Thomas Fant

Just for the record, I certainly did not mean to suggest that the break in was a publicity stunt or hoax. That too would make for interesting fiction, but since there is no mention of it on the website, I would tend to think that they would be seeking more....publicity than to just post it here and on dvxuser. Also the already raised arguments that they have stated that it will not slow down production, etc. I didn't mean to be callous in my remarks, just ironic speculation, but since no major damage seems to have been done to the project, it seems more like a severely infuriating annoyance than a tragedy (all due respect).

Hey guy, it was just speculating, no need to be snide. Quite obviously, any product that is released is subject to being knocked off, but since the red system is (hypothetically) somewhat unique, it would seem pretty obvious if another company rushed something out very similar that they had a leg up. Of course I agree that espionage is by far the least likely (but most interesting) scenario.

I don't mean to make light of the situation, it's definitely uncool, but it actually sounds like the basis for an interesting film. All industrial espionage-ey, maybe the first narrative to be shot with the red. Could it really be industrial espionage though ? It seems like if that were the case, the perpetrator would have to realize that they would be found out, based on what they develop out of it. Maybe some governmental entity ? North Korea ? Ford Motors ? Will we see footage next week on youtube ? $100k is a lot, I'm sure you'll get the culprit in the end.

The filmmakers intention was probably to suggest a lobotomy, but by the time of this films setting, lobotomies were performed throught the nose, or even, and I know how preposterous this sounds, by a sort of ice pick through the eye socket. He could have received electroconvulsive therapy, which is disturbingly still in use, making a comeback even, I heard on npr.

Sorry , didn't notice your location in your tagline. Anyway, to get back on topic, I loved Star Wars when I was a kid, and I still do today, dislike the "imporvements", and abhor the prequels. George Lucas can do whatever he wants utimately, no matter how boneheaded, and people who are uptight about whether or not something is art or not make artists laugh. I'm certainly not trying to say that GL is comparable to a Matisse, Mozart or Shakepeare, but those who dissmiss his films would do well to think about how vulgar these artists were considered to be in their own time.

They did though, don't you remember those pre-fab news spots they were trying to sell (was it last year ?). Or the guy that they paid to "independently" advocate for no child left behind ? Or that plant they had in the press corps who was later disgraced by having his prediliction for male hookers revealed ? It's crazy that we have gotten to a point where you can critically say about this administration " they're so bad I wouldn't be surprised if they...." and then you pause and realize "..ohh, they did"

I was (mis)qouting a joke hence that little thing at the end of the line. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiley) The joke is about the typical victim, When Animals Attack!! being someone from a suburban, middle class, "white" background, the humorous observation being that those most removed from nature, danger or both in their daily lives are also typically the most enthusiastic for exposing themselves to it, even vicariously. Interesting that you chose to specifically respond to that line only. Maybe there is something wrong with my grammer that you could point out next.

That's my point, you wanted an argument. There isn't really much room in your comments for interpretation.It seems that you want to use someone elses (admittedly predictable) misfortune as a soapbox to let everyone know about your own superiority. You are of course entitled to whatever opinion you like of the man and his practices, and to broadcast it loudly as you wish. Hell, I agree that white people need to stop bothering animals ;) . But "I told you so's" are in poor taste, and ultimately seem more about you telling people how smart you are, not how dumb he was. A boxer is doing a job, a stuntman is doing a job, a firefighter is doing a job, Steve Irwin did his job. To me all of those occupations are for maniacs, but I don't gloat over my own superiority when I see Muhammad Ali on television and he can't speak. I admire the passion and dedication to a pursuit that was strong enough to cause him to put himself in danger. People have said "you take risks when driving a car" to which you replied that is was an ordinary, acceptable risk. Not after a 20 hour workday. That is an "idiotic risk" I bet a majority of people on this forum have taken, at some point. Can you compare Steve Irwin, habitual risk taker, to a firefighter ? Maybe not, but I don't believe it is valid to compare him to a drunk that teases an alligator and gets bitten, or worse. I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else who shares your feelings on this issue, there is already plenty of insulting going on with every subject on this forum more contentious than whether or not the sky is blue. Just having my say.

So then you posted provocative comments (insulting the recently deceased is generally considered bad form in western societies, regardless of circumstance) for the express purpose of creating an argument ?

I think it could have been shot through a mirror lens. So far as I know, a technology applied pretty much exclusivey to still photography, but it creates toroidal out of focus highlights that look kind of like that.These sort of lenses have no (adjustable) aperture and tend to be slow, and the video looked pretty dark, at least on my screen. Anyway, that's my theory

My girlfriend does make up and costume, and apparently the most commonly used thing is artificial eyes made for taxidermy. You could google taxidermy supplies, you will be amazed at how many places you will find. Some makeup artists use mortuary suppliers as well, but most of them will be suspicious of, and reluctant to sell to, people without a mortuary licence. It may even be illegal, in some places. I don't know if that will neccesarily help you though, If your actor MUST see out of the eyes. A lot of times "wolfman" costumes have eyeholes concealed by fur, or the actor is blind in them. You could try www.monstermakers.com or http://www.theacme.com/incEngine/ but they will probably be more expensive than taxidermy suppliers, and will probably just sell you the same thing. A lot of the sites listed on theacme.com are wholesale only also. If he must see out of the eyeholes, and there is no room for an artificial eyeball, these sites (and hot topic in the mall) can help you find "monster" contacts, and you will have to hide the seam with makeup

Do you have a url for custom upholstery ?

A.D.I.D.A.S All Day I Dream About Socialism Sorry I couldn't resist

Check out this url for a comparison of three similar cameras, about as good as it can get without personally testing them. http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/ I have used both the dvx and xl2 extensively, and slightly prefer the xl2. Definitely agree that the dvx is a little easier right out of the box, and I can understand how people would dislike the form factor of the xl2, but for me it is more comfortable.

Maybe it's cliche, but the serpentine dolly shot of the woodcutter walking through the woods in "Rashomon"