joel Peterson

A little late to the discussion, sorry.

 

Most cameras can be accepted by the SD cable networks. Interestingly, the EX cameras were the forst small sized cameras accepted by Discovery HD. They do not accept SD, HDV or the HVX200 P2 except for very limited use.

 

There are several Nikon lens mounts for the EX-3. The magification factor is 5.5X! Great for wildlife. But some of the cheaper Nikon lenses can look a bit soft, have a lower contrast or more chromatic aberation. They are also not designed for follow focus or smooth zooming 'in shot' so plan accordingly.

 

There are 2 B-4 mounts. One with electronics enabled and one without. The electronically enabled mount is made by Fuji and provides all servo functions to the lens, enabling control of iris plus power to the zoom motor. It costs around $1700.

With respect to Discovery HD not accepting HDV for example. Thought you may be interested to know some friends of mine completed a feature Doco shoot entirely on the Z1 then up-resed it and Discovery purchased it without question!

Hi there

Any one help on this point

I am about to go away and shoot on the EX3 I shall be downloading and saving the files onto my Macbook Pro.

When I return to civilization I will need to transfer those files to a 3rd party editor who uses Avid on a windows platform.

Are there any issues here that I should be aware of.

Thanks in Anticipation.

I saw the film in theatres with my buddy over the summer. We were two out of maybe a dozen, granted it was a matinee. I'm pretty sure the film tanked here in the U.S. As far as story and cinematography went, I thought both were excellent. My buddy thought it sucked. I loved the story, the "Australian Western" genre, and the awesome compositions, which were probably unnoticed by everyone in the theatre save myself. A lot of people that had gone to see it objected to the courseness, and graphic violence, which I agree were overdone. The F-word game that has probalby been going on since "Scarface" really has to end. It's great to use it for emphasis, but I can guarantee that the F-word was not that imbued in the vocabularies of anyone, be they Australian botany-bay derived or otherwise, until well into the 1940s (this movie was set in the 1890s I believe), probably around the time of WWII. The shots of the flies were great, the opening titles, which incorporated a lot of period photography, were superb and really set an excellent tone for the story as it opened. The disclaimer that some of the images contained might be offensive to Australian Aborigines was lame and I think that this disclaimer has really cemented my belief that all lawyers, everywhere, need to die ;-) The flies, which I learned from one of the above links weren't planned for but just happened to be going haywire during the shoot, were also excellent. The lashing sequence was powerful especially

 

SPOILER

 

when they were lashing the main character's little brother and they do a time disolve and you're expecting them to have finished whipping him when the man wipes the blood of the whip and it's actually only a cut going to lash 34 out of 100. I also really connected with the Police chief's wife and her little "piece of England". I totally got that, and I think the way they depicted that in the film was superbly done. My usual complaint about DIs and the DI process. I think, with the minimal CG they had here that it was completely unnecessary and it detracted from the pop of the colors. In such a beautfully lit and photographed film, anything digital is really cutting into the film look and the broad color gamut of negative film. It is a total shame that a movie such as this would go through something so unnecessary.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

hi there

Just thought I would enlighten you re your reference to the Aboriginal disclaimer ...this is infact something that is in reference to tribal belief and practices and is not necessarily a legal thing in our western sense

and yes it was a very good film and Benoit did a sterling job :)

cheers

Joel