Paul Bruening

Can you weld steel?

In Brian's defense, it has been the dominant mindset of American financial elites and all the climbers (way biggest category) trying to get there. It is a repeatedly, manifestly, erroneous approach. Check your bank account for verification.

Safety has to be your number one. There was a story on the radio more than a few months back about a couple in England. They were having a fight in front of a store. The man pushed her through a big pane glass window. She fell through without much harm. A large piece of broken glass dropped down on his extended arm, cutting him severely. He bled out before the ambulance got there. Is there any way the character could throw something like a trash can through the pane? With a long lens from inside, no one would catch that he was actually a safe distance away? Then, cut to a medium shot of him climbing through (with the glass on the floor already cleared away for his feet). That stuff can fly, too. I'd clear crew well out of the way. Bits of that stuff can end up in your hair and cloths when bursting under shock.

The right side's cooler than the left. Kodachrome, Ektachrome difference came to my mind first. It looks like any of your suggestions could be in play, though.

Every guy's got one. It's a weird place. I try to use it on my three preferred categories only. It would have been a hazard back playing football in junior high, working at a dangerous convenience store, bail bonding and, definitely, when running security at riverboat casinos. Guys fear that if they use it on purpose that they'll get stuck there. You know, like what your siblings told you would happen if you crossed your eyes too much.

Based upon their hit count, I could well be one of the few people in the Universe that didn't know about these guys. I mention them because I think they are a prime example that success is not entirely dependent on technology and budget. Besides, their juvenile form of humor is so perfectly executed. Here is a link to one of their 47 YT episodes. It has taken 37 million hits.

My last deal was 24,000 feet. That's all I can account for on that. Both inventory and price are all luck in the draw and negotiating skills. I promised to not even drop clues on who I bought from. But I got 10, 1,000' recans, 8, 860+ cans and a smattering of the rest down to 200's, all for $0.10 per foot. If you catch them when things are falling their way, you pay their standard rates. But if you luck out and things are running lean, they're loaded with stock and you've got haggling skill... "Such a business, Dahling!"

It gets better. Short ends. They start at 200' lengths. They roll like 400 footers do in a 4-perf camera. You can get them easily for $0.10 per foot. For your grade of production snip tested rolls would be better. They will only add a couple cents per foot and give you confidence that you're not shooting chancy stock. One of our posters, Bruce Taylor can rent you good cameras. Arri and Panavision have 2-perf movements for rent. Abel Cine Tech can rent you an Aaton Penelope.

Hello Jim, I know I'm going to draw a bunch of heat on my head for this post. But, I think it's worth making. Before I get rolling, I'd like to first say that you've been an, honest to God, good sport about me making fun with you. I admire that above all other things that I find admirable about you. Here's where I have to square off with you. Answer #1. From a viewer's ability to differentiate film from digital you're right as rain. No argument possible. But, you're statement was that digital passes the resolution of film. That's just not correct. Film is a pan-resolution capture medium. The pixel size that digital currently and near-future has to offer is only as small as the biggest chunks measurably found on a film negative. Optical path prints are no defense because the things that make RED more and more viable are the things that support film origination as well (4K digital projection). Beefs about scans (beyond those of cost) are no defense. Scan technology has always lead digital acquisition in resolution with no presumption that it won't continue up to a limit since the sensing technologies for it are improving at a pace a few steps ahead of DA. As well, scan technology can rock with no compression. Scan costs are coming down, resolution is going up and storage is getting really cheap. DA bottlenecks from current processing limits, even with storage costs being about the same game for both. This thing that "the sky's the limit" on sensors is starting to show wear and tear. I'm getting hints from here alone that there are physical limits to CCD and CMOS sensors. Though, I don't know where those limits are. Even the sloth-like film manufacturers are showing that their stock improvements have room for growth. Just like sensors, I don't know where those limits are. On the speculative side: Jim. Oh, Jim. If Kodak can get off it's a** and pull a cine HDRI out of it's hat? Especially one that uses the existing 6 layers (swiped that one from Dominic) of emulsion on one strip? Where you gonna' go? Splitters and 3 sensors needed to catch up with film's exiting high DR + HDR? Overscanning with processing bottlenecks?

You lucky scoundrel.

Hello Mike, I'm a zero in this biz. My statements carry no weight. But, I've got nothing to lose. So, I'm free to say anything. DA (digital acquisition) has drawn con artists by the droves. Here's why: The bottom line is the viewing public doesn't know any better. As long as they think they are just fine living on technical and aesthetic junk food, they make most of the choices for us all; Producers, Writers, Directors, DPs... all of us. That means that these digital hucksters can stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon of film and film+DI with a bag of potato chips in one hand and a digital rock in the other and do a captivating juggling routine. They're so good at it that most people forget to even look at the Grand Canyon. I could labor you with why the rock is just a rock and why film is a comparative Grand Canyon. But, you already know film.

Every time you post, Phil, I know I'm going to get some good info. Do you think it is because of h.264 or is this a problem with compression in general. Do you think h.264 will find better alteration methods as time ticks along or is it doing about the best it can as is?

Hello xtraview, Local paper targets your area but isn't watched by talent as much. The web is watched because they get broader exposure for less hassle and cost. But, you may have to sift through a lot of responders who are outside of reasonable costs to get. Your NYU angle sounds most productive. Benefits of living in NY is you have a deep and hungry, well trained talent base to go with. Maybe the best in America because of the stronger stage influence. Please check the forum rules on name usage. Forum members are pretty insistent on that point.

I gotta' go do something. I don't know what you already know. So, I'll leave you this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniscope

This sounds like a job for SUPER TECHNISCOPE MAN! Wanna' hear a pitch on 2-perf?

You can use that pola creatively, as well. One of my best shots was shooting through glass at two girls. I turned the pola revealing the boyfriend in the reflection, standing outside

...as Paul mutters to himself, "Never pick a fight with Keith. Never pick a fight with Keith. Never pick a fight with Keith."

Such an excellent post, Steven. Indulge me while I take it and run. My best assessment of musicals is: Ya' gotta' have a chick-side. It's THE critical tool for success. I drag my chick-side out for three things: Art. If I don't put it in my paintings they end-up devoid of magic. Deep trouble. I've had ship loads of emotional pain in the last five years or more. If I hadn't used my chick-side to survive I wouldn't have made it to here. Musicals. Every once in a while I get a hankerin' to watch a musical. Without my chick-side they don't even make sense. How's that for "too much information"?

Steven, brotha'man, I'll throw-in what I know. The bottom line is you're thickening or thinning the density of the negative. You can restore some amount of that alteration in lab or let it go depending on your needs. Either way you're goofing with the standard rating and behavior of the the stock to get some benefit out of it. You will definitely shift the latitude one way or the other. You are, also, trading off the DR in one direction for the other. I'm still mulling over whether DI can buy you some expansion of the DR on that through some of the simple voodoo that comes with it.

I've got some digital work-arounds brewing in my old coffee pot for a head.

My brain isn't coming with how that 3D beam splitter works. So, I guess the answer is, "I'm not smart enough." Can you throw me a clue or two on it?

You used the words, "torpedo" and "Tippi Hedren" in the same sentence. I am in state of complete distraction.

I haven't totally given up on the bi-pack, just yet; benefits of being well loved by the Muses, ya' know. Never hurts to be tight with Zeus, either.

Ben, I'm hungry for a hacker. I need to convert WAV files into a digital image equivalent of two optical tracks of Dolby Surround. I can't go to film without it. I can't go to big screen without it. I need some coaching on Adobe macros to automate the screen grabs, digital alterations and patching back together for the DG5. I'm stuck in limbo without these two categories solved.

Tie ins are, generally, taboo subject matter on this forum due to the danger that comes with it. A certified electrician or city power representative can give you an estimate of the pole's limits. An electrician can also tell you the box's limits from the main's value.