Paul Bruening

We just did a thread on art movies. What if I let my stand-in play the lead in my movie. It could be about the existential angst of being a styrofoam head. Bring Me the Thoughts of Alfredo Garcia.

http://www.trailerfan.com/movie/bring_me_t..._garcia/trailer

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071249/

It occurred to me that if I was the actor of my movie and I didn't have a crew that I was going to have trouble with lighting, framing and focus. So, I got a styrofoam, wig head. It already has a hole up through the base to put it on a stand. I got the guy at Lowes to match an 18% gray card to make up a quart of flat exterior paint. I now have something to be my 18% stand-in for lighting, framing and focus.

Please, do keep posting. There is a tendency towards the technical, here. I have enjoyed and appreciated that a great deal. I have learned so much from the people here, as well. But, it wouldn't hurt us to confront our mediums from aesthetic, theoretical and abstract perspectives. Please, continue to post and throw whatever suits your fancy at us. Wrestling with your ideas is our challenge and pleasure. If you can get enough activity in this area going, a separate forum category could be made just to hash out these kinds of ideas; a thread where strong opinion and emotion could be accepted as inherent in the process of working out these kinds of topics.

Five years of art school.

Our society already, widely accepts the relationship between art and movies. We have common phrases applied to it: "Art film, art movie house, art movie circuit." But the OP's question was, as I understand it, can movies be considered fine art? I would like to make a distinction. Yes, film and video have been used in art in presentations that can clearly be labeled as "art" and not mistaken for anything else. In the same way cadmium is used in the finest red oil paints and can be found on many of the greatest paintings since the period of Impressionism. That doesn't make my neighbor's red painted barn a work of fine art. Movies as a presentation are closer to the dramatic and theatrical arts than anything fine like painting or sculpture. They are a populace medium, even the "art movies." I feel pretty strongly saying that they are too common a thing to be classified as "fine art."

Parchment paper is a pretty good idea. I think I'll give it a try and see how much abuse it can take before bursting into flames. Most parchment paper related baking doesn't go over 360 degrees. Biscuits cook at 450 degrees but for only 10 to 20 minutes. I've got a box of it in front of me right now. There are no limits or warnings on the box. OH, WAIT! I just opened the lid and found this warning underneath in all caps: CAUTION: CUTTING EDGE IS SHARP, AVOID CONTACT. DO NOT TOUCH PARCHMENT PAPER TO OPEN FLAME. ALWAYS PREHEAT CONVENTIONAL OVEN FIRST. WITHSTANDS TEMPERATURES UP TO 420 DEGREES F. NEVER USE UNDER BROILER, IN TOASTER OVENS OR IN HALOGEN LIGHT OVENS. REMOVE AND DISCARD STARTER TAPE.

This is the first time I have heard "fine art" applied to movies. I guess it is possible to make a case for that association. But, I also think that that case could much more easily be argued. Fine art is more commonly applied to exclusivity in presentation like painting, sculpture and the like. Movies are a little more of a populace medium, therefore, on the common side of art. I don't think I've heard the phrase applied to TV or newspapers or billboards either. While these mediums can be artistic or have art in them, they're targeting towards commonness excludes them from being "fine". Warhol is the most well known for efforts to make art film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol. If you know of any web references to any film as fine art, Id love to get a click to it. This would be an interesting presentation to me.

Can you get an 18% gray card to use with the F4?

Okay, then. Thanks, fellas. You've saved me that effort. Even better, you've saved me from buying the expensive paint from a movie gear supply store. Now, I get to pick the funkiest, brightest green from the Lowes chip rack.

What if I cast any aliens. Won't they come off invisible?

I think I recall something about the pigment formula in green screen paint was tuned to a light frequency hole in Kodak's negative stock. Or was it that it was tuned to fit kinoflos? From what you're saying, David, it sounds like it doesn't matter to a computer. Is that what it is?

The guy at the local Lowes swears his computer will match proper green screen paint. Would someone mind sending me a sample from their set or from a can of their paint in an envelope by US Mail? About 1 inch square or so will do. PM me and I'll throw you my mailing address. Thanks in advance.

What do you do for work, Karl?

This is really interesting, fellas. I've seen it three times. Every time, people came out of the theater happy and satisfied. I don't recall overhearing even one complaint. I'm not saying that every single person liked it. Just, generally, it appeared to be well received. So, my questions are: What did you expect? What would you have rather seen? Is it general things you were hoping for like more personal meaning? I'm just groping for questions, mind you. I'm not trying to imply anything about your opinions. I'm just curious what else the movie should have been to meet your needs.

Regardless of what we think of it, the proof is in the pudding: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...dc998544184f47e 1.6 Bil in 6 weeks. That's a bunch 'a cheese.

While I found the story to be formula and certain shots/scenes to be a pretty close rip-off, I do understand the need to play it safe on the story when you've got 300 Mil riding on a couple of gimmicks. As well, when you're asking the audience to absorb this much new and unique data, asking them to also swallow unique story elements might be too much. For me, the easy to swallow story and scenes made the peculiar 3D experience more accessible. Basically, I'm saying- how much unique information can the average viewer's brain take in at any given experience? I was okay-ish with the balance that the creators' chose in Avatar.

Yea. 16X auto lens for my XL1s. 14X manual for my XL2. MP-E 65mm variable macro. 50mm f1.8 AF. 50mm compact macro. An older metal bodied FD 50mm f1.8. The MP-E 65mm is the only famous one of the bunch getting rave reviews to this day. Though, I usually see good things about the 14X manual lens. It seems to be a workhorse in the XL camps. I hate my 16X with the focus and zoom servos in the rings. I'm afraid I don't know that much about the rest of them. They service my needs. The 50mm compact macro is the lens I use for my 35R3's, XL2 video tap. The 50mm f1.8 AF is what I use on my XL2 for telecine transfers on my scan rig. I definitely don't like the direction of plastic in everyone's lenses these days. There are rehoused Canon's that enjoy a good reputation. I don't know which glass they robbed, though: http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProduct...t=8&Cat2=22 Here's a Ken Rockwell comparison that might help: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm He also tests and compares individual lenses on that site. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/index.htm I trust his assessments. I like his photographic examples.

I've got all Nikon for my 35R3 (20, 24, 35, 50-1.2, 50-1.4, 85, 105, 135, 180 and 300 mm's). I was pleased to find out, while I was up at Visual Products, that the guys there had rather high opinions of Nikon lenses. If you have to go SLR lenses, they're the most respected. But, they aren't the quality of proper (I mean expensive) cine lenses. Get all MF, metal bodied, AiS (or Ai if that's all you can find) and best if ED glassed. Factor in the cost of getting them tuned up at a lens bench like VP. Some percentage of used lenses will be a little rough. It's all a pig-in-a-poke on Ebay. All-in-all, Nikons are the cheapest way to get yourself into a large array of cine useable lenses.

I've found them to produce a serviceable light. It's the shadows that I couldn't get to like. They produce a blend of sharp and soft shadow. I always thought of it as a "junky" kind of shadow. Now, that doesn't matter when you're using a bunch of them for flat, TV style lighting. But, when you try to use them as individual lights, especially on close-ups, you get that junky shadow. I've wondered if hanging a bit of metal directly in front of the lamp as a sort-of dodging tool might get rid of that hard shadow from the lamp leaving the nicer soft shadow from that big scoop. That and some diffusion might make them delightful for gentle mediums and close-ups.

Man! I caught this flu from my brother's daughter when I went up to DC for Thanksgiving. I'm just now starting to shake it off. I'd get a little better and start working. Then, I'd get sick again. I've heard from others that this strange slow-virus has been going around with weird and random symptoms. Maybe it's for the best since I had to get Frankenmitchell properly fixed. I've made the FF and matte box mount. I'm pretty close to getting out and shooting. I've had to cancel so many shoot days so far. I've been struggling about the ordinariness of my locations. They're boring. I struggled with ways to justify my character's various places. His character, an insurance salesman, was too boring to place him in a cool location. It occurred to me that if he was a photographer or even only an amateur photographer, he could be anywhere with no further justification. That simple scripting device allows me to put him in the local area's more interesting settings. Plus, as an amateur photographer, I can establish that aspect of his character visually without any rewrites. Adding to that are cut-aways to the things he is shooting as B&W stills which adds an artsy-fartsy quality to the movie. What do you think?

We're just razzing you. I've heard only good things about your book.

TV fill. 'Tween the big guns. For when the TV engineers are too indecisive and want everything to read the same on the meter.