Patrick Cooper

Ah I just saw one of the later photos on the set of The Shining with a camera on a steadycam at a low angle (for the maze sequence.) Yea that's what I was visualising - camera operator bent over with an arched back. Not fun moving around like that for a long duration.

David, that is a great example of a tracking shot. And there is certainly a lot going on for an impressively long duration. It makes me appreciate the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie even more. I actually prefer the original Superman movies over the later ones. To me, the earlier films have a sense of magic and wonder that I just don't get with the later ones. I feel that there's a winning combination of elements - the leads (Reeve, Kidder, Hackman, Beatty), the theme song, the cinematography and so on. The later Superman films don't really pull me in. I haven't even checked out the details of the new one yet.

Ah a steadycam used on a wheelchair for The Shining corridor tracking shots. A very effective combination. I was actually thinking...it could have been challenging to get a low viewpoint with Danny and the 'big wheel' with simply using a steadycam on it's own.

Ah yes I did read about the use of Steadycam on The Shining. I believe that may have been one of the first movies to use Steadycam? I was under the assumption that Steadycam was mainly used for the outdoor maze. Though it makes sense that it was also used in the corridors inside the hotel (when following Danny.) I like hearing the different sounds when the tricycle transitions from carpet to hard floor and back again. If a wheelchair had been used (like what was rumoured) then there would likely be a noticeable bump when rolling from carpet to hard floor.

Firstly, I have to say that I really like tracking shots. There are many great examples of tracking shots in Stanley Kubrick's movies that I admire. Though Ive often been curious how certain tracking shots are pulled off (particularly where tracks or sliders are used.) I'm referring specifically to the tracking shots where the camera is moving in the direction that the lens is pointing to. How do they accomplish this without the tracks or slider being visible in the shot? Obviously, using a wide angle lens here is out of the question. I guess one way of doing this is having the camera tilted upwards as it's moving so that the tracks are below the field of view of the lens. Though things get tricky when you want to move the camera forward or back without any kind of tilt / upward angle. In the opening shot of A Clockwork Orange, there is a closeup of Alex's face. Then the camera slowly tracks back to reveal the other members of the gang and the decor of the milk bar. It looks like a standard lens was used here. And no tracks are visible at the end of the shot. I actually wonder if tracks were used here at all. Obviously, tracks could not have been used when following Danny on his tricycle as he was riding around the corridors of the Overlook Hotel in The Shining. I believe a wheelchair may have been used here as a dolly (according to one source I read.) A tripod dolly could be another option (where you have smooth and level ground.) Though what if you're filming in natural terrain outdoors? Is it indeed possible to get such tracking shots with tracks / sliders? Any tricks that can be used to avoid them being visible? I suppose another way of doing this to have the camera on some kind of long extension (that extends significantly further than the tracks.) So that the camera is placed ahead of the tracks. Though this may compromise stability.

I actually did the same with both weddings I filmed! Luckily, there were no reliability issues from my Canon 1014E in the second wedding.

Ive shot two weddings on super 8 film (both for family members.) Shot a mix of super 8 and digital video. So I was constantly switching cameras. I filmed at 24fps for the super 8 and 25fps for the digital. I agree about bringing along a back up camera. Good advice. With the first wedding, I only used my trusty Canon 1014E and no back up. Previously, that camera had been very reliable for many years. Though on the wedding day, it only worked about half the time. Sometimes, it was dead and refused to film. And there would also be times when it would spring back to life. For that first wedding film, I shot a mix of Tri-X and some colour reversal film (which Ive forgotten.) It would have been either Ektachrome 64T or 100D. For the second wedding film, the plan was to use Tri-X and 50D negative film for outdoors and 500T negative film for indoors. Though the reception was in a dimly lit venue. Taking a light reading from a white table cloth inside there indicated underexposure (so I didn't bother.) Sometimes I take a reading from a white surface and open up two stops but that didn't seem to be a viable option here. I ended up using digital for the reception instead. There was one moment in the second wedding film where the ceremony had just finished and the newly weds were standing outside the church door and were about to walk down some steps towards me. I had only just placed the tripod-mounted camera down and framed my composition and then they started walking down those steps. And I didn't even have time to focus! I had to start filming straight away as they were advancing towards me. Would have been nice if they could wait just a few extra seconds so that I could at least focus! However, luckily I was zoomed out all the way to the 7mm setting on my Canon 1014E and as it was a sunny day, I was shooting at around f6.7 or f8. So the depth of field was huge. My brother and his wife remained in focus with every step they took towards me. When they got closer, I had to tilt upwards to keep their heads in the frame. And I was proud of myself for being able to achieve a decently smooth tilt with a tripod that was designed for stills photography. That's right. It was not a video tripod. It's movements were generally jerky and unsmooth but somehow I managed the impossible here. I'm very happy with that particular shot.

Yes, Pond 5 is a very popular agency that specialises in stock footage. And photographers don't actually sell photo or footage to stock agencies. They sell their content to clients through the agency with the agency acting as a middle man (taking a commission.) For scenes featuring lots of people / bystanders, you wouldn't really need model releases for each individual. The easiest way to do this would be to submit the image as editorial rather than commercial. Model releases aren't required for editorial images. There are restrictions on the use of editorial images by buyers. They're mainly used for news or educational purposes. They can't be used to advertise a product or service. It's unlikely that you would be able to submit the polar bear image to a stock agency (even as editorial.) Because it's clear that you took the photo on private property (probably in a place where you paid a fee for admission.) Generally, you can't submit photos that you took inside a place where you paid an admission fee. Unless it's a generic image that doesn't identify the location. By the way, the duration of clips available at Pond 5 range from 5 seconds to 60 seconds.

Okay, I went into the Color Grading section of Shotcut and adjusted the shadows on the left (using the negative numbers.) That is kind of working to improve the picture.

For those who use Adobe Lightroom to process Raw still images, I'm sure that you're familiar with increasing the blacks of an image with a slider. And sliding to the left to make use of the negative numbers. Just wondering if you can do the equivalent of that with Shotcut or perhaps the free version of Davinci Resolve? I have some wildlife footage that was shot on an overcast day. And it looks a bit flat and lacking in density. I have the video in Shotcut right and now and increasing the contrast doesn't really help much. I think I likely need to increase the blacks like you can do with still images in Lightroom. It would be great to be able to do more or less the same thing with video editing software.

Thank you for your detailed reply. Ah a treatment. That sounds like a logical first step and a good way to organise one's thoughts in regards to the narrative. Obviously, this shows how little I know about script writing and the related writing processes. Out of curiosity, are there any instances of treatments being pitched / submitted to studios by prospective writers which are then converted to scripts internally by studio employees / script writers working within the studio? Or is it the case that a studio would only accept a completed script as opposed to a treatment?

So I have some ideas for some movies of different genres going through my head. And Ive written down some notes and expanded on the ideas (( guess that's a good start.) I am considering writing some scripts based on these ideas. But I confess that I'm completely new to script writing. I'm finding this quite daunting (like the equivalent of writing a novel.) I can predict that writing one script for one movie is going to take me an insanely long time. I'm not sure of the best way to approach this. Is it better to get the whole thing done very rough so that I can complete it in a reasonable time frame? And then go back and refine, improve and polish it? Or would it be better to try and get it as good as I can from the very beginning? Also - roughly how many pages would be needed for an average length feature film? I know this would vary a lot from film to film. I know that in the US, a script is not much good on it's own (you need an agent to get it into the proper hands.) Do the film industries in most other countries operate in a similar manner?

There was an intense geomagnetic storm (G4) on 2 January this year. I managed to capture this time lapse on the north coast of Kangaroo Island. Unfortunately, a huge dark cloud came along at one point and covered just about all of the aurora. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytT9JQxVdeU

There is a hardware store that sells much longer aluminium tubes (around 3 meters) but they have a mill finish. Very cheap though.

Ive changed my mind about using a pair of drawer sliders. There is someone who uses these for camera tracking and he made a good point about their use. They're made of three segments and when each of the segments comes into play (as they're extending) there will be extra resistance. That may make it challenging in getting a consistently smooth slide. Of course I could just simply use the footage in between two points of resistance but that sounds quite restrictive. Now, I want to make a variation of this kind of dolly with angled wheels and two tubes. Mine will be a lot more compact and I plan to have two small light stands under each end. I admit Ive never worked with PVC pipe before though I have the impression that it could be fragile and easily damaged. I'd like to use aluminium which should be more durable. Though I'm having trouble locating decent lengths of aluminium tubing. The longest I can find is 600mm which is not all that long. Edit: Ive just found one online store that sells 800mm aluminium tubes. I'll have to enquire as to whether they're mill finish or anodized. It's probably wise to go with anodized aluminium as it offers better protection against the elements. I would be using a camera slider a fair bit outdoors (including close to the sea.)