Josh Bass

Ghostbusters rules. I like some sandler movies. Waterboy included. what really blows is when you see something, think it's great, then see it years later, and don't.

I think, in the right environment (small room, or talking head interview situation), they're good for boosting the overall ambience in the room, via bouncing off the ceiling or something similar. You'd need a dimmer or some way to control the output, though.

I think the totas actually come with their own scrim. I have two, and they both have scrims that are shaped around the light.

Didn't it have the scrim on it? that's kinda supposed to as a "protector of flesh from flaming light fragments", isn't it?

You can use a tota with Chimeras.

As I get older, I find myself trying to stop "making" things be funny, and just "letting" them be funny. Make sense? I don't advocate pandering, with camerawork. We see a lot cinematography in comedies that tells you it's a comedy--bright colors, high key lighting, the aforementioned "funny" angles, etc. I think it's alright to not do that stuff, and just let the comedy "be." Sorry if that's a little off topic.

Unfortunately for your finances, it's kinda both. Well shot footage (best lighting, composition, etc.) that's still 60i (30fps interlaced) will still annoy some people, and even though they won't be able to tell you just what it is about your movie that looks "weird", they'll still notice something's "not right". Before I was ever into video/film production, I could tell the difference between interlaced video and film on TV. I think you'll hear the same from a lot of other members here. You can find software deinterlacers that take 60i footage and make it 24p (with some compromises in the final product), but they're not terribly cheap, at least the better ones. On the other hand, 24p footage that isn't lit well will just look like crappy available light video (maybe one of the new reality shows), with a different frame rate. Now, of course, you could be creative and try to stage things in areas that are naturally interestingly lit, but good luck with that. Or shoot outside and learn to be a genius with reflectors and whatnot.

I thought it was a pretty important position--otherwise the DP has to operate and can't concentrate on all the other DP stuff. . .wasn't that the point of having separate operators? I know a few dudes operate their own, but it's not the norm (on large productions), right?

Every one out there but Dvinfo, also a real name (and mandatory) board.

Are they only referred to as crushed when they go completely black? What if you just darken the shadow areas without killing all detail?

Yes, there are the custom presets where you can adjust setup. What I mean is, there's no "7.5" selection in the menus, the adjust ment is made with a little slider bar, and you can move it (I think) 6 notches down, or 6 notches up. What those adjustments mean is anyone's guess. Like I said, it looks "wrong" to adjust it, to my eye. I played with it once, in a low key scene, and noticed that while, yes, it was deepening the contrast/crushing the blacks, it was also making my caucasian actor's scene unpleasantly/reddish orange compared to the default setup level. It's not a very fine adjustment, is what I mean. It pulls down way more than the blacks when you mess with it. Beware.

I'll confess that this stuff still blows my mind. right now I own an XL1s (getting an XL2), and I've always left those settings alone, 1) 'cause you can't adjust the setup between 7.5 and 0 on an XL1s, and I leave things alone that I don't understand and 2) 'cause it looks better to not lower the setup (crushing blacks on the XL1s tends to orange up the skin tones in an unattractive away). I've always left it at 0. So 0 bad, 7.5 good?

Ignorant I'll admit to, stupid's a different story, and more insulting. I still think he meant something about the states relating to number of Christians in the U.S.

Give it time, children. It's a young NLE. It shall grow. Or not.

Well, yeah, the web versions of my movies don't look that great, but that's 'cause I try to keep 'em around 15 MB, no matter the length. But in Vegas, I've never really noticed much, certainly no blurring or softening. There was one project where I had those issues (some blockiness of the image), but I don't know why, to this day. Everything else I've done, looks fine. Weird. Maybe it's just 'cause it's a prosumer camcorder, like you said.

Oh my God. . .Brad defended me. Oh well, I can't argue with you anymore then. I don't know. . .I guess I always assumed that some Christians WANTED us to believe they were a huge world force, when in fact they were an extreme minority. Oh well. Apparently not. P.S. I think the states comment was not for its own sake, but trying to say "how many states are there? That has to do with the Christian population in the U.S. alone, disregarding the rest of the world." Maybe I'm wrong again, though.

Look, I was just making idle conversation. I don't know where I got the incorrect figure that I had in my mind. My bad.

Holy crap? Really? 2.1 Billion. I eat my humble pie humbly. I seriously thought it was a minority, compared to the world population. Which, I guess, technically, it is, but not as much as I thought. Still, I think mankind could survive Jesus' secret.

Hey guys, what are the DV artifacts, specifically, that I always hear mentioned? I work in DV exclusively right now, so I shoot DV, edit it, etc. I use Vegas, and I do my color correction and whatnot in there. I can't say I've really noticed degradation of the image, at least, that wasn't immediate detectable via the video preview. I mean sure, if you bring up dark parts of an image, you get noise, and if you push anything too far, you get those ugly weird looks, but I'm curious as to what I'm supposed to see that I don't. I push my stuff pretty far sometimes, in attempt to get one of the "modern" looks (desaturated, tinted some weird color, high contrast, etc), and I usually get good results if I don't go to far. so do you guys just mean the issues I've mentioned above (grain, color breakup if you alter it too much), or what? Just curious. I've never seen anything in the final render that didn't show up as you preview it (I mean using an external monitor). P.S. I don't know jack about film, but yeah, it seems very odd that you would wanna take something like S16 and use something like Vegas to play with it (or transfer it to miniDV for that matter). Maybe 8mm/super8, but 16 deserves better, doesn't it?

Uh oh, Nathan. Brad's gonna lay the smackdown on ye. Quick! Defend yourself before he can post again! Say it's just a personal opinion! Oh well. I tried to help you.

Alright, let's stop this before it goes any farther. Brad, we'll agree to disagree. I'm still refusing to see it on principle (whether anyone understands that principle or not), and that's all there is to it. I try to see movies I think I'll like, and this one doesn't qualify, for any number of reasons. Ditto reading books. I mean, okay, if I'm really desperate, I'll read something I know is crap just to make the time pass in situations where time needs to pass more quickly than it actually is. Movies don't work that way. If I called it an action thriller by mistake, I'm sorry. I saw a car chase in the trailer, and several shots of people running from something. So my bad. Anyway, I'll try to be less incendiary in the future, so, good day to you all. Happy Da Vinci Coding.

Alright, guys, let me try this tack: There are certain genres of literature/movies I just don't care for. I don't care who makes 'em, who's in 'em, etc. If it looks like any kind of silly action flick (if it's a silly action flick with puzzles, relgious themes, and riddle-solving), then it's a dealbreaker, period. Maybe that seems close-minded, but I don't see the point of reading something/going to see a movie I'm almost certain not to like. For me, it's the same as saying "I don't need to see "RV," or "The Honeymooners" (the one that just came out) to know it ain't for me. Dig? Not trying to offend anyone, but I get kind of annoyed when stuff becomes overhyped and omnipresent to where you can't avoid it, especially when I feel it's undeserved. So excuse my overly negative reaction. By the way, one thing that really annoyed me, just in trailer, is the whole "The greatest coverup in human history. . .if the secret ever got out, it would shake mankind to it's knees" business. How many people in the entire world are Christians? It's around 250,000,000, isn't it? Or am I way off? It's not the majority of the world population, so the entire premise that Jesus' well-kept secret (I don't want to spoil anything for anyone) is going to affect the whole human race is just a tad arrogant. There are an enormous number of people who simply wouldn't give a damn. That really bothered me.

Let me put it this way then: I am quite certain that if I read Dan Brown's work/see a movie based on such, I will be pissed off at myself for having wasted my time and money, based on my personal tastes, and what I think makes a good writer/movie. This is also based on the fact that I used to read stuff like this when I was less discerning, so I know what I'd be getting into. Better?

That's not always the case, though. Take Lord of War, for example. Regardless of whether you liked it or not, here's the deal: the trailers made it look almost like a comedy, where Nick Cage is weapons dealer, and his wife doesn't know! Tee hee! Look at all the hijinx that ensue as he keeps his secret from her! Almost like Mr. and Mrs. Smith part deux! And yet, that was not at all (not really, anyway) what Lord of War was about. I saw it after reading reviews that completely changed my mind about what I'd gleaned from the preview. I am, however, quite certain that the Da Vinci Code is crap, book and movie alike, and that Dan Brown is a bad writer. I haven't read his stuff, and I don't need to. And this is from a guy who reads hack writers.

I don't understand, do you mean using cell phones as walkie talkies on set? I haven't been on a shoot where people actually needed their cells during the shoot itself.