Patrick McGowan

This tailer looks amazing. Does anyone know what the deal is with that blurry vignetting look that is in some of those shots? Hopefully there will be some kind of article about it. Deakins is the man.

Well I had a fun 10 minutes reading this thread. Will the thread about closure be closed? I can't wait to find out in the near future. I really don't understand how these things get so personal. I'm starting to find these threads strangely entertaining. Maybe because it's always the same argument over and over again. it's kind of mesmerizing.

The trailer looks great Eric, I can't wait to see it. The cast is really impressive, and J.K. Simmons is probably my favorite character actor working right now. Congrats on the movie.

Graeme is really exceptional, I've enjoyed trying to wrap my head around the technical knowledge that man possesses. That's all I want to say on this crazy thread though. This sh!t has gotten way too personal. I so sick of reading all of this bickering all the time. I left this forum for a while and now I'm back and the same arguing crap is still here. It's old now. Really old.

Wow. You should write for Gene Shalit. I have to say the snap zooms are getting really old. As well as the quick panning and running handheld and the super tight "eye close-ups." The problem is not the camera shake, its forced tension created by the camera. This style really needs a break. I think it can be very good in fact it is usually very skilled and excellent work, but people just need to not do it for about two years and then come back to it. There is too much of it. It seems like a parody of itself and many other things such as "24." The "director's choice" is not really an argument, that's the reason why it's worth discussing, it didn't happen by accident. And it is NOT an original idea!

Fitchburg State College in Massachusetts

Has anyone been able to find this DVD on sale anywhere?

Hey Jonathan, I wasn't too overjoyed about shooting with overcast skies, but I guess it's my job to deal with whatever conditions I can get. I used the ultra bounce as a fill. I felt like the actors faces were looking a bit shadowy under their eyes. I wanted to fill in their faces and create whatever contrast I could by exposing for the brighter side like you mentioned. One of the benefits of the 6x frame rather than some beadboard was that sound used it to block some extraneous road noise. In the picture, the bounce wasn't in position yet, and you can see our attention to safety as it wasn't roped down at all. :)

I still laugh when I think of Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd's characters taking mushrooms and going to see Cirque du Soleil. I really identified with this film in a weird way, I've never had children, that I know of, but I think it's that feeling of life slapping you in the face and having to face reality and take responsibility that struck a chord with me. The supporting cast was great, plenty of people from Freaks and Geeks and Harold Ramis as the father was fantastic.

Hey sorry, I haven't checked back here in a while. Are you interested in the Aaton A-Minima? I think it's a great little camera, it is surprisingly small and light and beautiful for handheld. Despite it's reputation, it's not really that difficult to load. I only used it for certain scenes because as you may know, it only takes specially made 200ft loads. Having to switch out magazines every 200ft is annoying.

I saw part of The Zodiac on showtime and it was just awful. But, they did make that movie first.

You should try to find the Criterion DVD for "Traffic." Stephen Mirrione talks about 3 or 4 scenes from the film and shows you his actual Avid timeline as he goes over why he made certain editing decisions etc.

We were planning on using the electronic lens drive system that the jib has and there was some kind of remote trigger, but both of these devices didn't work for us. The lens drive motor would just turn indefinitely whenever it was activated. The cables that activated the remote start and stop, I can't remember what exact type they were, wouldn't fit the Aaton. So, the gaffer and I pulled focus by hand on a couple shots, like the in the top photo. A couple were done like you mentioned, by running the camera and then putting it into position. On a couple of the wider shots, the camera was far enough away from the subject that I could set a 12mm lens to infinity. I was also stopped down a bit and the depth of field was pretty deep.

I recently completed a film for my advanced film class last semester. Before this I had done some video jobs as a DP, a few shorts and a documentary, but I had only shot 16mm for class assignments and other tests etc. We shot mostly on a CP-16 which had been modified for super-16. Some material was shot on an Aaton A-minima including some shots that were done on a Jimmy Jib. I shot Kodak 7201 (day exteriors), 7205 (day interiors), and 7218 (night interiors). I did one scene on 7217 and I was a little worried about using both 200T and 500T, but they are in different scenes and are not really near each other in the film. Anyway, here are some stills. This was our "grip truck" I hope these links actually work there should be 5 pictures. Thanks for reading. -Patrick

I think Alphacine is one of most underrated labs in the country. Honestly, I have seen regular 16 transfers that look sharper and cleaner than some of the super-16 I have sent to DuArt. DuArt has also pissed me off quite a bit with their lackluster customer service. I highly recommend Alphacine.

Yeah, because it simulates a shorter shutter opening time which cuts quite a bit of light and increases strobing. The strobing is what looks choppy, but the number of shutter intervals makes the image look super sharp as it captures the motion of an object very clearly.

Where did it say fps on the camera? I am kind of confused by that question, sorry. From what I understand those are 1/500, 1/1000 etc. of a second not 1000 frames per second. So this would be comparable to the time that a film shutter would be open (depending on the shutter angle) rather than how many are exposed in a second... right?

This is well directed and nice sound design! I like the use of wind noise and the screams as the banana is being chopped up. From what I've heard, it doesn't get much better than Technicolor or maybe FotoKem. Check out Alpha Cine Lab though!

It looks really great. I like that strobing look on some of the later shots and the "bleach bypass" look is really nice. My only hang up would be the power lines in some of the shots, they look really modern to me. I really don't know where during WWII they would have giant power lines like that, maybe there were some I really don't know.

siriously

You are right, it was the F-64D, which was a bit grainier than I expected. Still, Fuji is beautiful and at this stage of the game, anything I shoot that is well exposed without any hair in the gate I am reasonably proud of. ;) Another thing to add to this topic: ALPHA CINE LAB! This place is great and and underrated. I think I am done with DuArt now that I have seen what this place can do.

I shot some Fuji 250D and 64D recently and I am pretty sure I did not underexpose anything, but it just seems quite a bit grainier to me than Kodak. This is certainly not a bad thing, I like grain, but it was definitely there. The grain and pastel colors of Fuji really suit the Super-16 "look." If you don't have a student discount for Kodak, then Fuji will save you a ton of money.

What I was trying to say is obviously my color correcting is not going to be nearly as accurate or skilled as a colorist, I can't even fathom half of the information they know about! But the same can be said for my cinematography compared to a professional, I am not nearly as skilled, but that doesn't mean I am going to give up trying! I just think it is really amazing that this kind of tool which was originally only reserved for well... the people who know how to use it... is available to us "common people." Really, I mean I've been trying to learn as much as possible about the digital Intermediate process (and I don't really know anything about it of course.) It is really just fascinating to me. And no I am not some random kid that wants to "direct little movies and play with the colors" it is something that I've had a genuine interest in for a few years now. I wish it could be my job... but that's probably not gonna happen.

I am getting really sick of hearing this same thing over and over again. Honestly, should students and other nonprofessionals just not bother to even attempt anything unless we hire a professional? i.e. edit, shoot, sound... I am really excited about the new edition of Final Cut Studio especially for Color. I hope I can afford it. (Ok, and understand how to use it)

Well thanks for shitting all over me, but I was sort of joking. I'll put in a smiley face next time.