Daniel Smith

I've got admit for someone who's interested in cinematography, I wasn't actually paying close attention to it, but there was certainly nothing about it that made me think it was fake or that it didn't suit well. It had me fooled for sure. I thought maybe a lobotomy, since as there were scars on either side of his forehead. And from what I know, in a lobotomy they cut out two sections of the brain from both the left and right side. But, why would they do that? A lobotomy is meant to change their behaviour, but Randle just turned into a cabbage. For a place that is meant to help mental people, I would have thought that was the opposite from help. Unless it went wrong, or if they were getting their own back. That's why I presumed that when they said he beat up two of the guards and escaped, maybe he did try beating them up but wasn't successful, and they beat him up instead. One of the security men did have a grudge against him. And that's another thing, when he's receiving some form of treatment on the bed earlier on in the film, what treatment was that? I thought electric shock treatment to begin with, but one of the nurses is holding his head, so she would have gotten electrocuted herself if it was. Unless, there was a few mistakes in the film. Which by no means makes the film any worse, in my opinion. Some of the best films I have seen still have a few mistakes. (Gladiator, Road to Perdition e.t.c.)

Hi. Just watched this film, loved it. I'd recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to go see it when given the chance. But I just have a question. (Spoiler warning, if you've seen it already then just scroll down) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the end, when Chief smothers Randle, what did they actually do to him? I'm presuming the guards beat him up badly causing him brain damage. Unless there's something I don't know about? Thanks.

Just remember that speed is more important than the amount. A friend of mine is running 8 gig of RAM. I'm only running 2 gig. Funny how my PC is faster. I would see what your motherboard is compatible with first though.

Daym... that has come as a shock. John, I really do hope that you make a full recovery and that you're ok. (Not just saying that, I think you're a really cool dude, and to hear the news has come as a blow, I'm just sorry to hear it) Take care John, I for one will be thinking about you.

Ok this is just turning into a 'my country is better than yours' arguement. We're all as bad as each other just in different ways. You honestly think we're are much better?

I've never seen any film stills camera reach that fps. Even with digital, there lies the problem that even on the same shutter speed and f-stop, there will be differences in brightness between each and every shot. (Some technical reason with the CCD, can't remember what, someone around here will be able to tell you about it) Bare in mind a motion picture film camera shutter is like a half disc that spins around whilst the film is continuously moving. 35mm stills cameras have to open the shutter, close the shutter, shift the film along and repeat that process.

Actually, I'd like to get some more opinions on this. When the producer/director/DP texts or e-mails you, they usually start with your first name, place a comma in front, and then continue the message. Like this: "Daniel, we will begin the shoot at 11:00 ..... ... e.t.c." When I receive messages like this, I don't take it as a personal insult, but I'm always sensing a patronising stern voice when it starts with my first name. When I send people messages, I always start with "Hi Dan" or something like that. If I ever start with some ones first name it's often if I think they are a bit weird and that I mention their name first to get their attention. As if I'm distracting their attention from everything else in their ditsy world and forcing them to focus on the one thing. Patronising them. I'm guessing whoever?s messaging me is trying to 'up' his/her image and 'down' mine, either that or that I'm paranoid. I think other people see what they are doing, and then copy. There's like some 'dress code' in the industry. (Difference with me is that I will always be myself, I purposely refuse to copy how other people are acting, I see myself as above it. :P )

True. But I think on the indie side of the industry, people do like to show off.

I have to admit I was watching it about an hour ago on UK TV. And it did seem somewhat de-saturated in ways. Hopefully that is just to do with BBC1. But hey, great film.

I think arrogance for the most part. For instance, I've asked several people if I could be involved in their film in some way. They tend to give me a 'maybe' and a cold shoulder. Without trying to sound arrogant myself here, I've found that some of the people that have given me the cold shoulder have been less experienced and knowledgable than myself. Of course they could give me a position in the film. But no, they couldn't give away the positions that freely. That would undermine the importance and gold shine of the positions, which of course are reserved only for the "professionals". (Like bo**ocks) From my experience the people who get the position of DP or Director tend to sit on a very high horse. They like to give off the impression that they are professional and have worked on many large scale productions. When really they've just bought an expensive camera and worked on their image. (i.e. they wear certain clothing, they speak a certain way, embrace a specific humour, they know who to give respect and who not to) On a film I was involved in some time ago, one of the actors gave me no respect, however when he met a "big-shot" like himself, the DP, I noticed he wasn't so cocky. (May I also mention that both these people were hired from shootingpeople.org and their resumes weren't all that better than mine.) So no. When these people ignore you on set, I'm certain half the time they're just being a**holes to uphold their image as someone big and important.

You talk about these mainstream attitudes as if they are in a certain group, like music or films. What's mainstream and what isn't doesn't matter, it's what you personally think. Are you talking about me here?

I think Richard speaks a lot of truth in that Macs have less trouble with viruses and also customer support. Macs tend to be a lot more user friendly and have a lot less to go wrong with them. If you don't have an interest in computers, and just want to use them for certain tasks (i.e. video editing, e-mail e.t.c.) then Mac is probably the way to go. I'm a PC user myself. But that's because I've found that trying to do anything technical with a Mac is like trying to hack MI6 with a Playstation. But for gods sake don't buy one off eBay... You never know what's wrong with the hardware inside. Even if it works fine to begin with, it could just be waiting to crash. Hard drives in particular. Corrupted sectors may not seem a problem as the computer will skip them, but it's a sign of a hard drive waiting to die. Not to mention all the other parts. Atleast with a new Mac, you know all the components are brand new and they've got a full life in them.

I mean risks without the 'safety gear'. i.e. when you played knock down ginger when you were 10 did you wrap yourself up in 100 layers to prevent any bruises incase they caught and beat the crap out of you.

Richard, are you saying that you never took any risks? (man you wouldn't have liked to come round my house for tea..) And as for the killing of those stingrays, I'm completely against that, whoever's doing that is a total moron.

Ok cool thanks. I'm actually going to copy the films you mentioned down onto a checklist. I'm more or less forcing myself to watch more and more films, but it's not asthough I'm not enjoying them. (I can't actually think of any films I don't like, I tend to like everything I watch. Maybe that's a sign of narrow taste I'm not sure.) Anyway, thanks Dominik. B)

Hi. I'm slowly starting to pick up my interest in film again, except for this time I'm taking it on with the right attitude, and know how. So, I need to start watching some *good* films. What can you guys recommend? I imagine a lot of stuff on the lines of Stanley Kubrick? If you could write down some suggestions and I'll get watching. Cheers.

No it's too much effort to find something that old for the sake of proving that I wasn't the only one. Who cares it was ages ago. :lol: ok. I've always got along with Jonathon in the past, you mention he's interested in specific threads, where's he actually from? (I've spoken to him a lot but haven't actually got any idea as to who he is or what he does)

Oh, and not to mention that time Landon and I were having a harmless friendly chat and everyone on here decided to come down on us like a ton of bricks. At the time I more or less felt like we were being told off by adults for being naughty. Looking back on it, what a bunch of a**holes...

Well, not that I'm trying to open up an old chest here, but I seem to remember you saying something about how younger people should allow you to walk over them, since as you were older. In an old arguement with you, Landon, TSM and myself. (Speaking of them two, I wonder what happened to them. Haven't seen them around here in ages.)

Ah.. that old thing... Most kids think they can pull off this stuff, until; they actually give it a go. I don't remember saying it was going to be the next Lord of the Rings though, just, of that quality. And no I finally realised that I couldn't afford to make it. Although looking back on it, it wasn't bad! (What I wanted to do would have cost thousands, and probably would have had to include the makers of Lord of the Rings. I was actually bargaining with Optex on a Panasonic SDX900.. but hey we all had dreams.) I can't remember exactly what I said about film 'going away', but it has been sometime now that I've been using film and scanning it in to edit it digitally. And, as I've said before. I was mistaken for a lot of stuff I said, simply because I didn't know how to voice myself correctly. How comes I haven't got into a real argument for ages? It's not as though I'm a whole different person, I just know how to voice myself correctly. Looking back on some of the arguments, I wasn't always wrong. People interpreted what I was saying incorrectly, and it escalated, until I ended up saying something that WAS wrong, and all hell blew loose. But I'm not the only one around here who said some stupid things. Richard. ;)

As far as I can remember, I've always preffered film. I've just always preffered the flexibility of digital. Which is why I shoot film but then transfer it to digital for grading.

Ok cool thanks. (DP'd some stuff, AC'd a few bits e.t.c.)

Yeh Swanleys pretty cack. (I live near Dejavu nightclub) I was in Croydon high sreet the other day actually picking up a sound board from Digital Village 24 (on the high street) Don't feel obliged to say yes, but because we don't live so far away, if you're making any films soon I'd love to come and help out. (Even as a p.a.) If you want a list of experience I can send you some by e-mail or something. Cheers.

Ha, Croydon. I'm from Swanley. Small world eh. (Country more like.) B)

I don't think this has anything to do with statistics or plane crashes. It's do with moral correctness.