Jon Allen

Do you mean the Bible (caps) ? Anyway, there were a lot of very artistic licenses taken. Remember the Satanic baby? No matter what you believe, first and foremost, Mel made a MOVIE- although he wanted it to be something besides that (ie, a Christian recruitment vehicle). It simply isn't any more or less than that. Yes, he tried to make a statement, but there are a lot of movies that do that. But seeing this movie doesn't make one more or less spiritual. However, the story he was telling is pretty incredible: The Creator of everything rescues his favorite creation by dying by his creation's hand. That said, I thought the pianist was a little slow moving- I don't mean any disrespect, but I had enough of this "atrocity against _____" movies in high school. Just because it tells a tragic story doesn't make it a good story.

Sometimes when I'm talking to family about what I do at work and they start using jargon like "shooting" I like to point my index fingers and wave my hands in the air and pretend I'm in a spagetti western.

If you think that's a majority, probably.

I never got into this big debate, and to some degree, I'm kind of disappointed I didn't. But through it all, the media still has a dominantly liberal bias- which is why films like "fehrenheit 9/11" got a lot more press than "fehrenhype" and "michael moore hates america". I'm not saying all people involved are liberal, but to some degree, the majority of media stories that get out are from the left's viewpoint. Maybe this is good entertainment, maybe it's not. I remember from college that the more outrageous your characters are, the more funny they become, this might be a way of boosting ratings... by airing outrageous new stories. Remember that little CBS fiasco with those bad reports about GW's service record? Nevermind several blocks of downtown NYC being closed down for a week due to protests by the democrats at the GOP convention- but there weren't enough protesters at the democratic convention to shut down anything. And no one on the news said anything to discourage this type of disruption. Then again, the conservative crowd is pretty reactionary. So it might make good TV if we air more crazy stuff and see the right wing scramble.

So either I become the location manager or I tote the real loc manager everywhere?

I think breaking down a scene or two is a valuable time investment- as long as you learn from it. Same with this forum, is surfing the internet a good use of time? I think most people on here would say yes, since we all do learn from each other (or at least from Rhodes & Mullen). I don't really have the time anymore to "invest" into a movie breakdown, but I've been amazed at how much scenes do break down- how close in the shot is as compared to the dialogue. There are two things I normally try to get from a movie when I'm analyzing it: One is learn what they did, how they did it, and try to reproduce it. Second is experiment and see if I could do it better.

When you guys (and gals) go to shoot on location, be it a school classroom or airport, when you're asking permission to "shoot" what do you say? Not "I'd like to come to your classroom and shoot, is that ok?" I normally say either "record" or "film". I try to stay as simple as possible, to avoid misunderstandings about what I plan on doing. Any other ways of handling situations like this?

You mean like "Man in the Moon"?

I haven't seen Natty Gann in forever! I remember watching that and not being quite sure if it was a boy or girl. lol!

It gets especially frustrating in post when you have both your boss and a client looking over your shoulder while you're experimenting with different cuts on the computer. Granted, the piece is for a client, who in turn, is the executive producer- but not necessarily creative-minded, and will begin to micro-manage your editing. I've never gotten to the point of saying "Look, you've hired me to do the best work I can, leave me alone and stop telling me how to do my best work." I usually just let them talk through their issues, then when they're gone I do it right- I haven't had a complaint yet.

I find it's easier for clients to understand you needing to "film" something as opposed to "videotaping." Of course, if you say "tape" they think VHS and then the next logical step "I have a video camera, why am I hiring you again?" Then there's Ron Dexter, who says that the principles are the same, lighting, framing, etc. It's just the medium that's different- it all goes to video in the end anyway. Of course, it would be hard to call Monster Garage a film piece, but of course, no one's going to go to a theatre to see it either. I guess it's harder to say that something is 'Cinema' if it's done on video.

Maybe they will make a movie. :lol:

I got the 100a, simply because of the price tag, it's the most versatile camera for the buck. Plus, my company is kind of in a transition right now and I had no idea how pricey I could go. I think I scored some points with my boss by getting this camera, so we might be able to go HD sooner if we get some projects out the door with a decent camera and save some money at the same time. Plus, with the 24p setting it will make a decent b-camera for an HD production- I would think.

I don't know if it was better in "all ways" but the special effects was by far more impressive. The acting however... Just because the tools change, that doesn't necessarily mean that the quality changes. Lucas has basically reinvented on-site filmmaking with his use of digital effects and recording. However, I still see things in Ep2 that I can't stand. For instance, in the big battle scene on Geonosis (sp?), what's up with the campy zooms to some of the flyers? His effects are simply amazing, but the camera movement still seems amateurish at times. I think we should all rediscover that just because you have a lot of people working on a movie and on set doesn't mean you're going to get a great movie. We're forgetting some of the most important aspect of moviemaking: storytelling. Really, that's what it boils down to, if you don't have a good story/script, you don't have a good movie.

I think a lot of the hype about this film is the quality of the cinematography. The lighting, framing, sets, etc were all amazing. Everything about this movie was deliberate- orson wells was very detailed when he planned out this film. A book I just read this week said that every shot was made like it could be a painting in a gallery, except they're moving pictures. I tend to agree, but again, if you find the plot boring, there's only so much time you can stare at good movie framing.

Number one, the cameras you're looking at have different size CCDs. So obviously the resolution will be different. Secondly, if you're thinking broadcast/video only, you might want to consider the final output resolutions. (regular SD res is only 640x480) Do you need a camera that can shoot 800 lines? The XL2 is a viable camera and has progressive mode, which the dvc200 does not (nor does the 200 have a switchable 16:9 mode) These cameras are at about the $5000 mark, you also need to consider what the price of accessories might be as well. A popular camera around this forum is the Panasonic DVX100A. It's a sub $4000 camera now and it's quite versatile, the only camera within a grand that has progressive mode- if that means anything to you. There are also the new HD cameras with 16:9 CCDs. If you're looking at future compatibility- possibly a decent B camera for HD productions in the future. Good luck!

I guess I'm too used to clients having too much say in the production stages.

"...each film features products you can purchase at Amazon." Yay! I've always wanted to do a program whose purpose was to sell merchandise! (Product + Placement)^n

Cool, I'll stay tuned for your full review. ;)

Do you think the "it's my private vision" standpoint has to do with back in the day we'd have nothing to compare the previous shot to? I mean, without watching the dailies you'd have no idea what the director was doing because the only output was the viewfinder. I don't know if I agree to having all those people watching every little thing I do. If you turn down someone's sugguestion for the shot you either look like an idiot for not noticing or you look like a dick if you tell them to "f*ck off" I suppose I would rather only a priviledged few see the work in progress, otherwise it does become a committee thing, I would rather the actors can't take a break and see what the final comp will look like in the middle of the day. Their interpretation of what the scene looks like and how they want to behave in it might conflict with the director's ultimate vision.

Huh?

If you correctly calibrate your monitor and color correct to that it should look decent on any monitor- but if shots from the same project aren't consistent, people will think you don't know how to match shots/coloring, no matter how bad their viewer is. For a demo/show reel it doesn't matter if this project and this project over here match, but the replication of styles will be one thing people DO notice.

Yes! Direction by commitee!

What I did to make my editing machine the fastest I could make it was to remove any type of outside connection to the computer.So all I had on it was the OS, essential software, and my editing program. (If you were paying attention earlier would would have heard my dissortation on surfing the internet fragmenting your harddrive and thus, slower seek times) Then I put together a media machine that I download and surf from. This setup is basically is foolproof, you can't get viruses on a machine that you never surf or download from- so running antivirus would be a waste of system resources.

Unless you need multiple monitor and multiple processor support- which I would guess most NLE users would want. Anyway, it's not a matter of how much is available, it's a matter of how much is going to be used. There's always background services running, it's a matter of having an extra 800k physical memory back. If you REALLY want all available resources, I would recommend not having any antivirus, no special desktop themes, no itunes(or player of choice), no kazaa, no instant messaging, and definitely NO INTERNET! I'm not trying to bust on you, but system services are such a SMALL part of the overall use of your resources, you'd be better off dumping "optional" programs that isn't required to run your editing software.