Tim O'Connor

Wow! What a collection of thoughts. I wish I had time to write the essay that I feel all these comments and great lists deserve. So, since I have to be brief, I've found enough here to think about for days. I agree with a lot of these examples wholeheartedly and some I'm going to see as soon as possible (for the first time.) There aren't any names on these lists with which I would disagree. I remember reading a discussion somewhere about realism and naturalism as different styles (although I think that it was about something other than acting.) I can't recall the examples in that article but I can think of some that seem to agree with the understanding that I have retained of it. For example, in an "American Cinematographer" article a long time ago, a D.P. talked about putting much higher wattage than usual sealed beams in a car because although it wasn't necessarily realistic, the effect of the blasting light closely resembled what he felt is the feeling a person gets looking straight into headlights. Acting in front of a camera certainly allows actors to be more realistic than on stage, where the demands of communicating to the back row impose conditions on their performances. However, some actors like to be so realistic that I can't understand what they're saying sometimes, even on lines that involve key plot points. Now my hearing is okay and I'm talking about actors who were recorded with equipment that may have cost more than some cameras that I've used. I am really grateful for the subtitle feature on many DVDs. I use it mostly to find out what was just said in my native language. I think that are many types of great acting and that these types can be measured in different ways. If it's a biography for example, did the actor pull off an incredible resemblance to the person or, going in the other direction, did the actor perhaps look and sound differently than the real person but somehow evoke some essence of the figure's personality that may tell a far more powerful, truthful story than a physical recreation/impersonation that is exactly right but fails to get the feel of the person? (I guess both would be ideal but that's not the point.) I watched "The Lords Of Flatbush" two nights ago after posting about it a couple of weeks ago. I hadn't seen it in years and I watched a VHS copy that was taped off television through a wacko hookup at a t.v. station and thus had a weird horizontal video sync line running through it. In other words, an absolutely horrible dub of a movie that was low budget to begin with and had actors ten years older than the high schoolers they were portraying and you know...it was great! Maybe it's not to everybody's taste, but despite the miscasting, there are performances in that movie that I can see again as easily as hearing a favorite song on the radio.

What struck you as great film acting, whether in one scene or throughout an entire film? There are many famous examples, particularly Oscar winning performances, so I'll offer some perhaps less recognized ones that occur to me right now. 1. James Woods in "Salvador" 2. Angelina Jolie in an otherwise fairly ordinary film, "Playing by Heart". Dennis Quaid is also excellent in that movie. 3. Sidney Poiter in "To Sir with Love". 4. Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in the "Before Sunrise" , "Before Sunset" movies. 5. William Holden in "Stalag 17". 6. John Cusack, Ione Skye in "Say Anything". 7. Paul LeMat in "American Graffitti" (with lots of good work around him.) 8. Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osmond in "The Sixth Sense" 9. Molly Ringwald in "Pretty in Pink". Go ahead,say what you want, she did a lot with that. Andrew Dice Clay and Jon Cryer in their scenes in the same movie. Cryer's pain was so real. 10. On t.v.: Andre Braugher in "Homicide" 11. Don Johnson in "Miami Vice". Look past the glitz and the guy did some real acting, great work mostly unacknowledged.

"Citizen Kane" comes to mind as the most famous great depth of field movie (maybe the most famous movie?) Can anybody suggest some movies that are as extensively shallow depth of field throughout and also some other, particularly more contemporay, great depth of field movies? I'm working with some students and think that this might make for interesting viewing and discussion. Thanks.

What do you folks recommend for programs for doing the artwork for DVD cases? Any recomendations for DVD burners, for say running 25-50 copies of 5 to 15 minute programs over a day or weekend? Do you like the white surface Verbatim DVD-R DVDs? Thanks.

Brian, in your experience, was Digibeta acceptable everywhere or did different festivals have different requirements as to the digital media necessary for projection? Does anybody have opinions on what is the best digital format for projecting Super 16 mm originated formats? By the way, if you're shooting a Super 16 mm feature that you hope may have sales in the DVD market, what are your thoughts regarding the HD and SD DVD markets? If editing in Final Cut Pro, say, what changes would you make to account for both and at which point, from the beginning or would it be a choice when printing to DVD? I am going to ask some post/DVD house people about their thoughts but would like to know what people here think. Thanks.

Did you ever hear of Prince? He had no. 1 songs that are great and he wrote them and produced them and played all the instruments and sang and he was good. The band in some of the music videos may have been musicians, not actors, but they were performing to playback that was all Prince. Some people can do it.

Justan, it's been so long since I've seen "The Wanderers" movie that I'm curious to take another look at it. If I find a copy, I'll check it out and let you know what it seems like now. Put it this way, last time i saw it was at the drive-in. You might enjoy this story is since you liked "The Wanderers" novel so much. I got to meet Richard Price and I asked him about the chapter with the two kids on the roof and one telling the other that he can fly. I said that I thought that it was absolutely brilliant but somewhat disconnected from the novel overall since those two characters are marginally involved in the story and yet got a chapter. I said that I suspected he might know that but couldn't resist cutting the chapter (which is more of a short story set in the same project) because the writing is just so fantastic how could you cut something so great? He laughed like I had him pegged and he shrugged and said "Yeah, that's pretty much it." Oh yeah, every time I hear Smokey Robinson's "I don't like you but I love you" I think of "The love song of Buddy Borsolino". Big playground, Little playground...wow, memories. That's great. Now on my list is: 1. Get and read the "Clockers" article. 2. Watch "The Boston Strangler" again. 3. Watch "Clockers" again. Thanks!

I can't recall you ever being negative on here and not only was it a good guess, I saw both movies too and I like to think that I notice stuff but I never even made that connection. Another of Richard Price's novels, "The Wanderers", was made into a film and directed I believe by Philip Kaufman and although I liked both, they were vastly different experiences. The novel was gritty and real. The movie was on some level of hyper reality, at least in parts as I remember, but pretty entertaining.

Bravo job on the research, Justan. I agree that people can utilize techniques without rating any lower for doing so, such as the great scene in the pool hall in "Mean Streets" with the long handheld shot chasing the fight, which Scorcese cited as a technique picked up from Samuel Fuller. It's also worth considering that genre films have certain conventions. Nobody would get mad if a western had a shootout in which the sherriff and the bad guy draw on Main Street, even though it's been done many times, although I think that any filmmaker would like to put his own spin on it. However, I certainly know of cases in which people have done things and been proud of themselves for thinking up something cool only to be informed that it had been done before. Would you be able to say the date of that issue of "American Cinematographer"? I'd love to read the "Clockers" article and particularly see what it says about the look of the film in terms of how I remember it. "The Boston Strangler" is a fascinating movie in its style, cast and quick glimpses of 60s Boston. There is a lot of debate in Boston currently with a book out by a Boston t.v. producer saying that the real strangler got away and that the man most likely responsible for at least some of the later stranglings is living in New Hampshire, where by the way he has been fired from his job and ostracized since the book came out. "Freedomland" is another good novel by Richard Price, although not as good as "Clockers". I haven't seen the "Freedomland" movie yet though.

I far more enjoyed reading "Clockers" than watching the movie and no offense to Spike and crew but the images generated in me by Richard Price's writing resonated far more strongly than what I saw in the film which I remember had an odd, unpleasant to watch contrastiness to it (maybe just the particular theater?) For example, both "Silence of the Lambs" and "Manhunter" (80's film of "Red Dragon") have Hannibal Lecter in them, portrayed by different actors in starkly different sets and are both extremely effective. In "Clockers" I felt that the picture did not succeed as the book had in telling the story, even bearing in mind that perhaps the story may have to change somewhat when told in a different medium. I'm not sure that it's fair to say that Spike must have seen "The Boston Strangler". Perhaps, but he's taken some unfair criticism over the years, such as being called the "black Woody Allen" in the 80's to which he responded by saying when would the critics ever call somebody the Italian Woody Allen or whatever. Also, there are certainly similarities in stories, and amomg other things "Clockers" is a strong narrative of police procedure. Maybe Richard Price saw "The Boston Strangler" (except he also spent two years walking around a tough housing project doing research.) I watched "The Boston Strangler" last fall and was struck by seeing a classic Hollywood icon such as Henry Fonda on screen in such untraditional style, with so many split-screen shots. There are a lot, more I think percentage wise than in an episode of "24" but I'm not sure that it would be fair to say that the producers of that show saw this movie and therefore.... Maybe they saw "Woodstock" or Abel Gance's "Napoleon" or simply chose split-screen as a storytelling technique without any particular reference. I think that "The Sixth Sense" is an example of a movie that has a big payoff because it takes the time to tell a complete story, not just set up a situation that requires a shoot-out. When I saw it, I had heard that there would be a big twist in the movie and still it took the entire length of the movie to get to that point, a true storytelling climax, that incredible moment of realization when the Bruce Willis character suddenly understands and through his acting so does the viewer. Look at "Say Anything" as an example of a movie that in typical Hollywood fashion would be done based on the way the romance plays out but instead includes the father in a way that is a full third act. Tarentino is smart but kind of irritating. He was on "The Tonight Show" and laughing about how the "Grindhouse" production bought up a bunch of classic muscle cars from guys who were thrilled about them being in the movie but would "never" have sold them at any price had they known that they would be crashed. How would Mr. Tarentino like it if a filmmaker built a set lined with all the vintage movie posters and pop culture paraphenalia that he (Tarentino) likes and then burned that set for a scene? Speaking of derivative, in an issue of "Premiere", Oliver Stone is quoted as saying that Quentin Tarentino "makes movies about movies." Whom do you blame? Look at Clarence's car in "True Romance" and the accompanying music. Do you think for a second that maybe you're watching a shot from "Badlands"? I know people who think of "True Romance" as a Tarentino movie but Tony Scott directed it. Somebody once wrote that without Woody Guthrie there would have been no Bob Dylan and without Bob Dylan there would have been no Bruce Springsteen and without Bruce Springsteen there would have been no John Cougar (Melloncamp) to which John Melloncamp respectfully replied that he sure as heck wasn't whom he was because of Woody Guthrie.

"When you're a Lord, Lord, Lord,..."

I saw "The Lords of Flatbush" in a theater when I was a teenager and I loved it. I was already into film and shooting lots of Super 8. I looked up everything I could about the movie and was impressed at how the filmmakers shot it in 16 mm., had to stop for about half a year or so and then resume when they had more money to finish. It has some great scenes, great lines, a great soundtrack that was made up as era style songs, most likely because they never could have afforded to license actual period songs. They did get a "From Here to Eternity" clip in there but maybe music cost more, especially after the "American Graffitti" soundtrack sold a zillion copies and people caught on (George Lucas is a sharp guy.) Anyway, here are two reviews for the movie that I came across and I'd like to offer some comments below. From: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071772/ Author: jmorrison-2 from Farmington Hills, MI "A good, decent film about leaving adolescence behind, and the threshold to adulthood. Sylvester Stallone is very good as Stanley, the pug of the gang, who is facing fatherhood and marriage, and tries to amiably go along. He's not too bright, but he understands there is much more out there. His scene on the roof with Perry King is his way of trying to communicate that the world they have been living in is coming to an end, but, through their dreams and imagination, they can go places and experience other things. Things are changing for him, and he instinctively realizes there is much more to the world than their little corner of Brooklyn. Perry King's Chico, on the other hand, is brighter than he lets on, and he understands all too well what is out there and is waiting for them. The trouble is, in the adult world, he will never again have the freedom and power that he has running the streets with the Lords. Growing up is not something he looks forward to. He resents what he sees as the end of the road. He wouldn't mind living out the rest of his life with the Lords, prowling the streets, knocking up girls, fighting with the clean cut kids. In this world, he is powerful and respected, but he senses it coming to an end. His argument on the roof with Stanley is his rejection of dreaming or imagining something, or somewhere, else. His unfortunate episode with Susan Blakely is his inability to relate to her as another human being. To him, she is still just a chick to be laid, not someone he may have to relate to. Everyone around him is growing up and passing him by, and Chico resents it. He basically wants things to stay just as they are. The final rumble at the football field is an example of the Lords in their element, when they are at their happiest. The aftermath of the fight (the accident) is a further reminder that this life is at an end, and adulthood awaits, whether they are ready for it or not. A decent, entertaining movie. Quite an interesting character study, well-acted, especially by King and Stallone." This guy totally gets the movie and how somebody (Chico) who might seem shallow is actually wrestling with some deeper issues than he reveals. " His argument on the roof with Stanley is his rejection of dreaming or imagining something, or somewhere, else." This reviewer's insight, that Chico rejects having a bigger world view because of his fears of a bigger world, is stunning pyschological acumen and is much more interesting and dramatic than the next reviewer's dismassal of Chico as a dummy. next reviewer: from: http://dvdmg.com/lordsofflatbush.shtml Reviewed by Colin Jacobson DVD Mr. Jacobson's entire review is copied below but let me comment on this: " Our main lead, Perry King's Chico, is the worst of the bunch for two reasons. First, he occupies the most screen time but we never see any sort of character development or nuance;" There actually is quite a bit of nuance and it's so incredibly subtle but there that that's why it's a great performance and thus Chico's refusal to change coupled with the realization that his days are therfore numbered is what makes it so powerful and what the above reviewer points out. Chico has developed; he realizes his situation. That is a development. He fails to take positive steps based on his new understanding and that costs him but that's his choice and that's his story. Also, it seems to me that stories are quite often about the differences between those who do change and those who do not. Look at what becomes of Steve Bolander and Kurt Henderson in "American Graffitti" (A GREAT movie) as they choose their post high school paths. I haven't seen the movie in a while (have a VHS copy I taped off of t.v.) but when I saw it in the theater, I was seeing movies five nights a week at the second run theater in the next town. I didn't know anything about 16 mm blow-ups to 35 mm back then but despite what Mr.Jacobson says about the soft picture and in in his opinion poor production values, the film always worked for me and I had plenty of smooth grained A Hollywood pictures (seen in the same big old theater with a big screen) with which to compare it. The production values in this discussion are kind of like the threads on here in which people debate numbers of pixels and all sorts of things and finally somebody posts 'Just get the best camera you can get and go shoot your story!' There are classic scenes in this film. Check out what happens in the jewelry store involving Stanley's girlfriend and a ring. No Technocranes, no special effects, probably wooden sticks with splinters but ... Yes, I know that all the 'teenagers' in this film are close to their late twenties, maybe into their thirties when they finally finished shooting but for my final scene in my first acting class I transcribed the roof scene and did that with a classmate on the third tier of the rolling scaffolding in my university's theater (which kind of surprised everybody because we did this short film scene which started with me riding my smuggled motorcycle in from off stage and climbing the tower while "Stanley" smoked, as compared to everybody else doing classic scenes from classic plays but it was so great to say those lines.) So, yeah in " The Lords of Flatbush" the leads are miscast age wise but it works. Look at Ron Howard and Richard Dreyfuss in "American Grafiiti". Ron Howard looks like he just got out of high school because that's how old he actually was whereas Richard Dreyfuss was twenty-four (and Cindy Williams twenty-five etc.) yet they're all terrific as 'teenagers'. Anyway, I guess that I want to say don't let a bad review kill you. There are a lot of valid stories with grain and challenging location sound that are still way superior to some of the most expensive A pictures and some professional critics never have the wisdom of some far lesser known soul like the one above who chimed in to IMDB with his or her opinion and scored like a cinematic Solomon. Oh yeah, don't you just love this: "The Lords Of Flatbush isn't a terrible movie but it seems overly derivative" Of what is it derivative? Critics love to say things like "derivative" but how fair is that, especially as a throwaway line at the end of a review with no examples or substantiation? That's about as far as a judge in a murder trial saying to the jury "Well I don't know but this guy looks like a killer." Columbia-TriStar, widescreen 1.85:1/16x9, standard 1.33:1, languages: English Digital Mono [CC], subtitles: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Korean, Thai, double side-single layer, 28 chapters, Production Notes, Theatrical Trailers, Talent Files, rated PG, 84 min., $24.95, street date 4/25/2000. Studio Line Directed by Martin Davidson and Stephen F. Verona. Starring Perry King, Sylvester Stallone, Henry Winkler, Susan Blakely, Pual Mace, Renee Paris, Maria Smith. Clad in blue jeans, black leather jackets and bad attitudes, Stanley (Stallone), Butchey (Winkler), Chico (Perry King) and Wimpy (Paul Mace) are a 1950s Brooklyn "gang" of four cool, sexy rebels. Despite their tough appearance, these boys just want to have fun, but reality -- a.k.a. adulthood -- rears its ugly head when Stanley's steady informs him they have to get married, and blue-collar Chico falls for a beautiful blond (Susan Blakely) from the right side of the tracks. A high-octane cruise down memory lane, The Lords Of Flatbush is "immensely appealing, often hilarious, surprisingly touching and superbly acted" (The Hollywood Reporter). Picture/Sound/Extras (D+/D+/D) Although American Graffiti remains the most obvious inspiration for the hit TV show Happy Days, it may not have been the only one, as will become readily apparent to anyone who gazes upon the cover of DVD edition of 1974's The Lords Of Flatbush. Right there in the middle of a group photo is what appears to be one Arthur Fonzarelli, aka the legendary Fonzie. Or maybe not. Actually, the picture displays the much-less-legendary Butchey Weinstein, a character who looks exactly like the Fonz, although he fails to live up to the more famous persona's coolness. He also failed to create quite the same stir as actor Henry Winkler's better known role. Anyone else remember the Fonzie-mania that occurred in the mid-Seventies? I was a kid at the time, and I still remember how excited I was to get a Fonzie doll - it even had hinged thumbs that could raise! Anyway, as much as I'd like to follow my thesis that TLOF eventually inspired Happy Days to feature the Fonz, a quick check of dates makes the situation much less clear. Winkler apparently was cast as Fonzie back in October 1973 and Happy Days hit the air in January 1974. It's unclear when TLOF was filmed, but it wasn't released until May 1974. As such, it's possible that TLOF may have been shot prior to Winkler's acquisition of the Fonzie part and that the producers of Happy Days were aware of his work in the film, but it seems unlikely; indeed, it's even possible that Winkler got the role of Butchey due to his work on TV. Whatever the case, TLOF has remained a better known film than it otherwise might because of this connection, plus the presence of another soon-to-be-famous actor in the cast, a pre-Rocky Sylvester Stallone. Although Winkler's Butchey mainly just looks like the Fonz with his leather jacket and ducktail, Stallone's Stanley seems like a tougher version of Rocky, though by the end of the film, the parallels are greater. Stanley shares one distinction in TLOF: he's the closest thing to a full-blooded character the film possesses, and he's the only one who shows any actual growth. (When was the last time you heard that about a part played by Stallone?) Unfortunately, that's more of a reflection on the bland quality of this movie than it is an indication of any strong writing or acting; TLOF comes across as a dirtier - and much less compelling - version of American Graffiti. Actually, the movie also shares a lot in common with 1971's Last Picture Show. Both took the period locations of the Fifties and imbued them with a much more graphic nature than we saw in the sweetly innocent AG. That worked well in TLPS but doesn't do much here; ultimately TLOF seems like little more than a half-rate combination of those two (much better) movies. The film simply has little of interest. The characters are generally flat and uncompelling. Our main lead, Perry King's Chico, is the worst of the bunch for two reasons. First, he occupies the most screen time but we never see any sort of character development or nuance; he's just a handsome lunk out to get laid. Second, King seems inappropriate for the role. The other three actors in the Lords Of Flatbush gang (Paul Mace rounds out the quartet as Wimpy) all look like thugs to some degree, but King would seem more at home as the star quarterback; not for a second did I believe him as a juvenile delinquent type, and King lacks the acting chops to make it work. Not much happens in the movie, which isn't necessarily a flaw as long as the characters work and the writing's crisp. Since neither are the case in TLOF, the general lack of plot hampers the film to a strong degree. It just kind of plods along with no real reason for being; it's just there. Ultimately, the movie seems mildly interesting as a curiosity due to the cast, but does little to sustain the viewer's attention even across its brief 84 minute running time. The Lords Of Flatbush appears in both its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1 and in a fullscreen on this double-sided, single-layered DVD; the letterboxed image has been enhanced for 16X9 televisions. Only the widescreen version was reviewed for this article. Though not atrocious, The Lords of Flatbush offers an awfully ugly picture. Sharpness is the main problem here, but not the only one. This is a tremendously soft image for the most part. Every once in a while a scene looks fairly crisp, but these instances are all too rare; most of the movie seems fuzzy and unfocussed. Well, at least this prevented any jagged edges or moiré effects! The print itself seemed fairly clean; I noticed periodic grain and white speckles plus a few small scratches, but it appears to have help up pretty well over the years. Colors are decent though somewhat pale and faded; I felt they looked okay, though I think they would have seemed less satisfactory were it not for the image's softness. Black levels are fairly good, and shadow detail is decent but unspectacular. I've seen worse-looking DVDs, but not too many (thankfully). Equally weak is the film's monaural soundtrack. It's pretty obvious that virtually all of the dialogue and effects were recorded on the set, and recorded poorly, as neither sounds even mediocre. Speech suffers the worst, as it's thin, flat and possesses a very distant quality; I had so much trouble understanding dialogue that I left the subtitles on throughout the movie. The effects fare better just because they're less important; they seem subdued and distant as well, however. The movie's rather poor songs obviously weren't recorded on the set, and they sound pretty decent; the music lacks bass but appears clean. Some background noise can be heard at times during the film. Ultimately, the soundtrack fails simply because it makes listening to the movie a chore. At this point, I'd like to address one factor that may be on your mind: the budget of TLOF. It's clear this thing cost about $7 to make, so some may feel I'm being too hard on the quality of the sound and picture; that line of reasoning may believe that the film has enough of a disadvantage due to its age, so the added problem of a very low budget intensifies the difficulty in making it presentable. And one would have a point. I don't think the poor quality of TLOF seems to be the fault of the folks at Columbia-Tristar (CTS) who transferred the movie. Instead, it's pretty likely that the thing always looked bad; cheap film stock and an inexperienced crew almost inevitably lead to an ugly movie. Nonetheless, when I review DVDs, I feel it's more important for my grades to offer an overall indication of the quality one can expect from the disc. As such, there may be very good reasons why a movie can look or sound no better than a "D", but to "be nice" and give it a higher grade because of those factors creates a misleading impression. I grade audio on a curve based on age - which is another indication of how bad this film sounds - but still have to stick to some generally absolute standards when I assign letter grades. So fair or not, TLOF gets its "D+"s. It earns its "D" for supplements much more clearly, as the DVD includes a pretty weak assortment of extras. We get the film's laughably bad trailer - which creates a faux doo-wop song to sell the movie - plus previews for Bugsy and La Bamba. The usual uninformative CTS talent files appear for actors King, Stallone and Winkler plus director Stephen Verona. Finally, some brief but decent production notes can be found in the DVD's booklet. The lack of supplements is unfortunate if just because it might have lent some interest to this package. On its own, however, the film isn't enough to sustain attention. The Lords Of Flatbush isn't a terrible movie but it seems overly derivative and lacks much to compel the viewer. Add to that a DVD with poor picture, sound and supplements and you have a disc that should be skipped.

Terrific! Thanks.

How does the price compare to the Panasonic DVC-30? That's a nice little camera whose price has been coming down and has bigger (1/4") chips. Here's a review I found: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/panas...rder-review.htm It has a feature called SNS Super night shooting which I think Panasonic did because if it had given it 24P capability it would have hurt the DVX-100 market. It's nice camera but get the XLR adaptor.

Thanks guys! That's a big help and it seems like it's not going to be as unapproachable an effect as I had worried. Something occured to me after reading your replies which I'm going to test out and which might help anybody attempting this effect. I know that in black and white films they often did things that looked pretty funky but worked for the movies, such as green lipstick on the hero cowboy. Similarly, maybe for something like a basketball which might be tough to isolate without affecting certain skintones, the faces that going to be black and white could have make-up of a non skin tone hue (like Blue Man Group maybe) but not so dark as I believe that black and white may not differentiate hue so much but a really dark make-up job might stand out. Pretty psyched by the possibility of being able to do this!

Thanks, those are helpful suggestions. I usually capture from Mini-DV but for this short project wondered if I should go to a higher format tape (although I would have to rent a deck for the capture) but the hard drive makes much more sense as an alternative. So, that answered my question. It's either Mini-DV which I can already play or if I can do it then into a hard drive which sounds more appealing. Thanks!

If you're not recording dialogue you could slight overcrank to smooth out the bumps.

I have a shot in which I'd like evrything to be black and white except for a basketball which ideally would be moving but if necessary could be done with the ball stationary and camera stationary too. I edit with Final Cut Pro studio. Does anybody know how to do this? Thanks.

I have some 16 mm color negative that I want to transfer to something that I can then capture into Final Cut Pro. What would you recommend using for the transfer? Thanks.

In regard to your "once it becomes your life" comment, how many people have been on a long shoot, both in length and number of days, and at some point if you wake up in the middle of the night and you become conscious of a night light flaring or something your first thought is somebody get a flag on that? I like to eat healthily so I always have a back-up plan, a bag of stuff that I can absolutely find satisfactory, even hot food in a thermos, if I don't like what's available. People tell me that I shouldn't have to do that but I don't care. I want to be in a good mood plus it often saves waiting in line, time I can use to already be seated and thinking about what's next. Also, I've learned to complain about some things (getting the right lights) and not others. If the crew is unhappy I'll speak up but if it's just a case that I'm not interested in the food I don't bitch and I dig out my FMREs (Film Meals ready to eat.)

Sorry.

edited/can't delete

edited/can't delete

Would have deleted all these, sorry. Is there a way to delete posts by the way?

Hi John, I have been working like crazy so I've just come home and slept but I did get to watch another episode in the DVD set ("The Massage".) At 22 minutes it's perfect to eat my take- out and watch and then crash. I think that your lighting is great. Nothing ever looks lighted but there have been several times when I could see a glint in somebody's eyes, usually the wisecracking Det. McNeil and I'm sure that is your doing (and it's also nice that it's ONE glint in each eye.) I really think that the lighting is so good because that's something that I look for and I keep finding myself drawn into the story and forgetting about lighting. I am noticing the grain more than I remember noticing it when it was on t.v., although those were subsequent episodes. I never saw the pilot and these episodes until now. Was there a particular factor affecting the grain earlier on? Again, however, it looks so good that I get absorbed in the story and the lighting works perfectly.