ryan_bennett

Nice, simple and appealing story. Hahah- I know what that is like, texting and at the end I understood the title. Shorter and a bit faster/punchier, I would swear this was a commercial, a damn fine wireless commercial.

Very dynamitish reminiscent of Wes Anderson but mostly due to the use of the extreme wide angle. The dialogue and script seems atrocious as the acting though. Hey, it's a common fault and something I have to balance out myself with telling the story and the techinical details. This really feels like so much more attention was put into the actual design of the video than it was to the script. Really not bad but for the most part I just thought it looks nice but there just doesn't seem to be a heart to it. Is this supposed to be a comedy because at times it seems like its supposed to be but really not.

Very dynamitish reminiscent of Wes Anderson but mostly due to the use of the extreme wide angle. The dialogue and script seems atrocious as the acting though. Hey, it's a common fault and something I have to balance out myself with telling the story and the techinical details. This really feels like so much more attention was put into the actual design of the video than it was to the script. Really not bad but for the most part I just thought it looks nice but there just doesn't seem to be a heart to it. Is this supposed to be a comedy because at times it seems like its supposed to be but really not.

I shot my short on the K-3 using a mix of Kodak 200T, 500T and Fuji 250T and it's amazing. Just practice loading and get other lenses for it but even with the normal lens I got amazing shots. Guess which is which:

Good Luck John and thanks for all of your help over the years.

It's true, I've gone both way with the Vision2 stocks and the lattitude is really amazing, puts video to shame. Now I don't know which is better between the two companies as I'm satisfied with both so here's a link to fuji product information: 500 Curves

Um... what's your plan for the workflow of this piece because if you're shooting negative and telecine the footage to video you can just digitally alter the image to emulate the look of the discontinued film stock. That or have a supervised transfer, sit down with a colorist so you get the look you want exactly. Second, I think you should just do tests till you get what you want, personally what I would do and what I think you should do is set and costume design with lots of pastels and other colors used in Grease. Just copy the color palette, also I would think to use osme sort of a diffusion lens to give a soft-ish look. Good luck.

The K3 is anything but a delicate camera. It's a harsh, cruel, heavy, beast of a russian tank. You won't believe our posts but it's true once you get it in your hands. Yes, there's heavier cameras but winding the camera does get extremely annoying. I have gotten the camera pretty wet and it's fine. I can't see the camera breaking if dropped but the lens would if it drops the wrong way but that goes true for any camera.

The easiest way to choose: get off the internet and produce, produce, produce as many shorts films/videos, whatever you can scrap yourself to make before you go insane. That is the only real way to choose is by actually doing. At the same time, you can be a DP for 20 years and poof, you can go into directing. Nothing is truly set in stone for all your life but definitely better to choose some path. Hahaha, that's horrible though because I do both and wonder about the sound and the editing decisions!

The other poster is correct, your super 8 cam's will be picked up by your DV cam's mic. What you should do is just plan for exactly just one format or record a few takes on DV then just do one for Super 8. Regardless just shoot, shoot and shoot and figure it out. You'll never know what you can pull out from a scene but really reversal I would be spot on on the exposure.

Seriously, there's sometimes no right or wrong filmstock, just think about what you would need in terms of daylight/tungsten, grain/no grain, all of that. The best thing to do is to do a lot, and I mean a lot, of tests and copy down all of what you do, the lens, focus, f-stop, filmstock etc. so you can redo the results if needed. Get a good light meter too. Also, focus with a telephoto lens is usually a shallower depth of field, that is harder to keep in focus/less is in focus at once, whereas a wide angle has a greater depth of field. Your f-stop also has an effect on your depth of field.

I really don't see how taking out the garbage mattes as ruining cinematography. Your other arguements are valid though and definitely complain about taking out of Sebastian Shaw in Return of the Jedi. Some of the images to me, seemed to have much more contrast than the old. I don't know, I just think this is too late to complain about seeing how the fiddled DVD's have been out for two years and now the fiddled and originals are being released so everyone has their way.

Just a quick question. I shot some underwater scenes on 7218 at night. For lights all we had was two 500watt work lights aimed down into the water and put the f stop to 1.4 and focused to infinity and shot blind. Anyways, I know most cinematographers shoot a stop overexposed but I was wondering how many stops over can you still get a useable image? Also I will post the shot how it came out as soon as I have the money to develope and transfer the film so thanks for your help.