jdtranetzki

could you name a couple in poland and moscow. I would be interested in checking them out.

hey, thanks. that explains it now. i can't say i'm a little disappointed and was hoping to hear it was purely mechanical in execution, but the ends justify the means, so to speak, and the emotion of the scene was so accessible. on that note, i don't think there is anyone better in the relationship of the two- Steven Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski, in the usage of techniques to best deliver the emotion of a scene. the narrative and emotional undercurrent are rarely, if ever, muddled or lost to some device or another.

yeah. that was really something. I assumed it would be a marriage of cgi and motion control. But then i heard it was an actual freeway.

i've used the bed of a truck, heavily fortified for stability, even having a camera on a makeshift skateboard being pulled by a truck, with a person attached between (quite fun) for low to high angled shots. POV shots for the races use helmet cameras, or cameras mounted onto a bike. If it is a POV of one of the racers though, it's a small camera.

Hi, I had posted this under off-topic but realized it may be better suited here in general discussion. can someone explain how they managed the moving crane shot in van on the freeway...in Spielberg's "War Of The Worlds". If you remember the scene, just as they take the van from the shop and escape through the freeway not only is it a single continuous tracking shot but it moves in, through, and out the other side of the van in the moving crane, away from the van and close in again, and finally pulls up and away to reveal a long wideshot of the van on the freeway. How did they do that? (specifically going in, through, and out the windows of the van to the other side without cutting?) very, very curious. thanks.

Hi, can someone explain how they managed the moving crane shot in van on the freeway...in Spielberg's "War Of The Worlds". It moves in, through, and out the other side of the van in the moving crane shot. How did they do that?

what access, if any, do you have through your school regarding animation software programs? It would be beneficial to look into a marriage of the two forms; to which degree is totally up to you as the artists. If no software program is available to use, it will be very costly to finance it independently. Many of my peers have done many small animations drawn by hand and worked their way up, utilitzing the learning curve of the process. For them, however, the bigger projects used software provided by the school.

Capote

that's always a common dilemma, so to speak. pros and cons depend on personal character more than anything else. if you value the learning process, than being in the womb of school is perfect. it fosters no real external pressure and time to establish a good group of friends and artists, and allows you to make mistakes while you experiment. the same can be said without school of course, except with school you don't have to worry about bills (if you go the student loan route). for me, school offers a means of others constantly challenging your thoughts, and that is a good thing, because it keeps you looking forward outside of your comfort zone.

that's not a bad picture at all. you could even use sepia tones on the flash to blend the light with the background. a nice yellow diffusion on her face.

any good film program will give you room to grow into your own and discover your path. many programs use cross disciplinary training so as you are given an overall education. USC is probably the forerunner in this model. filmschool is no different than any other major in that their goal is to make you a well rounded individual with room to find your voice and express it. many who enter in one discipline end up in another through the experience. many of the schools look for applicants that are open to this exploration. visit the schools, talk to the students, talk to the professors, you'll be more at ease during the application process, i assure you. just be yourself through it all. hope that helps.

B)--> QUOTE(major B @ Mar 16 2006, 02:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey every one. I graduated from the surry institute of art and design in the south of england in the summer. I speciallised in cinematography there. The are only around 4 film schools in england that allow us to learn 16/35mm practice and thats why I chose to go to surrey. It's a tiny art college really in the middle of the countryside, and I think thats why the people who go there push themselves so hard and gain success. Its all about being resourceful and making the best of things. Infact, we beat the national film and television school (the best in the country) many times in festivals, and I think this is down to creativity rather than big budgets. Where you go makes little difference If you dont take anything too it. Be bold! hey, this is my first post. just thought i'd share. i just went through the finalist interviews at UCLA and was turned down. And now I regret how i had listened to others who talked down about UCLA, because had i been accepted under better circumstances, i have to say, UCLA is probably the best you can get for the money. Hands down, a remarkable school. Coincidentally, for a very long time, since high school, i had looked at Chapman. its good to hear it is coming along so well. as for USC, i know quite a few that have gone through the program and are currently in it. From what i gather, and many posts above illuminate the fact much better, it is good for undergrad if you have the money, but has more appeal because of its ties to the industry. i for one, now wishing i had the choice again, would choose UCLA. so wish i had the oppurtunity back...