Nicholas Jenkins

Actually I don't think the DVX is native. It does its own 3-2 pulldown. At least that's what we were taught in our Tech Classes and Cinematography.

I think you'll find that if you do enough shopping, you can find a good deal on a DVX. Give it a shot before you just give up on it.

Really? They're lying about their product then? CRAP! So then the major difference between the XL2 and the XLH1 is res? Ick.

Too many to name, but here are the ones that I really dig. Jack Green: Serenity, Unforgiven, Bird. A dude who's not afraid of negative space and REALLY knows where to put the camera. Check out the scene between Mal and Shephard Book where the practical is just a fire. REALLY well lit and shot. Darius Khondji: Se7en I think the thing I like most about Darius' work is how much it all reminds me of still photography (which is where my roots are). Russell Bacon & Craig Barden: Farscape Flat out one of the best gosh darn looking shows ever put to film (in my opinion anyway). The work they did is fairy formal, but it's stunning in its beauty and craftsmanship. WOW! César Charlone: City of God, The Constant Gardener Who says realism can't be pretty. Damn!

I think allot of people just haven't seen any really REALLY bad movies. De Palma's work has gone down hill but Femme Fatale was actually one of his stronger pieces as of late. But even his bad ones are just kind of Bad Big Budget movies.

Well, that's tough because different directors make techniques work better than others. For instance, Sam Raimi makes whip pans and snap zooms work very effectively, but I've seen the same technique tried by other filmmakers and it comes off as too much. I think that's because Raimi's horror material is suited for that type of photography. But, I think something healthy for you to do would be to rent some horror films and really break some scenes down. Start looking at exactly what is going on in a scene you find particularly effective and come up with your own shot list: 1. Wide Master of Living Room, Jamie Lee Curtis staggers into frame. 2. Medium of Jamie, tracks backward with her. 3. High Angle through fan blades of Jamie picking up dropped butcher knife. 4. Insert of Jamie's hand grabbing butcher knife. 5. etc... this allows you to say, ok, this was a scene about Jamie being alone in the house and finding a weapon. How did it build tension, how did using this selection of shots work to the filmmakers advantage to get the point across. Another thing to look at is how long we hold on one shot as opposed to others. Lynch is a good one for this.

Geetar :P I have an Ibanez RG-7 string an Alvarez Accoustic Electric and a Seagull 12 string accoustic Used to play allot, but I sorta futz around a bit here and there now when I have the time.

AH! Ok, coming back to me now. And I haven't seen the digitally "enhanced" version.

Agreed. GREAT skit. :D I think that was on Beast of Yucca Flats. *shivers*

Exposure looks great in all of them except for the kid in the alley. I (personally) could go with a little longer of an exposure for his face (slower shutter speed maybe). But everything else looked really good :D

I'd suggest finding a DVX 100B. You can find them around $1800 (or less more than likely). Nice lense, does a damn good faux 24p for filmmic look and allot of decent control over everything.

Hmmmm, been a while since I've seen E.T. but I don't think that's what he means. Let's break it down in a real simple way. Scene: A man is looking through the kitchen for something to eat. I place the camera at one end of the kitchen and start rolling. I call action and my actor goes through the long process of going through each and ever cabinet and the refridgerator. He finds a box of ice cream and, satisfied with that choice, leaves the kitchen. Now, in the editing room, I know that I'm not going to use that long 5 minute take of him going through everything, so I'm going to use "Jump Cuts". I'll start with him walking into the kitchen and looking in one cabinet, THEN I'm going to CUT to him looking in a another cabinet. I'm changing the flow of time (and doing other things to the feel of the scene). Does that help?

I think the Coleman Francis trilogy is probably the most vile group of films I've ever seen. I can't imagine anything more devoid of life and joy. The Sky Divers The Beast of Yucca Flats and Red Zone Cuba lord help me, even Mike and the bots couldn't help these much.

Part of the problem is that "Horror" is a seriously wide open genre. I think there are several different ways of approaching a horror film, it really depends on what you want to do. Just remember, serve the story first. It's the old design motto "Form Follows Function". This might help you select shots and editing as you don't want to (necessarily) combine multiple tricks and trades from different horror films simply because they are from good or effective horror films. It all revolves around the collaboration between Director, DP and actor. What is the scene about? How can I best accomplish recording this scene and instilling it with the emotions and psychology that has been agreed upon. Take a look at Roman Polanski's The Tenant or Repulsion sometime. Both are scary films (probably more thrillers than horror) but both contain elements of the horror genre. But there are not really any quick/flashy cuts to "toy" with the audience. Another good director to look at for Horror (and I'm biased here) is David Lynch. Specifically, check out Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and (god help you) Eraserhead. None of these films are classified as "Horror" really, but all have incredibly potent and horrific scenes. Hope that's helpful in some way.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember thinking it looked like video as opposed to film. Have you considered renting something like an XL-H1 or the JVC GY-HD? They're both relatively (RELATIVELY) inexpensive HD cams. You get native 24p and native 16x9 at a resonable budget.

I think this is somewhat true on all facets of filmmaking. I am most impressed with writers, directors, actors, etc.. who are invisible. And when I say that, I mean when I'm watching a performance, I'm not marveling at how this actor was able to channel a character, rather I'm watching a character in a story. Sure, sometimes I enjoy frilly stuff that makes me go "WOW, LOOK AT THAT CAMERA MOVE!" But it's like visual effects. If I'm amazed at the visual effect, then something is missing because I forgot that thingy called the story. So, I think a director is working at his/her best when they have crafted a film so well that it ceases to be A FILM BY... and is just a story playing out in front of me.

I also quite liked this book, though I think Mamet tends to be a bit TOO rigid. This is a great, short, read and really helpful when you're in the middle of trying to break down the moments and beats in a script for shooting. I liked it allot. Warning though, his section on "What to tell the actors" is a little thin.

I don't agree with this actually. If you watch David Gordon Green's "George Washington" you can see fantastic work done with non actors. Working with non-actors is just different than working with pros. Pros can sometimes be a hinderence as well, especially if they've had the "actor" schooled right out of them. Lots of times non-actors end up being much more responsive to a sense of "pretend" and "play". It's a question of casting and how the director is able to change his/her gameplan and strategy to work with pros vs. non-actors. Now, I'm not sure how you're casting but here's one thing that I'll suggest for either non actors or pros. Let the camera roll as much as you can. Even on walkthroughs, you may find quite a bit that you can use there. Sometimes I would walk back to my DP and just tap him on the shoulder and ask "can you roll here"? As long as the crew was pretty much in place, we'd walk through it and I wouldn't tell anyone we were rolling accept my DP and sound. This did two things for me. ONE: It allowed my crew to work out any issues they had with framing, lighting, or sound. And TWO: It allowed my actors to be a little more relaxed. Sometimes you'll work with actors who, as soon as they know the camera is rolling, tense up. There's my two cents. :D

Very nice, is that all just available light? Or did you bring in some light as well?

I would agree. But I watched it. I do like the hard light from above, but I would have thrown some type of fill (even if it was just a small one) on the prisoner. I've never used the sony 2000 but I've used the PD150's and VX series. Is it a Mini DV camera? Kind of Sony's answer to the Panasonic DVX? If so, snap zooms are always a challenge on those for many reasons, but if you plan things out well enough, you can pull them off. On the plus side, I like your overall framing and exposure. Just a couple of fixes and I think you could have a really nice scene. YAY FOR RESHOOTS!!! :D

Dude. Bitter? I think you'll notice I said "Dream" earlier. Is that the general attitude around here "You have no chance so don't try!"? Jeez. A howdy do to you too.

Shot on an XL2 and a DVX100 (for pickups). It's a 15 minute piece, which is a bit long for a semester's work (considering teaching load and other classes). These are just images from the first 5 minutes. My DP and I worked VERY closely on this shoot to get a certain look and we achieved about 50% of that I'd say. Learned allot. Once I've got a final edit, I'll post it somewhere. Until then, tell me what you think.

Ack, posted in wrong forum, PLEASE DELETE!

Wow, just halves it then. That should be much easier. All of the pull downs that I've used here (which aren't many) are nearly worthless. The in camera pull downs that the DVX100 and the XL2 do are pretty good but still not quite the quality that I'm looking for. I think the main thing is I want a GOOD job when I'm done here. Teaching would be great, but I'd like to work in the field for a couple years if possible before I do that. Doctor Who would be fun because it's a show I watch. Pretty much all tv is pretty relentless from what I've heard. Had a friend who shot for the Wire and said something very similar about it.

Stuart, Thanks for the helpful info :) It's a dream of mine to head to England to work on Doctor Who at some point. Pipe dream maybe, but once I finish up with my MFA I'll be applying everywhere. The article that I read said that the production team had refined their practices with DigiBeta so well that they didn't want to throw a wrench into the system that was working so well for them. I can understand that. My main question came from the fact that I've got people all over telling me that it doesn't make any difference to shoot your films at 24p because the average viewer can't tell the difference, or at the very least you can to a pull down in post. In reaction to the first statement, I shoot all of my work with the DVX or the XL2 which both use their own pull downs and are quite good. At the end of the semsester, one of the main comments I get is "how did you make it look so professional". I'd say it's 50% 24p and 50% lighting. The other statement (post pull down) is that I haven't seen a good pull down for post yet. What they're doing on Doctor Who looks fantastic if it's a post pull down. But since I'm in the states, I'm dealing with changing from 30i to 24p. I have yet to work with any PAL stuff so I can't be sure how different it looks raw.