Fdz Bx

thanks a lot, Steve, this is exactly what I needed to know. I've had this lens lying around and was wondering if it could be put to good use. I guess not. Is it worth anything? Would it be worth selling on e-bay? It's not the cleanest lens, with a few light scratches on the front element...

no one?

I just realized that the mount was screwed on and when I took it off, I ended up with a different mount. Not sure if this was a bayonet mount added to an Arri standard mount.

I have a Canon 600D and an Arriflex-Angenieux type 10 x 25 T2 zoom lens that I would like to use it with. I am not sure what kind of mount the Arri lens is but I have attached images. Is there an adapter that would allow this lens to work with an APS-C camera? Many thanks for the info.

Thanks a lot, Chad. That's the answer I came up with as I do want the background to compress. My question, though, is if I was dollying out and zooming in, would it look like a dolly in or more like a zoom in? I say that because it means that camera will be going back and the only thing bringing us forward is the zoom. Also, what kind of coordination would there to be? The grip moving the dolly backward and the focus puller zooming in? Any equipment necessary? We don't have much of a budget... And can you think of an example of this kind of a shot in a movie, where the subject is also getting closer to the camera?

OK, let me see if I can describe the shot better. We have our actress hunched on the floor crying in the middle of the room. I will describe the look of what I want to achieve, but I'm not sure on how to technically do it. I want to dolly in on her over a 15 second shot and make it also look like the room is shrinking around her. The vertigo shot usually goes from telephoto to wide and throws the background further. In Goodfellas, they do the opposite. However, the norm in using the reverse dolly shot is to have your subjects stay in the same place on the screen so that you can achieve the maximum impact of the shot. I don't want to do that. I want to use a much more subtle approach and make it look as if it were a slow dolly in whilst the walls push tighter on her. Any way of achieving that optically?

"A Headline Romance" posits a London romance between a Palestinian girl and her Jewish musician boyfriend. The relationship isn't going too well when Luma makes a startling discovery. She finds out that her romance is being reported upon in the news only told between the Israelis and Palesinians. Slowly she becomes obsessed and realizes that the news is essentially forecasting her love life; every suicide bombing, every house demolished mirrored in their fights with one another. As the relationship degrades, she begins praying for the peace process to work in the hopes that it might salvage their own love life. The film is a 15 minute short to be shot on Super16 for 9 days between the 22nd of September the 5th of October. As this is a student outfit, we can only pay expenses- however as this is our final film (and particularly because of the subject matter), it will be part of the Goldsmiths showreel and we will get it into all the festivals we can. A diary of the preproduction is available on aheadlineromance.blogspot.com Experienced gaffers please send showreels and CVs to thefdz*at*gmail.com

OK, I've been trying to convince my DP that this is possible. Basically I want to do a trombone shot (reverse dolly / vertigo shot) but don't want it to be very clear. I want to slooooooooowly dolly in on my main character and feel like the rest of the room is closing in around her. My solution is to start wide and then dolly away from the subject faster than I'd be zooming. This would achieve the effect I'm talking about however wouldn't it just look like a zoom in? Any ideas?

I'm just gonna come right out and disagree with all the other posters here; I think the movies were hilarious. I totally dug the humour! In fact, I think that's the strongest thing you've got going for you and you just need more practice to bring up your other skills to par. Manhole 1 is a better piece all in all because I find it keeps things real and throws in the quirky elements as a surprising garnish. That way they come out much funnier. In Manhole 2, the whole movie never seems to settle on a reality and is all over the place. Ed, was perfect in the first film, a small dose of zen-guru weirdness. In part 2 he takes up much more time and in consequence is a lot less funny. The writing is on target; witty, funny, clever (I love the juxtaposition of them wrestling and arguing over what homosexuality is) and fresh. The direction, on the other hand, relies on too many cinematic conventions and seems to overlook how they are affecting the film as a piece. It seems like the director is a bit too precious with his footage and lets some sequences sag and others play out just because they seemed to work in the script. An example of that is the listing of sexual adventures the two have gotten up to by the girlfriend that makes its point and then careens over. It's funny and some of the stuff in there is hilarious, but the crossfades need to be faster and the whole sequence shorter. Pick out the absolute funniest stuff and chuck the rest. Another example of direction leeching from conventions is the "yahoo" scream that echoes across city. It stuck out sorely as a filmic device taken from somewhere else. In fact I think too much in here sticks out as carbon copy technique rather than one that has been appropriated (see the ipod opening). The direction has to be a lot more organic to breathe life in to the script without transfering it from other movies. Other than that, a little more practice with continuity will help soften the cuts (instead of having a different expression for shot). Cinematically I think the same applies. The lighting in general seems a little sloppy, the framing sometimes loose. Give us some deep blacks and strong whites, and it will make your visuals a lot stronger. Also, although some find it "unrealistic" and garish, I am very much for strong, colored light that doesn't really need explanation. Lighting like that gives you more of an insight into the characters' mind and will always help liven up a drab interior. However beware how those end up in the cutting room. The problem with using colors like that is that you have to have a clear unifying palette for the film. In the second part, the sequencing of different colors turns the film into a messy kaleidoscope. Decide on a limited palette and stick to it. If this is sounding like a harsh critique, I apologize. In fact I'm not the type to usually write up a review but was quite pleasantly surprised by your film that I felt a little advice might be helpful. I will reiterate what I said; you have an excellent idea and script there, the other aspects are simply skills that come with training. Keep up the good work and I really look forward to part III! the pope