Anatole Sloan

Realism and truth are two entirely different things; a truthful actor is somebody who is engulfed by their part, believes that they are that person during that period, and acts as that person would in all their actions, even the smallest ones. Realism is what is realistic in the current day; how people generally do things in normal life. However, one can be a truthful actor without having portrayed a normal life, therefore, not such a realistic life. As Stanislavski said, aim for truth in peformance. It is a lot harder to think of particularly good performances in film in comparison to theatre for this particular reason; the major principles of acting when one becomes a master at it is truth in your acting, to believe in the character, to think like the character. This, however, requires time to build into, with most actors; the stop and start system of filmmaking makes it very hard for the actor to create his own character without breaking out of it, as well as the set movements for the ease of editing, as one can't live in a character while limiting themselves to certain moves, but rather, they would express themselves through this character. Returning to the original subject...can not think of a really great example. Will get back when I do... Anatole Sloan

Let Red come out - what has anybody got against it? Think about, it can only do good. It won't in anyway harm the film industry, so why bother fighting it? If it's better than cameras with the same price, then you can use it, but don't actively go against it. If you're going against it to equal out the people who are supporting Red with enthusiasm, think about it this way; they will help the film industry and its evolution, you won't.

DVXuser.com has tons on this on the "Red competition ideas" - or is it Reduser.net now? Anyway, this idea has a lot of potential, but requires lens makers to integrate a motor in their lenses, which will make them more expensive, etc, etc. Maybe in the future...

There are in total around five animals which can watch TV, including dolphins and chimps. To everybody else; It is an intresting concept to use a different electromagnet source in a film; this is essentially similar to the concept of infrared cameras, where a different wavelength of electromagnetic wave is used other than light. However, the difficulty comes when you project the image - with film, you will still be projecting the exact same spectrum recorded, i.e. x-rays instead of light, and therefore humans won't be able to see it. That is why digital cameras are used to capture infrared light or any other electromagnetic source; the image is then converted into something visible (for night vision, black and white or green and white, for heat imaging, a range of colours according to the amount of infrared emmitted). Once the source is converted into light visible to human beings, it would use the same colours as we see now, just different colours to different things according to how computer decides to give a certain [infrared wavelength] a certain [visual wavelength] in place. Therefore, we won't actually see what other creatures see (or aliens), because they do not go through the process of converting the spectrum into what we know as visible light. David's point, I believe is that it is interesting to wonder what they would see, but unless we somehow plugged in their visual receptors into our brains and change round the visual parts of our brains, we shall never know.

It's a pity hear that. I've read the History Boys and enjoyed it very much; perhaps it would strange as a film because there isn't a very complex plot on the surface, i.e. beginning, middle, end - but I would still say it was a great piece of work as a play. Why is it that a film with such a structure is so incredibly hard to make entertaining? I'd still like to see it though. Anatole

5/10 - I think he means literally half marks, i.e. 2 1/2 stars Six Form politics - sixth form is the top two years in senior school in Britain

As of October 2006, Children of Men

Children of Men, in my view, was the first great film of the century; it is stunningly gritty and the cinematography is brilliant. A great film.

The essentials... -It is a digital cinema camera manufacturer -They have not yet made a camera -Their first camera will be RedOne -$17500 -2540p (4.5k) at up to 60fps -Some other cool stuff -Owned by Jim Jannard (Oakley owner) -Sounds pretty cool -Coming out Q2 2007 (current plan)

John-Erling - The footage isn't yet available online (you can find some that were filmes with cheap camcorders, but their no use), but should be going onto the Red website in the next week or so. To everyone else - I won't get into the debate about the Collateral footage being bad, as I personally think it suited the film perfectly; Red should most definitely perform above the Collateral standards, seeing that the footage had no discernable noise or grain. I guess in the dark, it'll be good too, way better in terms of grain and noise that you get in 35mm film. This shouldn't be a worry for anyone - the problem is, it looks too good and therefore not what some people want for their films. We'll have to wait and see what we can do in post to get it to look like film, I guess.

In the case of HDV cameras such as the HVX200, a 35mm "style" is very hard to even approach and can never be matched, factoring in significant difference in resolution, latitude and DOF among other things. Many of the people expect Red to entirely replace 35mm film for their purposes, on their limited budgets, and therefore hope to use it for a very large range of application; I prefer the quality of film myself to HD because of that special look it has and it suits a large number of projects much better than HD would. My point: For those looking for Red to become the sole camera for their use, how close can Red get to the quality of 35mm film? Will grain added in post look good in comparison? Will it actually give many people "no excuse option to 35mm film"? Cheers, Anatole

Cheers. I thought it was the same as a few weeks ago when you got the first proper image (windowed) from the camera. Are there any other possible reasons for it? Anatole

Hi, I was wondering what reasons could have caused the statement by some that Red, although it doesn't look like film, it doesn't look like video; -I have never (knowingly) seen footage that has been shot at an aperture speed of 1/24, i.e. no shutter whatesoever; I believe Red was shot like this and maybe it causes the footage to look unusually smooth, although retain the 24fps associated with film. Am I wrong about this? Is there another reason, or is it just the fact that Red is digital and is it true that it was shot with a shutter speed of 1/24? Something to think over. Anatole

What is the average minimum budget for sound on a "major" film?

Yesterday, I watched a low-budget indie film and was suprised by the sound; each time the camera angle changed, there was a noticeable difference in sound; how do major productions cope with this?

Lord of the Rings is based on Christianity - not as obviously as Narnia, but it is.

Can everybody stop going on and on about HD and how it sucks! As a musician, I can translate it to this; -Many composers used to compose music on the piano (still do) -Some guy came along during the Romantic period, and composed an entire symphony using a guitar, as he was bad at the piano -Therefore, the symphony consists of different and unusual chords. It was different. It was not a bad option, it was different. It seperated him from everybody else. Some people like the style, some don't. *For certain inexplicable reasons, I have forgotten the composer's name and his famous symphonies.

The majority of film-making forums I use regularly seem to have, in general, a favourite lens - here it's Zeiss (Master Primes) but several others regard Cooke S4s to be much better. What is the reason for this - who is the culprit behind influencing everybody :huh: ???

Hi, What advantage does a higher speed lens have when discussing 35mm lenses - e.g. what's the difference between Zeiss superspeeds and normal primes; is there any advantage/disadvantage to having faster lenses? Cheers. Anatole

Hi, I'm in the UK - can you reccomend any rental houses? It seems quite hard to find any lenses on Ebay. Cheers, Anatole

Does anybody know where I can get Cooke S2 or S3 lenses, and what sort of price range they are - are they similar to that of the Superspeeds? Cheers, Anatole

Impressive demo. Your work w/ the music videos is good, and I like the use of lighting and the movements of the camera compliments the style. Personally, I think you'd be better off working on your own non-music video type of stuff with the money than going to film school; with talent like that, all you need to do is sharpen up areas that you aren't use to filming, as you say, narrative film making. In the end, though, it's your choice, and don't base your entire future on what I'm suggesting. I just think you can get further doing some film making yourself. Cheers, Anatole Sloan