Ken Cangi

I found a few of them. Thanks for the info.

Just found an interview with Danny Boyle, in Indiewire. Apparently parts of it were shot on a Canon XL-1s.

I was interested in the idea that 28 Days Later was shot on DV, so I looked up the specs. ALLOCINE.CO.UK listed it as: Colour Film negative format : 35 mm. http://www.allocine.co.uk/film/fichefilm_g...film=46940.html I'm wondering if they are referring to 35mm film-out.

A question was posed in yet another locked forum, which prompted me to take a very close look at my behavior in some of the forums. To the moderators of this site, I don't want you to think that I am trying to resurrect that particular thread. I only pasted that post here as a reference point for what I have written below. David Mullen Carl Brighton Hi Carl, I'd like to interject here - not as a criticism to you, for we all now that I am in no position to criticize anyone for appearing abrasive at times - but because I think David has a very good point. In fact, this is the first website, with forums in which I have participated, that has caused me to seriously question my style of interaction with its members. It probably has a lot to do with my having a great deal of respect for some the people here, like David, Adam, and a few others, who are willing to share their knowledge with those of us in the beginning stages of our careers in the motion picture industry. What stands out among these people is their ability to stay focused on the topics, as well as their willingness to demonstrate patience and tolerance for lesser experienced filmmakers. They rarely get in involved, as I have on too many occasions, in criticizing others for their less than congenial behavior. Instead, they stay humble and focused on adding constructive input to these forums, which ultimately benefits everyone involved. You asked if you should be ashamed of exposing posers. I can't speak for you, although I am rapidly coming to the realization, for me, that it really isn't my place to police the behavior of others. I guess it is some misdirected sense of social obligation that has prompted me, hitherto, to get involved in such judgmental behavior in these discussions, although, in retrospect, none of those justifications makes sense. I am actually starting to question whether I am possibly frustrated about something else, and am using such encounters as a vehicle to vent those frustrations. In any event, it is not my place to play judge and jury, as it probably isn't your or anyone else's. That's just my opinion. David also mentioned white noise, which really struck me, because who really cares about your, mine, or anyone else's personal and outspoken judgment of another member of these boards - especially when that judgmental diatribe interrupts the flow of an otherwise constructive topic? He is absolutely correct about that, and I am embarrassed and ashamed of myself for having contributed to such interruptions on any level. I came here to learn. The information as been made available to me on a regular basis, and I have repaid that courtesy by playing ethics cop and in-house critic, when I should have kept my mouth shut and stayed focused of the task of learning. I want to apologize to everyone on this board who has had their experience lessened because of my actions. Cinematography.com is a great learning resource, and I eventually want to be known as a positive contributor to its forums. I hope that my behavior from here on in will reflect that. Sincerely, KC

Mark, As patronizing as this might sound to you, you really could use a lesson or two in reading comprehension. I don't believe that you understood a thing that i said.

Hi Matt, Given that your post followed mine, I will assume that it was meant for me. I agree that making things personal generally isn't conducive to maintaining successful, technical discussions. That was exactly the point that I was trying to make to Mr. Williams, although I'm not convinced that it was well received or understood. This brings me to an observation that I've wanted to make here for awhile. Although I thoroughly support and embrace this site and what it offers, I feel that there is an overall presence of hyper-sensitivity among more than a few of the members. We are a community of diverse personalities, which means that what is comfortably received by one might not necessarily be so for another. The problem, as I see it, is not so much in a communicator's personal approach as much as it is in the recipient's decision to jump to conclusions and snap judgments. Microcosms such as our group are prone to developing heightened levels of subjectivity, because of their narrowed scope of interests. This often leads to intolerance for outside views and approaches. The shortcomings of this attitude should be obvious to every intelligent being, although it continues to be a problem - especially among small, exclusive groups. Those afflicted by these insecurities and intolerance miss out on some potentially stimulating relationships and information by jumping to conclusions and dismissing the views of people whose approaches differ from our own. I personally would feel bored to death if everyone with whom I closely associated were just like me. I welcome passionate viewpoints like Richard Boddington's, and I equally enjoy laid back or reserved approaches like David Mullen's They all have their place in dynamic discussions.

Finally.

Correction. My statement stated a statement - not a question. Had I asked you how old you were, or even cared to know, and then made the slightest insinuation about wanting in any manner or form to know, then my STATEMENT might possibly, tenuously have been construed as a question. However, none of that is the case, except of course for the part about how my statement is a statement and in no specific or amorphic way, shape, or form a question. Therefore, all things considered. I have to emphatically conclude that my Statement was from above its head of it to below its feet only a statement, and in no possible way a question.

Mark, "I don't know how old you are." is a statement - not a question. If that much is not clear to you, then perhaps the problem is that you aren't following my line? Don't worry about it. It's not really important, anyway. Let's just move on.

I'm sorry, Mark, but there was nothing in either of my posts that questioned your age. Again - my inclusion of MY age was strictly a timeline reference for qualifying my point. I am pretty sure that I articulated that. Someone else made the observation that your arguments (or sentences) border on incoherent. I have to concur and add that your reading comprehension could use some work, or that you just aren't reading my posts carefully enough.

"I can't think of any politically correct way to say that your post sounds as though you pulled it out of thin air. I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime. " Ken Cangi "So your older wiser and know better?" Mark Williams My comment had nothing to with whether or not I am older and/or wiser. I was referring to television's consistent growth within my lifetime, as opposed to its alleged decline, as you proposed.

I can't think of any politically correct way to say that your post sounds as though you pulled it out of thin air. I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime. Your cream-rising-to-the-top analogy is off the wall. If one considers the percentage of self-proclamed indie filmmakers running around with prosumer cameras to the amount of films that actually make it to the big screen, it should be easy to see how few poorly constructed films are among them. The Blair Witch Project was made of consumer equipment, although it was well down. November and Lonesome Jim were made on DVX cameras, although by experienced DPs. As David has said on numerous occasions, there is much more to making successful and/or competent films than top flight equipment. The opposite applies to great equipment in the hands of people with little or no talent. I have tested this with still cameras on several occasions, when some neophyte photographer argued that he or she could make comparable professional images if he or she had the right equipment. I immediately handed that person my $4000.00 still camera, with a $7000.00 lens, and said "Have at it." Almost every person who took the camera from me started firing frames without ever asking me what type and speed of film was in the camera. This is a true story, and I have done it several times.

Thank you, John.

David, Did the Red folks mention anything about if and when Jackon's short would be available to view online or on DVD?

"could someone please lock this childish and pointless thread?" It's sort of like a train wreck. Isn't it? You just can't look away.

I appreciate that, Jay. I try not too judgmental in forming opinions of people online - especially before I have had the chance to meet them in person. No hard feelings. I enjoy both mediums, and I feel that each look has its place in certain creative applications. I love the look of film, just as I enjoy the process of working with it, although I rarely have the opportunity to do so. As an indie filmmaker - a relatively new one, at that - my budget doesn't usually allow for the use of film. Consequently, I work mostly in digital formats. This is not a problem for me because my emphasis is on the actual movie making. I personally find the film vs. digital debate to be a pointless exercise and a waste of valuable time. I am not an engineer. I make films, or at least that's the goal.

This is a very practical statement, as are most of yours, David. The problem with practicality is that it makes for less than exciting conversation for most people. Controversy, on the other hand, generally keeps people interested. I believe that Jim Jannard is acutely aware of this human trait and exploits it very effectively as a marketing tool. I can't really say that I blame him if it has helped him to build such a successful financial empire. You all have to admit that he got his money's worth of free advertising on this site, even if it did cost him a few points for provocative behavior. I'm sure that his few moments of dropping his pants in these forums will be of little consequence to him if this camera gains even a portion of the success that he is most likely anticipating it will. I probably rebuked him more than most, for blowing so many smoke rings, but I still can't really blame him for keeping his eye on the prize. Such premature fanfare isn't my personal style, although that isn't Jannard's problem. It's mine. Those Red forums escalated for one reason - because we wanted them to. It would have been much more effective to just ignore the hype and not post, but then that is not how we humans are wired, regardless of whether or not we are willing to admit it. Anyway, regarding your post, opening our minds to all of the available technology is not only intelligent, but also crucial to staying on top of the game. This same technological paradigm shift occurred not too long ago in the still image profession, and the death cries were every bit as piercing as the ones expressed in these film vs., digi debates. Just as is the case with cinematography, film held some distinct advantages over digital capture for quite some time. The ultimate irony was that the final professional turn came not as a result of the capture medium, but mostly from quantum leaps in ink technology. Epson was really the major player in bridging the gap in print quality from film to inkjet prints. Digital capture vs. film really was a moot point after 5 megapxal camera technology hit the market. After all, most print advertising never exceeds 8.5"x11", anyway. My closet friend quieted several critics when one of his spec shots was requested by Sekonic for a full-page magazine ad that ran in PDN and several other major photography rags. This image was shot on a Canon 10D. Every one one of his colleagues and professional peers in L.A., who saw the ad and portfolio print, refused to believe that he shot the image on a 5 megapixal camera. As you said in a prior post, and I am paraphrasing - I believe what my eyes tell me. Here is the image and his website, which has a link to the Sekonic campaign: http://www.jeffboxer.com/ I pulled this low res Jpeg from his site.

I think the potential real-world value of this camera will lie in the rental market. It's unlikely that indie makers will suddenly be able to afford 20k for a camera - 30 or 40 if you consider lenses and accessories. Consequently, its default market would seem to be professional rentals. This, IMO, would depend solely on its day rate. Even if its day rate were close to that of a 35mm camera, there is still a potentially large savings in avoiding the cost of film, processing, telecine, etc, but if it weren't considerably less expensive than Viper or Genesis, for instance, then I can't imagine why a filmmaker wouldn't choose one of them over it. I have not personally used Viper and Genesis so I might be missing a lot here. I would be interested in what those who have think.

I agree. My first question in situations like this is: Find the motive. I just can't see any value - publicity or otherwise - in releasing material like this. The only thing that would make sense is that this was a tactic for provoking a certain emotional mood among the cast members and that the footage was never meant to leave the set.

Do you wipe Jim's mouth for him too, Jay? Considering that the guy in that thread was threatening physical violence, "shut the f--k up" was a pretty mild response. Your post reminds me of the Bill O'Reilly school of confrontation - badger and berate those who don't agree with you, and then shut off their mic. And before you go off judging my use of the f bomb in that instance, you might want to ask Jannard how professional his phone call to me was. I was kind in my public portrayal of his behavior that day. There is a difference between being politically inncorrect and being a bully. The only redeeming thing about this post is your promise not to call me. I appreciate it. And for the record, not that I haven't already told Jim this several times, I sincerely hope that his project is a success, in spite of the way he has behaved in these forums. "Guys like you are the ones always bitching to customer service anyway." And you know this how? In addition to your innumerable social skills, are you also clairvoyant?

I'm with David and the others on this. I can't for the life of me understand why you opened this thread. It seems clear that you are trying to incite another heated discussion. What do you possibly think you stand to gain by rubbing our noses in the fact that someone is shooting a film with your camera, and do you actually think we care? It sounds like schoolyard braggadocio. To paraphrase what David said, no one will care how well your camera works if you are so hard to get along with. This isn't a hundred dollar pair of shades that you can toss when they go out of style. It is a twenty plus thousand dollar tool. What concerns me most about your provocative, combative demeanor is how dealing with you on warranty and repair issues will play out. Maybe you don't care about that but you should. Most people - especially professionals with rigorous schedules and budgets - don't want to deal with equipment dealers who act like jerks. BTW, stop dumping on cinematogarphy.com. It makes you look like an ass. P.S. Please don't call my office to bitch me out this time. If you don't like what I said, then you can tell me on this board. As far as I'm concerned, how you behave here is your business card. Regards, Ken Cangi

David makes some very good points here. I frequently shoot from helicopters - mostly A-Stars and, on occasion, Bell 430s - which are very stable in the mountains where I do most of my film work. Understanding your place and physical dynamics in relation to the ship is critical, as well as only flying with pilots who are very experienced at this type of work. Shooting out of something like an R44, with an inexperienced pilot, for instance, is a very bad idea. Things can go critically wrong in a nanosecond. These little birds have the advantage of a greater rotor clearance from the fuselage, because of the taller mast, although they are squirrelly to maneuver - especially with a cameraman hanging out of the door. This type of shooting is not to be taken lightly. That being said, A-Stars, with the right pilot, are as smooth as sitting on your living room couch. The best way that I have found to shoot cameras like the DVX is hand-held with a Steadicam JR or something like it. You also should have a working knowledge and understanding of rigging. I think David's suggestion about budgeting in enough to hire a pro heli shooter is a good idea and could save you a lot in the long run. Good luck with your project. KC

More like the size of Big Emma, maybe. I guess time has dulled your sense of the scale of these mountains, or maybe it's just wishful thinking. I was just up in LCC an hour ago. The weather is perfect for bouldering right now. Do you have a condo on the resort?

It's the same for me. I work independently, so the place doesn't matter too much in that regard. My location criteria revolve more around being in close proximity to the mountains and that lifestyle. Toronto is a beautiful city, but it is too far away from the mountains for my taste.

Maybe a little. I can't help it. It's that New England humor. You can take the boy out of Boston, but you can't take Boston out of the boy. I enjoyed the conversation. It's always good to get a perspective from the natives, especially when one is considering a move as big as ours. I'm curious. Is Toronto as big a film town as Montreal, and, if not, have you considered relocating there?