Ken Cangi

Selling pristine video outfit - "barely used" and in mint condition. - Panasonic DVX100b. $2100.00 or best, reasonable offer. This camera has had twenty minutes of tape run through it - confirmed by the in-camera counter. Two 60-min batteries included. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/406855-REG/Panasonic_AGDVX100B_Panasonic_AG_DVX100B_3CCD_24p.html) - Rode NTG-2 Directional Condenser Microphone. $180.00, with 3' and 50' XLR cables and included. Brand new condition, used once. - Kata BP-502 Video-Camera Backpack. $195.00, with dedicated dolly included. - Manfrotto 501 Fluid Head. $100.00 Used once, brand new condition. - Boom pole (Ultimate Stand 23760-B) w/canvas soft case and strap. $75.00 - Cavision R15B80 carbon fiber rails and mount. $80.00 - Sony Vegas 7 & DVD Architect 4 (Professional HD Video, and DVD Creation). Includes Vegas 7, DVD Architect, and AC-3 Surround Encoder. $325.00 - Magic Bullet (included) with package sale. - Videos and Books: a) VASST - Absolute Training for Vegas + DVD Architect. (3 DVD set) B) The DVX DVD and training manual by Barry Green. c) VASST - Director/Camerman (Master the Shoot) by Victor Milt. Sell set of training DVDs and books for $130.00 Selling package for $3000.00 or best, reasonable offer. Serious inquires only. http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a69/kencangi/000_0002-1.jpg http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a69/kencangi/000_0007.jpg http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a69/kencangi/000_0008.jpg You can reach me at: info@mountaincatfilmworks.com, or on my cell (801.560.9741 p.s. Please disregard the emoticons. They are a result of typing in punctuation marks followed by the letter B

That all depends on which numbers you choose to believe. Unfortunately, it appears to be much worse.

I couldn't say, although here is his Wikipedia bio. Whatever the truth about his personality, the cinemagraphic portrayal made this one of my favorites films of the season.

I just saw this on DVD, and it was, for me, one of the best movies that I have seen in quite some time. Sean Penn and Eric Gautier brought amazing justice to Jon Krakauer's portrayal of Christopher McCandless's emotional journey. The story and characters were engaging, and I loved the cinematography. Some might argue that Penn elevated McCandless's character to state of excessive romanticism and wisdom beyond his years, although I found that to be integral to the movie's appeal. This young man's journey was driven by idealism and a romantic vision of what his world should be. Penn and Gautier captured that amazingly well, IMO.

I just saw No Country on DVD. I looked forward to this film, and I have to say that it didn't work for me. Deakins' work was top-shelf, but the story fell short on several levels. I don't know whether to call it an indiscriminate use of suspension of disbelief or just lazy plot development, but so much of this story made no sense. For instance, how did Woody Harrelson find Brolin in a Mexican Hospital, and how did Bardem find Harrelson and Brolin in Mexico, after the tracking device had already been eliminated? Maybe there were more tracking devices in the bag, but we would never know that because Brolin - survival skills notwithstanding - didn't bother to empty the bag and check. It reminded me of so many B-movies in which the predator always seems to know where the prey is hiding. Fargo, and O Brother, Where Art Thou? were much more intelligently executed stories, IMO.

Hopefully you can see the folly in how you responded to David. A quick search of his name should make it clear that he has and does much more with his time than moderate on this site - not that his contributions here aren't of immense value to many of us. This site is an incredibly valuable resource to both aspiring and working filmmakers, and much of its credibility comes from knowing who is giving information, like, for instance, Mr. Mullen, who is a highly respected DP in the feature film industry. Submitting ones real name is more than a reasonable request, considering the wealth of information and resources that this site makes freely available to its members.

The attention to authenticity made this movie very real and engaging to me. There were no artificial sounding sound effects, and the acting was invisible. Even the light, as beautiful as it was, appeared as it would if I were standing in the scene. And above all, Casey Affleck's disturbing portrayal of Robert Ford was so well executed that it left me feeling uncomfortable for the rest of the day. It is no surprise to me that this film lacked mass appeal. Most modern theatergoers are accustomed to movies that deliver instant gratification and seat-of-your-pants sound and special effects. This film, thankfully, didn't resort to such tactics, nor did it need to. One of my favorites films of the season, so far.

Sure, Jim. You are confusing opinion for confrontation. That post was my opinion. Your response in calling me to tell me to fu** off was the confrontation. And if what I told you in my last post, about consumer impressions and motivations, is old news to you, then all I can say is: Good luck with that. Cheers, KC

I would think that a guy with your level success would read more carefully. I never said that you personally threatened me or anyone else. I said that you made an unsolicited phone call to my office and told me that I could fu** off. I also said that I initially kept that information personal because of the to final tone of the conversation. The comments of mine that you just posted elaborate on my reason for initially giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would have done the same for most people under those circumstances. Now you seem to be trying to manipulate my words, as it appears you have done with Phil and others, and I am calling you on it. Why are you so defensive, unless you believe that my and other's criticisms are valid? Maybe you aren't used to being called on your behavior, but you should expect it in a forum like this. Not everyone is going to assume the position of sycophant because you are Jim Jannard. If you want the respect of the people who are making their livings in this field, then you should consider extending that same respect to them. What you may not realize is that I was very interested in your camera up to the point at which you told me to fu** off because of my opinions. Since then, I have watched how you handle yourself in here, and I have continually asked myself what dealing with that attitude would be like on the back end, if I purchased one of your systems and had a problem with it. I don't know how you feel, but, for me, two thirds of my decision, when making any serious purchase, is based on professionalism and customer service. There are lots of cameras out there that get the job done - some better than others - but in the end, a reliable and friendly customer service relationship will make or break the product's success. That is why I stayed with Nikon for twenty-eight years, even after Canon began to dominate the market. NPS always had my back when the equipment failed. They never made excuses or blamed me for the problem. They just went out of their way, in the friendliest and most professional manner, to make sure that I was back up and running asap. Look, you don't have to give a damn about anything that I have to say, although I would be willing to bet that I am not the only one with these concerns. Others here have commented about your approach, but maybe you, for some reason, don't feel the need to value their opinions. Not all of us have David Mullen's stature in the industry, although there are many of us are out there making a steady living and spending money on equipment. I am new to the movie industry, although I have had a successful three decades in the commercial photography industry. If it was indeed your intention to use this site as a vehicle for marketing your new product, wouldn't it be in your best interest not to offend your potential customers because you don't agree with or feel comfortable with their criticisms? Instead, you have done things like belittling Mr. Rhodes by calling him a heckler because he has asked you hard questions that you have refused to answer. Phil's approach might be less than savvy, although he seems like an honest guy with valid questions. Watching the Red staff gang up on him and try to paint him as a fool has done nothing toward inspiring me to look at you as a potential equipment supplier. If you really don't respect his opinion, or mine, then the professional thing to do would be to simply ignore us. Feel free to handle your affairs in which ever way suits you. All I am asking is that you please have some consideration for those of us who invest the time and effort to follow these threads for the purpose of learning. If you don't like what someone says about your product, try to answer their concerns in a non-confrontational way or just ignore them. Is that really too much to ask? I am not out to make you or your product look bad. I am just stating my opinions and concerns about things that you put out there in a public forum. Take the info or leave it, That is your prerogative.

Why not name the people whom you are accusing of wanting Red to fail? Isn?t that more credible than just citing your personal opinion about what nameless people are thinking? The latter is no better than insisting that something is so because you say it is. You also said that Jannard has been accused of all types of dishonesty, although you failed to note that he, himself, has been guilty of that and bullying people when they have offered pertinent criticism that ran counter to his agenda. He has done this on several occasions, once to at me during an unsolicited phone call to my company. Hitherto that phone call, my only correspondence with Jannard had only been in Red forums in which I offered what I believed to be non-biased, constructive criticism. He apparently didn?t appreciate my point of view. I have watched him do this to others, in these forums, who have asked him hard questions, so I do not take it personally. There is no rule stating that Jim Jannard is obligated to reveal trade secrets, research methods, or any other information, for that matter, although he should not be surprised or offended when his inconclusive claims are questioned by field experts on this board. Did he not invite these questions by virtue of having presented these claims, on Cinematography.com, in the first place? It has been my belief all along that Jannard would have better served his quest for professional input ? if that was ever his original intention for posting here ? by having his engineers post incognito. The debates would have been more about the information and less about the promotional hype, which I can?t help but feel might have been the actual goal all along. Maybe there is a contingent of cinematographers who are actually afraid that digital media will eventually render film obsolete, although I doubt that most working professional are preoccupied with that fear. As for the engineers on the board, it doesn?t surprise me that they would want to evaluate the claims based on a comprehensive and transparent set of data. That is what they do, after all.

I read his post. That he inferred anything is your opinion. His comment does not explicitly state it. As for the "personal" nature of our phone conversation, that is also your opinion. Your call to me was unsolicited and in no way mutually personal. I kept your inappropriate remarks personal at the time as a benefit-of-the-doubt courtesy to you, based on the final tone of that conversation. Since then, I have watched you continually bully and insult those who disagree with you, and I'm over it. Your temper tantrums are adding nothing constructive to the educational nature of threads like this one. Moreover, they paint a questionable picture of your character. You might be a dominating force in the boardroom, but, in here, you are just another username with a personal opinion. Please show some common consideration for those of us who came here to learn something. You can play emperor on your own site. Thank you for wishing me the best, although I can't help but feel that you are just saying it to placate me. End of vent.

Daniel is correct, Jim. You do have an obvious habit of trying to verbally bully and slick-talk anyone who seriously questions you. Your manipulating Phil's comment is just another example of it. I find your behavior to be completely unprofessional and condescending. Did you originally come to this site to procure real insight from real industry professionals, or was it to market your latest toy? If Phil's criticisms are actually complete nonsense and just an attempt to heckle you, then why do you continually respond to him? I dare say that it is because he has valid points that you are afraid to address, and you want him to go away. What are your scientific credentials to argue this technology with him on any intensive level? I was actually learning something from his debates with the other experts until you started in again. Why don't you do what you do best (marketing and promotion), and leave these guys to educate those of us who are actually interested in learning something here. BTW, please don't call or Email me to tell me to fu** off again, because I will post it this time.

I've never heard the term, either, although I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the backround formatiom growing out of the baby's head. That is a very obvious compositional flaw.

I'm not so sure about that. With the price of tickets now up to and, in some cases, over ten dollars, in conjunction with the fact that these films turn over to Blockbuster in approximately sixty days, combined with the price of ten to fifteen dollars for a popcorn and soda, I serious question the longevity of cinema as we currently know it. I have been forgoing the theater because of the high prices and other inconveniences. With the quality and relatively low cost of HD televisions, fast turn over of films, convenience of viewing in the privacy of home, and added attraction of special features, where is the impetus to pay a small fortune to see another average studio flick at the theater, when I can rent six of them at Blockbuster for the same price?

If they did copy your idea, they did it no justice. Your video is much more interesting - both technically and visually. Nice work, Phil.

I don't see Red vs. HVX200 as a fair comparison at all. You can purchase three HVX200s - optics included - for the price of one Red body, w/no lens. That fact alone puts them in two entirely different categories. I think red is priced in a grey zone, and will probably get more attention in the rental market, although I could be wrong.

I finally had the pleasure of watching this film on DVD last night. Congratulations to the Polish Brothers and David Mullen. The story was excellent, the messages were refreshing, and the cinematography was beautiful. I look forward to your next collaboration.

Thank you all for the input. Your comments and suggestions have given me a better perspective, and I agree that not discriminating in finding the best technique for the situation is an intelligent and practical way to approach this challenge. I'll let you know how the final shots work out. KC

I am shooting an adventure climbing film, and I am trying to find an alternative to zooming out to wide scenery. Dolly shots are not practical, and helicopters are not allowed in a few of the locations. I am trying to find alternatives for achieving this style of shot, and I am curious about whether some of the feature and documentery shooters here think it's ever acceptable to zoom out.

The Painted Veil and Blood Diamond were two visually attractive movies to me.

Not that this hasn't been the case in a few other threads, although I don't see that here. This isn't about the pros and cons of the Red project. That horse has been beaten into submission. This is about a so-called, established professional continually belittling film workers (members), whose experience apparently don't measure up to his standard. He comes across as a pompous ass. Carl, Didactic and condescending is exactly how you come across. Your approach makes you appear like a guy who uses your alleged position in the industry to look down your nose at others. People like that always fail to see that society isn't impressed with elitists. If you really want to add something productive to these forums, then try coming down from your pedestal and approach the others here - especially the novice filmmakers - as peers. David Mullen, from all outward appearances has more status in the industry, and he has somehow managed to remain humble and accommodating to the other members of this site, regardless of their experience or lack thereof.

Carl, Does constantly disparaging and belittling new film-industry workers and fresh filmmakers inflate your self-image and self-perceived status in the industry? I made a promise to myself that I would try to avoid negative dialog with certain members of this forum, and, until now, I have honored that promise. Unfortunately, I have listened to as much of your self-aggrandizing and condescending commentary as I can take. Whether or not you are actually even minutely as connected and established as you incessantly claim to be is of no importance to me and probably most members of this site. Your presentation is far from impressive. In fact, your continual attacks on people like Jannard are making you look like a complete fool. Even if his Red project tanked tomorrow, his past successes are quantum leaps above anything that you could probably offer as your contribution to this industry and society in general. Where are the examples of your master works? Maybe you should list your resume and a demo reel so that we can publicly scrutinize it. What do you say, champ?

This is a telling statement, considering that a Beijing court sentenced the former head of China's food and drug administration to death Tuesday on corruption charges for accepting bribes in return for granting approvals to hundreds of medicines. Here is an excert form a recent news report: "The sentence comes as lax controls over the safety of foodstuffs, drugs and other consumer goods have catapulted to the top of the national agenda following a series of public health scares from Chinese-made products. It also came on the same day state media announced China would introduce regulations soon creating a recall system for dodgy products."

I understand your point, although I have to disagree. I have stopped shooting still work professionally, but I always look at current work. I would say that there is a higher quantity of mediocre work out there than in years past, due to the fact that art directors and certain magazines are willing to hire lesser experienced shooters to save money. On the other hand, the best work is still produced by people with a high level of experience and knowledge of their craft, equipment, etc.

This I would like to see. I have spent thousands of hours in commercial and private darkrooms over the past thirty years, making archival b&w and color prints, as well as Duratrans, etc. and I have held several of Ansel Adams' originals in my hands. I have also worked commercially with every formaty of still camera from 35mm to 8x10, and I would bet you my SUV that any hack with Photoshop and a raw file wouldn't come within light years of a achieving a print of that caliber. I have two close friends - well known professionals in the industry - who have been using the latest Epson inks to get in the ball park of that quality, and they have managed to create some beautiful prints. Even they, after close examination, feel that the ink prints still don't get there. I think statements like this, in a forum like this, add as much value as do the film vs. digital diatribes. It has been said many times, and I will repeat it here, because I do speak from a strong experience and knowledge base. There is no substitute for experience, and you don't create images and prints of the caliber of the works of Ansel Adams without a boat-load of it. Most of these self-proclamed still pros can't even explain the difference between the Zone System and a hot dog - let alone how to use that system to expose and develop film to its maximum range of tonality. Half of them, if you showed them a spot meter, would thing it were a hip pocket camera. Ask them how selenium toner affects the final print and to what degree it alters the tonal range. These are intregal components of the equation. The other, and more important, difference between pros and w.e. warriors is that pros can handle the challenges of involved shoots, clients, budgets, etc. on demand. There is very little luck involved.