Jonathan Bowerbank

My friend told me he saw Transformers in BluRay on a big plasma in Best Buy not long ago, and the animated sequences looked like video game graphics. Whatever magical realism the film print did, made it more believable to his eyes. He also added that the softness of standard def DVD had the same effect in regards to hiding perhaps "unwanted sharpness" in the image.

The detail on her cheek bone would still be preserved on film. In the "film look" version, it's completely clipped. You also have to consider which film stock you're trying to emulate. Low con, high con, fast, slow, 35 or 16?

This shot was just about at the point where I thought the movie was going to end in a very dark place and perhaps lead into another sequel (clearly forgetting at this point that Ledger couldn't possibly reprise his role, that's how good he was). It would have been a fine final act, but I'm quite happy with the final final act :)

I thought the "same writer" bit was a joke...silly me for not checking the credits, but it IS the same writer from Forrest Gump who wrote Benjamin Button. I feel a bit taken.

I was disappointed that Button was nominated for best motion picture. Besides its great cinematography, it was just too mediocre for me. Have you seen the "Curious Case of Forrest Gump" video created by Spike Ferestein? It's hilarious! I guess I still have to see the Reader and Revolution Road. Been busy lately.

Hey Linda, I'm involved with a new rental company that has an EX3. When are you shooting? It may be available for you.

Since you're referring to 35 adapters, whoever asked you that was probably asking the diameter of the EX3's lens, or filter thread on the front of the lens. The EX3's stock lens' thread is 77mm. Have you looked at the 2/3" to 1/2" adapter? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5760...ns_Adapter.html I'd prefer that to the light loss and loss of sharpness due to 35 adapter.

Ahh yes, I remember this now from the "making of" on the DVD.

I think just the marker is 15:9, as a safety marker. That what it sounds like anyway. I noticed that last time I shot with the EX1, but the viewfinder, LCD and final image are 16:9

I've only used Clock-it boxes for keeping 2 cameras in sync with the sound recordist's recorder & smart slate. In that case you just have to flash the slate and numbers in front of both cameras, just in case there are sync issues in post.

I'm a fan of the pancake. Creates a nice soft toplight and comes with a nice long skirt which you can hike up here and there for a bit more spill if needed. I also own a couple of Photoflex softboxes which I use all the time and really love. To cut down the spill, I do use egg crates sometimes, but I find it far better to setup a floppy or too. Also, if I want a large semi-uneven halfway hard/halfway soft source, I just tear off the diffusion and it looks great.

I see most people taking out business loans when it's a lot of gear they hope to start a rental company with. Some of the youngsters, I've heard, do get either their parents to co-sign on the loan or they get enough business partners to co-sign in order to get themselves started.

Sure thing :) Basically, I still stick to what I said during the screening that the Fuji 500, when underexposed and printed up had something very interesting in the shadows that reminded me of films like Chungking Express. The contrast between the key light and shadows seemed to fade off softer which gave the image a somewhat more painterly quality. The blacks were a bit more milky and the grain wasn't that bad. Alex said something interesting about the skintones with the Fuji, which I also noticed. I agree that when grossly underexposed both Fuji stocks really start to fall apart faster than the Kodak. I felt the Kodak 5229 was very rich in color (meaning saturation), kind of "true color" (as in the old Kodak commercial, ha ha) which is what I'm used to when looking at Kodak, so I didn't expect nor did I notice anything special. Still, since you're getting a deal on Kodak, I'd take that! The film will still look gorgeous :)

(since the other thread is locked, I'll start a new one) Finally saw it tonight and really enjoyed it, but perhaps not as much as I could have. It had so many great characters in it, I wouldn't have minded another 15 minutes running time to actually get to know them better. Even the title character seemed to still be a stranger by the end of the film. We only really knew him through his narration, otherwise he seemed to be a bit stoneface althroughout. Cinematography was excellent, although the editing of some very gorgeous and precious shots seemed to come and go way too quickly. I'm speaking mostly of the same shots used in the trailer (Pitt on the motorcycle, the rocket launch, etc.). I did especially like the Tarsem sequences shot in India. Also, I noticed the same issue I had noticed with "Zodiac" where the "toe" seemed just a little high with very grey looking blacks. It's most likely an issue with the print stock, but to have seen it in both films, I can only assume it could be an issue with the Viper when in combination with a certain print stock. Thoughts?

A slate is always necessary to visually label a take. Now, sticks/clapper, maybe not as necessary when recording sound straight to tape or hard drive :)

Wouldn't say it's valuable...perhaps expired and almost completely worthless. But still, cool :)

In short, find out for yourself! I'm not being cruel, just that we could explain what it would do, but you'll never know until you see an example. Also, for the sake of this thread, you could do a search in the forums and find all kinds of answers :)

It's a pretty standard test. Not only does it help you find out what look you should go for, whether it be to expose correctly, under or over. But you can also, if for SOME REASON you misread your meter or don't set your T-stop correctly, you'll know whether a take will be salvagable or if you'll have to do another. Among other reasons, I like doing the test to find out the limits of the negative.

Whenever I've worked a few too many corporate gigs, done a few too many AC or grip gigs, I like to put on Cinematographer Style or any DVD extras from any of his films and listen to pretty much anything he has to say about cinema. He always reminds me that despite the business, it is still a very influential modern artform. And deserves to be considered likened unto any other great evolution in art.

It's still in the online archive. 5274 is mentioned on page 3 http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec99/sleepy/index.htm

Their distributor has been a bit sketchy lately. I received the October '08 issue late in the month, then received the November '08 issue a week later. It had happened once before. It's long distance for the UK, but a quick phonecall would probably get you a speedy answer: (323) 969-4333

Excellent! Glad to hear they're sticking to the 35 plan :)

Nice, I like how the peacock shows up in those pics. But I also like how the fluorescent gel seemed a bit more natural and didn't call as much attention to itself. I know you took a few snaps of me as well, feel free to pass'em along :)

Being a student puts you at an advantage in regards to having doors and windows open to you to gain experience and make good connections. Consult with your instructors and see what kind of internships are available to you. Keep your ear to the ground and jump on any opportunity to intern or work at the bottom of the totum pole. I know editors are always looking for people to do log their footage, so I'd put a word out to all the listed editors in your area. I've sent out a few "cold emails" in my day, and had some great responses. There's no shame in shaking the tree a little.

From your tone, it doesn't sound fair. If you're the DP, you should be there behind the camera as well, supervising the framing and collaborating with the director in that aspect. If you're handing off the camera responsibilities to someone else, you're essentially a gaffer. A gaffer who's considered part of the "creative team" perhaps, but I'd fight really hard to be there with your eye to the viewfinder setting up the shot, if I were you.