Daniel Smith

Ah, ok now this entire threads getting a bit stupid. I think we should just leave it where it is, because I think we all know where this is going.

Richard I think your perception of 'un-necassary danger' is slightly narrow compared to the rest of ours.

It was the small things that aren't directly noticeable, but just give a movie that special touch. For instance, I think some of the shots should have been handheld as opposed to on a tripod. i.e. When the guy was trying to get the other guy to help him drag the body back to the car, it seemed a bit of a panicky moment, and a static shot looked a bit boring. And I think the speed of the cuts could have been worked on a bit. When they are running back to the car, the speed of the cuts is pretty much the same throughout the movie. Where as I would have thought in a fast paced heart pumping part like that, they would have maybe been a lot faster. I'm not trying to attack it, just saying how I think it could be improved. One thing in particular I did think was pretty awesome, was the background music. How did you get all those tracks? ESPECIALLY the sound clip at the beginning where the girl turns around and finds the ghost sitting in the front seat. That part was pretty sweet. So, could be improved on, but I think it was a good piece of entertainment.

I don't know many kids who watch the Crocodile Hunter and then copy Steve Irwin and go wrestle a croc. (I think it's safe...)

I enjoyed it. The only thing I would have against it, technical wise, is that the camera angles and cuts don't exactly match my pallette. They seemed a bit bold and didn't flow enough. Other than that, worth watching.

As I've said. He was a cowboy. He did things the way he wanted to and not by the book. And like you said, if he had of been wearing the correct swimwear, he may just of survived it. (Maybe, maybe not. I don't know enough about it. But I know it would have helped either way.) But just because he made a mistake doesn't mean he should go down as a total idiot. People have stepped out infront of cars without looking and have been killed. But, any other time they would have looked both left and right twice. It's just been an unfortunate accident. We aren't ALL perfect. I see exactly what you're saying Richard, I just find it distasteful how you dismiss a man who spent his life trying help animals, an idiot. And as I've also mentioned, the only thing I think he's an idiot for is taking those risks when he had a family, including children. It's almost selfish in a way. But this is problem for a lot of people who work professionally. Film makers, rockstars, rock climbers, they all spend time away from their family. Their family don't like it, but it's hard to just give up your dreams to spend time at home. I just think that someone who has spent their life in aid of animals, and then died, should be forgiven for mistakes he has made, and should be given complete respect.

How the hell can any of us judge how dangerous the situation was. Steve Irwin has been around crocodiles all his life. He knows them better than the BBC or any social worker could ever know. I still think he made a mistake and he would have done things differently had he been given the chance. But this was one mistake out of a million. But, because it's Steve Irwin, it suddenly becomes blown way out of proportion. And, if social services took away children for every single life threatening mistake parents made, there wouldn't be many whole families left in this world. So, I don't think that gurantee is worth much. And besides, he's just died doing what he loved. In his lifetime he's contributed possibly more than we will ever. I think the media should stop playing that clip over and over again, and start playing the clips of all the good moments of his life. It's disrespectfull to him and his family.

I think we all knew it was coming. But, we all take risks doing the stuff we love. And personally, I think I'd rather die doing what I loved rather than being found in my house a week later looking like a potatoe gone out of date. Just a shame it was so soon. But no, I wouldn't exactly call him an idiot. How boring would the world be if no one took these risks. In fact, would the human race be where it's at if people didn't? We didn't discover the north pole by reading a book from the library. We risked our own lives doing what we loved. It's the nutters that we call idiots that are the true greats of this world. People aren't idiots for giving up their lives to do what they love. They are gaining it. The only thing I have against Steve Irwin is that maybe he should have calmed down a bit now that he has a family. But despite his family, he still took the risks. And now his family are on their own.

Thanks! 18 and I'm losing my memory..

The one thing I'd say is that when motion picture films are shot on 35mm film, they shoot them vertically at usually either 3 or 4 perf. With stills cameras, the film is shot horizontally. So it would probably work out at something like 8 perf. (Don't quote me on that) That alters the depth of field and the end result focal length. So, no, practicing with a 35mm stills camera isn't exactly the same as with a 35mm cine camera. But, it's better than nothing.

I was literally on my way to making this thread. It's just a real shame. Only 44. Everytime I forget about it, and think about it again, it just doesn't seem real. I'm going to miss him. I've watched a lot of his stuff. Steve mate, you were awesome.

Ha. ;)

Yeh, thanks for reminding me. :( It was my fault anyway, I saw that you could change the name, so I did, to only later realise that the feature was intended for people to change their screen names to their REAL name. (I don't visit the forum as much as I used to, so I completely missed all the signs) But, never mind. As I said, it's not some big competition to see who's got the most posts.

Yeh I lost over 1000 posts. However. There was plenty of warning. So I don't think anyone here can complain when their account gets deleted. I'm just a little bit peeved that I've been a member here for about 3 years and I get deleted without any hesitation. But hey hoe. Never mind. We're not here to see how many posts we can make.

True enough. I've always thought it's good to learn on film first anyway. Unless you have prosumer digital gear, altering things like shutter speed and aperture is slightly harder. Plus obtaining shallow depth of field is hard enough with amateur equipment anyway. I wish they would make all digital cameras with full frame sensors. With 35mm I've found that you can perfectly balance how much depth of field you want. With the digital cameras I deal with, you're pretty much stuck with a huge depth of field. Unless you use a super fast lens (which would cost about £1000, for an SLR) or unless you zoomed all the way in. But then you get a very compressed perspective, which may not be what you want. (And it's a sod in smaller locations) I've spoken to quite a few student film makers. They can all tell you the difference in pixels between all these different cameras. But when it comes to the bare basics, aperture, shutter speed, filters, they're lost. That's why if anyone has just started getting into film, I always say buy an old 35mm SLR. Teaches all the theory and sets you up for shooting in digital if need be. P.S. I don't claim to be a professional myself, I'm still a student, and always will be. I just hold a lot of interest in the making of films and other creative areas. So I'm not trying to sound like I know it all when I talk about giving advice to other amateurs like myself. Just, some amateurs are more amateur than others.

Yeh I got booted off for not using my full name. Which I was rather miffed about.. but at the end of the day, it's the rules. Just hoped that I'd have been given some kind of a chance since as I've been writing here for about 3 years. (I couldn't actually change the name) Anyway. For anyone here into sound, I've made an example of the different sounds produced from digital and analogue. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bas/digiana.mp3 1. Blink 182 - Down. This was recorded using the best of digital technology. 2. Muse - Starlight. This was recorded using the best of analogue. 3. Guns & Roses - Knockin' on Heavens Door. This was made using the best of analogue equipment during 1991. The 1st track is fantastic quality and is well made, but it sounds a bit too cold and clinical for my liking. The 2nd hits the spot. It's well made and has a nice warm sound to it. Something I could listen to all day. (And I do.. not that one song though) The 3rd is to illustrate that analogue is great because it doesn't become outdated very quickly. The quality is, fairly similar to that of the 2nd. The problem with digital is that in a few years time my equipment will have dropped in price by about half. But the biggest mistake I've found that people make is that they blame all the quality issues on the recording unit. Whereas most of the time it's down to the microphones, and microphone placement. It's the same with how a lot of film students think they need a Sony F900 to shoot their film with. (Did they ever think about moving a few lights around?) But, as you can see, digital is almost there. If I was to setup a studio now, I'd go digital. And it's the same with films. I'd still go digital. Even if I preffer film. Because it IS the future. What's the point in learning how to use something that's going to be outdated in the near future? Why not master future technology in advance, that way when it comes to digital becoming the standard, you will have been using digital for years and will know how to work it well. (P.S you will probably need a fairly good sound card and speaker system to hear the difference between those tracks.)

I don't think digital is better than analogue, yet. It's just hammered everything on the amateur market. For instance I work in a photography shop, we barely get anyone in for film anymore. Everyone's in either buying a digital camera or getting their pictures printed via the digital photo kiosks. (Or most of the time, just in giving me attitude.) BUT, we barely get any professionals in. I'm sure they are still out there with their Hasselblads shooting medium format and sending the films away to pro labs. (Let's face it, if you are a professional, and you're shopping in Jessops, then you must be either 1. not actually a professional or 2. desperate.) To me, film is still the better format. Even in audio. I'm not trying to oppose what you have said Hal (you probably know a lot more than myself), but I'd rather record my tracks on 2" metal position tape than the best of digital. The best studios in the world all still use 2" metal position tape. There's a certain level of frequency saturation on them. Which, may sound bad but it's not atall. Digital seems to pick up everything going, which sometimes, isn't what you want. It's the same with how people think digital images look too sharp when compared to film. However, I'm sure my combination of a sound card that can record at 96KHz 24bit, Behringer mixer and Adobe Auditon 2.0 craps all over an audio cassette. Both quality and flexibility wise. But, I'm talking about the amateur end of the market here. Very few people know that vinyl are better quality than CD. Vinyl are said to be the equivalent of 96KHz, 24bit. Whereas CD runs at 44.1KHz 16bit. (I own both vinyl and CD, funnily enough I still prefer CD despite the facts) So, conclusion: Digital - Better for the amateur end of the market. Analogue - Better for the pro.