Stuart McCammon

I think using strobes will help to see the rain more in a night shot, rather than putting milk in it - FYI

Walter, your request for a haiku has been granted: redfilm shooter no crew needs prestige machine can't fix script in post Enjoy)

I actually laughed out loud when I read that - thanks man)

OK, so I just recently saw a 20 x 20 rigged with military camo netting and visqueen, with random shapes cut out of the visqueen - one of the coolest ways to simulate a dappled light effect I have seen in a while - and probably dang cheap too!

In the name of all that is good, and by the power of Jessica Alba, let the healing begin!

OK, it occurred to me that a FanBoy might be one of those guys who gets to hang around a hot chick all day and fan her (ala Cleopatra), so I'm reconsidering my decision - although I think I prefer to be Peeled Grape Man, there seem to be plenty of FanBoys)

I wish to take back my earlier analogy, and submit instead that FanBoy and The Heckler sound as if they were ripped from the pages of a comic book, in which case I have a couple of questions: 1) Are Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller going to co-direct the movie?, and 2) Is FanGirl going to look as good in her suit as CatWoman did? Rowr! Enquiring minds. . .

OK, so let me get this straight - if you are rabidly positive about RED you are a fanboy and if you ask even one question you are a heckler? Wow, what a rhetorical trick that is! Kind of like the Socs and Greasers in The Outsiders (unless of course you are Pony Boy and just want to stay alive long enough to bang Cherry Valance) - Anyway, this whole controversy is completely ridiculous - anyone who posts here about RED is by definition interested, even if they are skeptical, and Mr. Jannard should be smart enough to know that there is no such thing as bad publicity - all the mudslinging does is get more people interested in RED and line his corporate pockets. Anyway, for the record, I support the RED effort and anxiously await a production version - until then, I'm hitting the snooze button)

Red-haters and fanboys alike: What are all of you going to need after you shoot the next box-office hit? Blur! Yes, its Blur, the $10,000, 200mph supercar! Best of all, it uses no gas! Details to come, deposits being accepted at yeahright@sowhat.com - send your deposit today! Also, coming to a trade show near you, our Blur demo vehicle - show here on display at our secret testing grounds http://ebaumsworld.com/tags/trash-car/ Send your deposit today!

BTW you should consider a comp running Vista to get past the XP RAM cap issue)

OK, I have to admit, this idea is fascinating to me. As far as the link, I Googled it up, having seen a TV short some time ago about some nutjob who actually made a wearable Habitrail - but that wierd patent site was a wonderful thing to stumble in to) So, all that is mounted on a dolly, say, is the head on a baseplate, with a C-mount zoom (if a follow focus exists, I would think it can be easily modified or extended), with a matte box on rods and a small viewfinder, and handles if you decide to shoulder mount it - sounds very workable! I guess the only remaining question would be a cheap, quiet, stable power source that wouldn't fry the whole thing without having to rent a huge genny. Also, how many amps would that thing suck up? I would think the comp alone would need lots of power to run that fast. Are Honda generators quieter than they used to be? I will have to check that out. I would think another concern is potential focus problems caused by the alignment of the lens and how far away from the sensor it is, and would still want to make sure that there is no problem with vignetting. BTW Cesar, I was only kidding about the monkey. You would have to look at a picture of a film camera on a crane or dolly, and try to imagine how to pull focus without a follow focus to understand why a monkey might be neccessary) Also, autofocus lenses would not be practical for a cinema camera. All the best,

Yah, I got that one - C-mount lenses, thousands of happy still photogs - right with ya man) So, tell me if I get the picture here: One of these cams, mounted on a base plate, with C mount primes (or a zoom with no follow focus), hardwired to a mini-computer with video feeding out of the computer to a reference monitor as the viewfinder? Sounds, um, somewhat challenging in any other shot than absolute locked-down solid. Pan, tilt, dolly, put the thing on a crane or arm and suddenly you are wielding a heavy beast with cables that constantly get caught and a viewfinder that needs repositioning. And that doesn't even take into consideration the Steadicam version - which kind of seems like it might end up looking like this guy: http://www.bpmlegal.com/w5901666.html All I am saying is, this really sounds like quite the engineering task guys - best of luck) PS - you might want to get started training a monkey to be the focus puller now, he has his work cut out for him -

So, given that 1.2" is as big as a CCD sensor is probably ever going to get due to lens coverage of C-mount lenses, why not get the Pike with the big sensor? Just wondering)

Dude, you really need to shoot a test before assuming that you can just do something. The difference between 1/4 and 3/4 is three times as fast, and basically you have a limited range of frame rates to choose from: too slow and not enough action is visible to tell the story (unless you load the frame with tons of subjects and action, but then that dilutes the impact on your main character) - too fast and the story drags and becomes equally unwatchable. What you really need to do is get this project out of the realm of ideas (Hey! My Mom can make costumes! etc.) and figure out what is going to be workable. Try this: shoot some regular video and play with frame rates in Quicktime (I.E., convert the video to single frames, then use PhotoShop to delete or multiply frames) - it will quickly become obvious, even with fake over and undercranking, what is right and not right for your project. Then you can figure out what format, camera, etc. to shoot it with. My 2 cents)

I have to wonder how the color reproduction off a single large CCD will compare with a 3-CCD camera - I was going to buy a really neat JVC video camera about a year ago (that also had a single, large sensor), until I saw that the picture quality was not all that - anyway, worth checking in to)

OK, this is now officially driving me nuts. There is an 8mm camera that looks very futuristic and has a lens shade permanently attached to the lens - the whole thing comes off looking like a ray gun but I forget which camera it is lol)

When I read the original post, for some reason the first thing that popped into my mind was the footage that was playing in the windows in "Natural Born Killers" - which may be interesting - certainly have never seen anybody else do anything like that)

In general, it is a lot more productive to add grunge and filter an image that was high-quality to begin with, so I would originate your flashback footage on B&W 16mm and then degrade it in post - something that looks like a turd from the get-go is much harder to manipulate in post if it doesn't have the precise amount of turdiness you had in mind) All the best, Stu

Wow, I could not have more different feelings about The Third Man. As with many great films, it is not just the cinematography, but the director actually made the city into a character in the movie. Add to the the "character" of the zither music, and one has a fascinating, multilayered tapestry. Even having watched other great films, it may not have registered that the actors in The Third Man were not, as many film actors do, just being natural, but were acting, and their performances were extremely sublime - most of the fun in the movie for me comes from watching what is unvieled as the truth about Harry's "death" unfolds. The chase scene at the end, rather than being an anticlimax, is just the logical extension of the city as character. The tunnel entrances, rather than just being gratuitous shots, are there because the director is making a point about the city while he is doing a chase sequence. Anyway, my two cents)

I have a lot of sympathy for A.D.'s and P.A's, because they are where the buck really stops on a set - if something goes wrong, no craft is going to take responsibility for it and neither is the producer, so the production staff ends up taking the heat and solving the problem. Who knows, shooting a close up against a wall may just save enough time to compensate for some other problem later in the day - and when was the last time a shoot day ended early hehe) So the next time an A.D. blows off steam - you never know it might be because he or she is getting blamed for a truck not starting or a light that didn't have extra bulbs or some gel not being on the set, and is just trying to keep everything on schedule. Or if they are asking you for time every two minutes, maybe they have the producer in their ear asking the same thing. Anyway, A.D. is not a job I ever wanted)

Those shots were just plain scary - although film/video beauty shots hit an all-time low with the TV series "Moonlighting" - the show started with every Cybill Shepard shot looking somewhat diffused, but by the end of the show there was not even an attempt to match the shots and they were smearing vaseline on the lens - I personally don't get the Helen Mirren thing, although she does have a nice body for an old lady - Cheers)

I just saw an Arri BL3 for rent for $200/day. Pick that up with a set of 10 or 20 year old primes and accessories, and you have a synch sound camera that will produce images that are on par with just about anything out there, and if you have a problem you just call up the rental house and they send you a replacement. Simple, cheap and easy - the film production trifecta)

Mattes were a film technology long before the advent of FCP - there are two standard matte colors, matte blue and matte green - most people use matte green because matte blue had a disturbing tendency to cause people's eyes to get matted out. Here is a site with tons of information about film post-production, I don't know anything about the company but it provides all of the detail you would ever want in terms of understanding the film finishing workflow: http://www.wrslabs.com/printing.html As a side note, one of the biggest problems with rear projection is matching the brightness of the image to lit actors. You light your actors, and some of it spills onto the rear projection screen, thus washing out your projected image. Back in the day, one rear projection system used three projectors, synchronized to the camera, to get enough image on the screen. All of which sounds like it is a bit beyond most student films - hence the suggestion that you simplify your life (somewhat, mattes can be a bear to light correctly). Best of luck! Stu

First off, I am not real clear on how front projection would work in a car - as far as rear projection, it has always been a pain to set up - a quick search of LA411 reveals no rear projection companies, so at this point you probably need to call around to studios and see if you can find someone old enough to remember how to do it right, and then it will cost beaucoup bucks - I would greenscreen it my friend) All the best, Stuart McCammon

Bouba, I have a simple way of making these types of complex decisions, and it is the pro and con list - in the case of you moving to America to pursue a career in film, it would look something like this: Pro: American girls dig guys with foreign accents. Since you are a single guy, you could take up one of those "living room couch" ads on Craigslist. People would hire you because you are something new and different. You would get invited to a lot of parties. You could make money setting up trips to Amsterdam with yourself as a tour guide. Con: You would have to throw out all of your clothes and buy a bunch of plastic pants. You get a traffic ticket for smoking marijuana in the States. Some producer would inevitably nickname you "Boubala." It is really hard to get laid on a regular basis when you sleep on a living room couch. Anyway, that is just a start - best of luck)