie a hand gun. The law makes perfect sense and draws a clear distinction that hunters need not worry about.

As far as allowing people to walk around with a concealed weapon, it's not quite that simple in the U.S. Training courses, background checks, and shooting qualifications are required in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, a permit that state and local gov'ts do not take lightly. No one with even a minor criminal background would be permitted. If you looked up the statistics on people who legally carry concealed weapons being involved in a shooting (even in self defense) you would find that they are staggeringly low, almost non-existant.

It is my opinion that the root of the problem is the accessibility of handguns.

 

Best

 

Tim

In response to your statement as well as the statement from Richard Boddington that downtrodden areas are being "flooded" with guns...

The access to guns is not coming from retail outlets, it is coming from the black market which is not being fed by retail outlets.

I guess this is the part of the American mind set that we "feriegners" just don't get. It's amazing that people in the USA look at the 14,000 gun deaths in the USA every year and say, "well it's not so bad."

 

Start by axing the long out dated and misused 2nd amendment and the US will start to enjoy the peace and safety Canadians, Europeans, & the Japanese, accept as "normal."

 

R,

As VincentD. said in a post before mine, it has nothing to do with law obiding citizens. What "you feriegners" seem to love criticizing but don't understand is the element of crime and sources of violent crime are not lawful owners, and educated gun users. They are criminals, many of them are not first time criminals but career criminals. They do not own liscensed, registered guns, but buy black market, often illegal guns.

John_P_Pytlak said in an earlier post:

"The weapons allowed by law for individual ownership today are not likely to thwart "a military or civilian take over of our government", if that was ever the intent of the Second Amendment."

John, I could hardly disagree with you more. Our country won it's independence with rifles and cannons that were deemed far inferior to those of our foes. Even today, our military is being fended off by unorganized, and rudimentary tactics used by foes with weapons that are unlikely to thwart our "superior" tactics, weaponry, and troops.

Peter DeCrescenzo said:

"Just as one example of how bad things have gotten: When the "big one" (a truly major earthquake) next hits a Californian metroplitan area, and hundreds of thousands of people are without electricity, water, food, shelter, healthcare, money, jobs, transportation, police or fire protection for _WEEKS_ ... the earthquake "emergency kit" supplies a very few of of have dutifully stashed in our homes and garages won't do us diddly -- because local yokels, our mostly white civilian "friends and neighbors" WITH GUNS will take food and water out of the mouths of babys and grandmas and drive the rest of us out of what little safe shelter remains standing."

Situations exactly of this sort have already happened. In the aftermath of Hurrican Kitrina, it was in fact "local yokels" but they were both white and black and they took whatever they so desired from those individuals who did not have any such preparation for "the worst case scenario", namely a way to protect them and theirs until civil order had been restored.

Legislation is not the issue at hand, CRIME is. Looking at Australia for example the statistics show that tighter legislation is not going to change who is using the guns...

For example, in Australia, knives are 2-3 times more likely to be used in robberies than a firearm.

The numbers of legal versus illegal firearms, in areas with laws legislating proper gun ownership, are also glossed over. For example, 90% of all firearm related homicides in Australia are committed with unregistered firearms (since the 1995 & 1996 regulations).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

Other countries have far less regulation and legislation on gun ownership than the United States and don't have the gun violence problem that we have...

Switzerland is one example... (They)have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.)

Curiously, crime continues around the world despite the ownership rights or subsequent ban of such rights...

English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.

In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)

In closing, it would appear to me that as a world community we have a crime problem. Gun ownership allowed or denied, crime persists and banning guns will not stop criminals from using them nor will it stop crime. Any argument to the opposite in my eyes is merely wishful thinking that hopes for a magic pill that will cure crime. Banning firearm ownership is obviously not that magic pill.

I don't have a P2 reader and I don't have one of the New Mac Lap-tops that reads them either otherwise I would.

Just a quick note, the NEW mac laptops don't read P2 cards. It actually the G4 Powerbooks (15" and 17" specifically) and the fair majority of PC laptops that have the correct PC card slot for the P2 cards.

I just wanted to point that out because it sounds like misinformation may be one of the things that's holding you back from the HVX.

Thank you for your input guys. I'll go over the edit again and consider your suggestions.

Your link didn't work for me - iWeb didn't recognize the address.

I have changed the reel a bit since I first posted this thread. When I did so the link that I posted in here became inactive.

If you are still interested, you can check it out here... http://web.mac.com/nathan_chaszeyka/iWeb/N...phy%20Reel.html

Thank you Vincent.

Marc, your reel is beautiful.

Nathan,

 

It didn't load for me.

 

-Cole

I should have mentioned that it's in H.264 compression so you will need QT7 to view it. I apologize. That explains why no one has responded. Thank you, Cole.

After the conclusion of my first year of film school, I have gone about putting together my first demo reel and posted it. It still needs tightening up and I would like the input of the members of this community to help me go about doing so.

My reel can be viewed by clicking this link

It is all video, as I don't have the means to shoot on film just yet. I have two shorts scheduled to be shot on 16mm this summer.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to look at my work.

Nathan