Landon D. Parks

No... I think the role should be to get rid of the grain period. Yes... without money you DONT have a movie. Go make a film for NOTHING($0.00) and see where you end up. And I agree with the people who say the story was hard to follow. I thought It looked nice. Again, Good for them. This is america, they can hate and love what ever films they want to. There ARE people who loved OUATIM too you know. The news paper is not the best place to get reviews in my opinion. Reviews should come from someone who is not being hired to give them. I think it made a B or B+ on Yahoo movies. Yes... And not a TV set, my Hi-Res R,G,B Computer monitor. Im not going to reply to any of the other posts. I will leave you with thi question though: Why is it that every time I have an opinion on somthing, all hell breaks loose? Im not here to put down how the film looked. Only that I didnt like the grain. Period.

Kool..

Sorry, But reguardless of what most people think. I think he is the coolest thing to hit hollywood (Or Austin anyway..). Finally, someone who wants to change the 150 year old jazz of making a movie.... And all of a sudden that makes him an outcast? I dont know what makes any one else any better than he is. Last time I checked, the industry needed a face lift anyway. Let me guess... Everyone thinks George Lucas is a nutt too I bet? Im starting too see a patern here. That anyone who tries to change the sacred 150 year old business gets to be a cast away. Hmmmm.... Interesting.

All quotes taken from IMDB... for the film "Open Water" My Note: OK, If this film can be made with a crew of 2 people over weekends with a Mini-dv camcorder and be sold for $2.5 million... Then I now have more confidence my film would selll for that or more. Since it has a lot more of a story, more SFX, More chilling moments, Better Actors, Shot on 35mm or HD*, ect... *** Not that this has anything to do with Cinematography... and I probably should not be taken up forum space posting this. But still, I think it proves that Im not so Stupid as to think for asking a MINIMUM $3 million for my film when its done.

I thought the HD images looked grainy as all get out. Even in once upon a time in mexico, the blacks where black... with no visible grain. But in this movie, All the dark areas where terribly grainy. Does this mean Robert is a Better DP than the one on collateral? Hmmm.... I can understand wanting to push the cameras to a limit.... But there is a limit before the actual limit that you should just not cross, and they crossed it.

No matter if you have it scanned to HDCAM or 4:4:4 Uncompressed HDD. You still have the 2k resolution. Unless you scan it at 4k, which is way out of bound for 16mm film, and even most high end studio 35mm pictures. Even then, then 4k resolution is usually downsampled to 2k for editing. The main advantage to 4k scan is From what I have heard: Better Contrast. The main advantages to 4:4:4 storage is that it's not compressed. But, again, Im not sure there is a telecine that does recorde to hard drives. Never worked with a Telecine before.

I was just wondering, Does any one know an estimate of what the cheapest would be that I could get fresh Kodak, low speed 16mm stock? I was thinking it should be possible at $0.12/foot... But I'm not sure. If anyone has any idea, that would be great! And also, what stock will give me the best all around shooting with as little grain as possible?

What? Open water was shot on mini-Dv?!?? Dont that thing have a wide release? IT appears to me Hollywood cares less what the stuff is shot on, and more on the story these days. (Good in my opinion).

This is correct. Please, if you want to contact me more about this pd170, P.M me, or E-mail me. landon1600@yahoo.com I was actually wondering the same thing. I mean, Im willing to help him to the fullest, If he wants it. But I think he needs to understand that Im not a seasoned producer. My "Producer" Title simply is there to mean that I Produce my own programs, not that I produce other peoples. Im just as new to Producing as he is, if not newer. I mainly produced Community plays, and of course, one 15min short film. I personally think he would be better off finding someone who has experiance with this sort of thing. I mean, its one thing to come in and directed a film for the first time, But producing them is another story. I mean, Im not saying I can't do it. Only that there is other people more experianced with this process than me. Producing is one field where life experiance counts 100% in my mind. That is one field where messing up can cost you millions if you dont know what your doing. Im also willing to just offer him advice along the way if he wants that instead of putting me in a Producer role. But its up to him, what ever he chooses. None taken. PD: I think I jumped in over my head here. I should not have said "Yes, Lets do it" but more, "Lets talk more about this". Feel free to contact me by E-mail or P.M if you still want to talk about this at all. Lets not take up forum space. Im willing to offer you any advice I can, even if I dont produce this for you. ***For those who this post does not concern, please ignore. As we DO need to get back on the subject of "Directed and DP fired by Warner Bros"*** Thanks

Dear pd170 user: I have read your post to me. And I think very highly of you to trust me with that responsibility. I would enjoy Producing this for you, and help in the Distrobution of the DVD's. Please, when you have the script done, send it my way. I would like to talk to you a lot more about the production when ever you find the time. My main question right now is this: Is this a feature or short? and also What is your expected budget? Thank you much B) , Landon D. Parks

I always say it like this "Ar E". May not be right, But it gets the point accross. But if you want to hear it the right way, please download the short video "What is Arricam" at the following link: http://www.arri.com/entry/dvd_movie_preview.htm They seem to pronounce is "Air E" But I could be wronge. Yes, I just listened to all of it, almost Every one of them, American, French, Brittish, ect called it "Air ee".

Yes, the did use film.

Thanks everyone!!! So, I take it HD *does better* than film when the light levels are low?

I am thinking of heading over to the theater today and sit through collateral just to see how the video parts looked. To tell the truth, I have never seen an HD film in the theaters. And I was wondering if anyone knew what parts where shot on HD? So that I know what the parts where, as I dont know if i'll be able to tell the difference. Any help, very quick would be a godsend! Thanks guys!

No Prob man!

Dont think so. As for 3-perf information, Read this .PDF deal: http://www.arri.com/infodown/cam/broch/3pe...tion-public.pdf It also has some info Super 35 in 3-perf, ect... You may find it helpfull!

I see now. Ok, I'll stop. Ok, just wondering. Im sure this site has enough bandwidth to handle it though. That is a cute image.

here is an image of an Arri Mag taped: http://www.alostcookie.com/posthuman/image...drew_camera.jpg Image from the film "Post Human" shoot. A Lost cookie production.

Ohhh my... lol Is'nt that taking up MAJOR bandwidth every time someone loads the topic? What do you mean by double posting? lol

If you want less depth, get a Mini35 or a Pro35. Gives you 35mm depth of field on either 1/3" CCD or 2/3" 16:9 CCD's (Pro is for the 2/3" and the Mini is for the 1/3")

If your worried about the look the SDX will have over the 900, Then shoot Super 16mm, Has the same or more resolution than HD and HAS a the film look that everyone likes. Shooting Super 16 will save you money even over the SDX. Unless you are just a Video fan, and will not settle for film at all. If I was in your shoes, that is what I would do. And if your worried about the Super 16mm image graining up on you, just scan it to digital. Then in Post, im sure there is some way to reduce the grain in the film (I dont know for sure), then when you film-out to 35mm, you dont have a badly grained up image. If there is no way to reduce grain, then still scanning it will keep it from graining up a lot. and also save TONS of resolution. But if you must use digital, than by all mean, take everyones advice. If ALL you have the money for is the SDX, what other choice do you have? If you are just wanting an anser, then no, the cameras will not look alike. SDX will look like what the SDx is capable of, and the 900 will look like what it is capable of. and the 900 is capable of a lot more than the SDX. Thats all the advice I have.

Is it possible for you to explain to me how he done this? That seems pretty amazing that you can shoot a feature for $5,000.00 in HD. Just the cameras and equipment alone I figured $3,000.00/day with a 3 day a week rental period. Same with film, although equipment was a lot lower, I figured the Film stock + Equipment brought it to the $30,000.00 Range anyway. Im very interested in seeing how he did this. Do you have any idea what is shooting days where, where he rented the requipment, ect? Ok, So I think that what I have learned out of all of this is that I should not spend $400,000.00 on this feature film, and it may not turn out. Well, I think your right. Maybee I should just make a $10 - $20k film, and loose the Big cast and a large crew. Maybee I am taking to big of steps who by walking in and saying, OK, Im going to make this $400,000 feature rather any one else likes it or not. After reading all of what you have posted, It is clear that you are right about some things, Mainly that making a $400,000 first time feature is a bad Idea. And I think Im begining to agree with you too. I will refine my Budget Breakdown and see where I can cut cost's and just see how low I can really make this film for.

I'm sorry, but I have to answer this: No, not really. But Having nice camera moves and big actors will help a LOT. I know that. (A) I dont agree. I had to leave 15 minutes in because I have motion sickness, and having that image shake violently for 1 1/2 hours is not what I consider scary. My Idea of scary is the Exorcist, Rose Red, ect. (B) Who is to say my project is not unique? I dont recall to many films like my screenplay being made. Maybee comparable to The Exorcist or somthing of equal gore. But the script I have calls for a constaint, dark gloomy feel to the movie, with lots of scares in it and tense moments. But, this may be the way it plays out in my screenplay, but turns out like hell on screen. Im not here to say my movie will compare to The Exorcist, but still. It has the potential if handled right. Just my two cents

Why? :unsure: He is a cool guy!

You know, I have been reading through all my post's. I think I sound like im someone with a lot of dreams and no way to bring them to life. Thats not bad, just interesting.