Keith Mottram

Thanks for being so pedantic and for using a cereal box analogy, what a brilliant contribution. In fact if you think about what you wrote you'll quickly realise how dumb your post is as with 3D cinema/ televisoin we are doing exactly that- having our brains fuse two 2d images and create the 'spatial relationship'. But if you insist I am quite happy working on a 'spectacle', it's more interesting than playing King Canute anyway...

Actually 3D has been around since pretty much the dawn of photography. It no more sucks than colour sucks to some crusty black and white aficionado. Anyone who thinks that people will happily watch 2D forever is deluded. We see in 3D why on earth should we watch films in 2D? Its a retarded attitude. You might not like the 3D films you've seen, but if you don't like 3D walk around with an eye patch on...

It was a 2D to 3D conversion. It was shot to dark for 3D anyway from what I can tell from the trailers to make a good conversion. I think there should be a disclaimer for any 2d to 3d conversions as then everyone wouldn't bother and good 3D can continue. Otherwise this sort of poop will kill the movement. which would be a shame as good 3D is the future...

I dunno the rate the shutters move at probably kills this issue... at least in practice... no i cannot be bothered at moment anyway!

Here's what I'm watching at the moment/ and or recently... Bored to death, Hung, Treme, True Blood, Eastbound and Down, Curb, Entourage... hmmm bit of a pattern there, on the other hand I do watch Newsnight, loved Wonders of the Solar System and I think that the BBC's HD world cup coverage was the best sport coverage I have ever seen- there set was worth every penny/ dime of my licence fee. And to think I have about a hundred channels on my box...

Hi Karel, not noticed any problems in this respect on the 50" panasonic that I use. Would say that overall I think active give a far superior experience than passive sets, in terms of richness of experience... Keith

Not simple, there is a plugin for fcp, but you cannot make two stream 3d (which is required for BRdvd) you can do side by side etc though. it is okay for hobbyish kind of way and is only a few hundred quid if i rememeber. I currently use neo3d which is okay for offline work and can do 2 stream, but is data hungry and is strictly cuts only with limited scope for adjustments. i therefor online on smoke. i'll be doing an in depth article soon. will let everyone know when it's ready.

I'm doing a couple of 3d projects. I love the format. But have yet to meet a director who understands it. YOU CAN NOT SHOOT 3D LIKE 2D. Until people get this then this argument is pointless. I have radically changed the way I edit, but I have yet to receive rushes from a director who has changed the way they shoot. why? because they cannot get their head around it. a general rule is that 3D needs to be shot to allow subjective viewing. this counters a directors natural instinct to push their objective standpoint. i am not limiting this to features, but docs, tvads, whatevers... people will think 3d sucks until 3d films are shot by a clued up team- this includes all department heads. oh and one other thing sound is very important with 3d and its effect is often overlooked. my favourite quote from the old guard came from coppola: "I feel that until you can watch 3D without glasses, it's the same thing we know," he said. "I personally do not want to watch a movie with glasses." this is from a guy who is erm shortsighted. does this mean he watches everything out of focus?????

yes the long jump was shot on a 435...

Hi Tim, Off the top of my head the only film HS shot that made it into the cut was one of Tim Roth walking down the Hospital corridor at the end of the film, one that I had left on the cutting room floor only to be reinstated by the main (picture) editor- Peter Christelis, who was a joy to work with but wanted that darn shot in! The shot jars and is actually, I think, the only film shot in the whole film (others may crop up in deleted scenes in another dvd release), with all the talk of films latitude blah de blah you can spot it a mile off as it wouldn't grade to match the HD! Plus its grainy as hell. All other HS was 50 or 60 fps 422 upsampled to 444 for the grade. Any other questions I'll try to answer- though after the ear bashing I got from the somewhat 'tabloidesque words out of context' interview I did with High Definition mag I'll be super diplomatic! Keith

The QT rapper will allow it to be viewable, but does not mean it is fully functional with other programmes. stick your clips through compressor and convert them to an apropriate codec- probably prores or dv depending on your system.

thanks a million Stephen Keith

the fact that no one's sure shows just how far digital has come. this is in itself a minor cause for celebration. i'd be very surprised if it is not digital though...

No one? Not a single person here???? Come on need some help on this one guys and gals...

I'll second that, as far as I'm concerned the TC is only a guide- a good one but just a guide. That is the rule I tell my assistants. On a multicam shoot if there is one day when all the digislates are bang on I'm amazed, plus as soon as you move to cameras with seperate recording devices you have a lot of room for various offsets and all digislates drift and in my experience are never jammed frequently enough. You would not believe the amount of issues I have seen over the years with digislates, though not as many as incompetent slating. My biggest hate is when someone claps and moves the board out imediately, not realising that their movement blurs the slate and so you cannot accurately see the clap! I have seen it on so much footage, even with experienced AC's - especially at the end of the day, which is unsurprising. Poor slating can waste hours in the edit room and I have been known to walk onto set and scream blue murder at a camera crew after witnessing endless slate **(obscenity removed)**ups on rushes!

What you need to remember with FX is that working at 4k rather than 2k is multiplying not only storage and render time by roughly four times, but also processor functionality. This directly effects the creativity process, so you have to spend more time working in proxies, more time estimating rather than dealing with problems practically, etc etc. Basically it is not just a matter of money but also creativity and time. You might have a squillion dollar budget, but that doesn't mean you want to wait for months on end to see a shot which doesn't work for what is in essence a smallish improvement- especially considering that films are rightly or wrongly always going to be watched more at home than a cinema. One or two effects shots at 4K (or above) are fine but a whole FX laden movie would be seriously hampered by doing the FX at such resolution however much cash and fascilities they had at their disposal. Then again in a few years it could change, but in reality we are only just comfortably working at 2K without staring at endless render bars. Keith

Anyone know a good place to rent a bodymount in London, particularly thinking of the Doggicam version. Also interested in peoples opinions on different bodymounts. Thanks alot, Keith

FYI Color works in 32bit float not ten bit though you can obviously output 10bit files after.

You sure your not getting the formats muddled up? The aaton a-minima was clear as it was obviosly grainy, whereas the video looking stuff was a genesis with open shutter- hardly a tiny camera. Either way if were talking small cams an SI2k mini would be a better choice than a prosumer in a production like this if you were looking for something less 'videoish'.

I use premiere. But only as a way of moving timelines from FCP to AE. I don't get why people like it, I always thought it sucked back in the day and well I guess I'm now to old to give it another go. In fact last time I used it properly it was some weird combo with media 100 hardware. I cannot remember why.

i guess what i'm thinking is that with sophisticated colour correction systems and the ability to not need additional lighting outside practicals (in situation where you dont need to 'fake' the light) will we not see a shift in the way things will be shot. if you do not need suplimentary lighting to achieve what the eye can see on a dark night will that not make a difference to how you shoot in a dingy corridor or a dark pub? obviously there is a need for higher dynamic range to achieve this aswell. you could argue that it will mean more time in post to gain some of these benefits but this is surely a more controllable and practical way for some productions to work.

daft topic title I know, but it looks like soon we'll be seeing acceptable noise in 3200 asa (and above) when shooting with the next gen of digital cameras. the question is how this will change the DOP's role?

can you find out if they were shooting to SR or data? thank you keith

Not all SR machines are set up for 4:4:4. this could be what they meant.

very easy to do if you know a decent colourist or if you have some time to learn FCP color. there is a preset in the color fx room which will mash your colours up completely and provide a good starting point. btw you need to change your name to first and last. Keith