Gus Sacks

And now that we have the meaning of the word anthropomorphic cleared up the root definition of the word anamorphic means change such as anamorphic evolution.

Please go away. This thread's been hijacked by your incredibly idiotic commentary. Someone could have actually learned something instead.

When shooting on 35mm film an anthropomorphic effect can be created simply by scratching the outside of the lenses as was done with Jessie James. This effect decreases resolution along the periphery and mimics human vision.

Nope you're still wrong.

An example of this newer anthropomorphic lens photography was in the movie "The Assasination of Jesse James" which created a tunnel vision effect where the peripheral areas of the image were clouded.

Jesse James was not anamorphic nor was it digital so there were no pixles. The distorted shots were done in camera with home made glass.

Not exactly homemade glass - Otto Nemenz put the set together with front element-less lenses and plus diopters. It certainly wasn't a post-effect, Thomas. I don't know where you get your info from, but it seems like you're talking out of your ass 99% of the time you post here...

Also, the later builds have Anamorphic support for the desqueezing in monitoring.

I typically use a 2575 or a 2060 O'Connor. Otherwise maybe a Panther head is a viable option? Or a 7+7 would work, as was mentioned.

There were two Christopher Columbus movies in production at the same time (the Salkind movie and Ridley Scott's 1492) and two Dalai Lama movies (Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun). I'm not sure any of them were successful though at the box office.

 

Universal and Paramount both raced to remake King Kong in the 1970's...

Similarly with Alexander the Great... Oliver Stone's film got made and Baz Luhrman's didn't.

Looks great, nice acting , lighting; what medium is it?

 

All I can tell is I don't think it's HDV.

It was P2 something or other. I'm going to guessssss HVX with the Mini-35 adapter.

Seth, I'll purchase it for $150 without the hassle of an EBay sale ;)

Footage looks fine. I don't still understand how one could actually shoot a long form project with such a low compression rate and large files. Maybe that isn't the point... Eyepiece looks a little uncomfortable on the neck with the rig.

Harrison Tent sold.

Hey all,

I was just doing some fall inventory and would like to sell off a few items maybe you'd be interested in...

1. CineBags Production Bag - used lightly - sells for $210, asking $100

2. Harrison Film Changing Tent and Mag Tape - used very sparingly - sells for $250, asking $125

3. Fostex MR8 Recorder w/Mic, XLR Cable and CF Card - used lightly - sells for $250, asking $125

4. Slik 400D Tripod for stills- used often a while ago - sells for $150, asking $75

Contact me for more photos and/or to purchase with a PM or gus.sacks@gmail.com

Buyer pays shipping.

Thanks!

Sent an email. Thanksya.

Sample from a feature. Obviously everyone does it differently.

M2MShotList826.pdf

About to go to Day 2 of a music video I'm shooting on the RED one Build 20.

 

A couple of times we got a record error and then it said something about SATA connections. It's been a long days shoot and I'm sorry I don't remember exactly what it said. It seemed to just go away on its own either after doing the shot again or after rebooting. I'm just wondering if any of you guys know what the problem was so I could possibly avoid it tomorrow.

Rob, where did you get your camera/drives from? I had that problem both days on a video I was doing last week and it was a major bummer. We tried differen drive cables, no luck, and deemed it was the drives' problems - especially when we were doing over-cranking... Let me know, because it's a really annoying problem.

Cooke S16 S4s do exist at 6, 9.5 and 12mm, but you'd be hard pressed to find them at a rental house. They have a 25mm but you'd be using the S4 25mm which is the same used for 35mm, not one specially made with a smaller image circle for S16. I don't know anyone who's shot 16mm using S4s.

 

The other option you could consider, since you'll be shooting at a decent stop is the Arri Ultra 16s which is, I believe the most recently made set of primes for 16mm.

I've shot S16 with the S4s. They still look very pretty :)

As far as Ultra 16s, only CSC has them in the city and they aren't very cheap at the end of the day...

To possibly be a bit contrary to Annie, I would say it is possible to make ends meet and make your way working in Camera Depts in this city if you're just willing to start from scratch and diversify your business enough to where until you're where you want to be, it's best to be able to work in a variety of formats, job titles, and with as many people as possible. I started while I was in school ACing for free, and as a few months went on began picking up paid work, and trying to do as many roles as I could... so now I DP and AC and Camera Operate, blah blah blah, for as many companies and filmmakers as I can. Someday I won't have to work 50 jobs a year to make what I need to pay the bills, but until then I don't mind it ;)

More good news. Did you shoot at F4 and smaller apertures with the wide angle ones?

Typically no, for aesthetic purposes I was usually throwing in some ND or a Pola. But nope, didn't see anything.

Hal, I shot a feature with them and they look great. Not even the 18 had any issues.

I feel like what was said is certainly part of it. I also feel like it could be as simple as when you see light come through a window, there's a natural topper on it via the window frame. Or a light coming through a door frame in your house... It's natural for light not to just fly into the ceiling, aside from a few particular circumstances.

I really enjoyed it. I had a feeling the colors had to do with the locations and sometimes the times of day the footage was shot at - it was colored at Goldcrest in NY, in some very, very capable hands. So I feel like it was purposeful, and it looked great to me. I actually enjoyed the grain for the most part :)

There are older and younger electricians who object to 'striking' unless it is regarding an Arc lamp or perhaps a HMI... because they technically do strike while tungsten does not.

Gee, I think they should get their panties unbunched or possibly find something more interesting to gripe about if that's the convo going on at the truck at lunch :rolleyes:

"Striking, watch your eyes" is something I prefer my guys to say even if it's just a Tweenie on a small set where perhaps the director, talent, or honestly any other departments are nearby. Better that than someone catching a spike into the fresnel lens.

I'm about to start a shoot with the Panasonic 3700 "Varicam" and while looking at the manual today I saw that it can record in either 23.98 or 24fps. This is an MOS shoot, and staying in video format for post, so I feel like we should shoot 24fps...? Another question would be, is there is any advantage to using one frame rate over the other in terms of P2 record space? Thanks.

Hey Aileen Taylor :) This wouldn't be for Skip would it? Small world if so.

Either way, if it's an MOS shoot, 24fps would be great. Typically we'll just do 23.98fps for sync sound.

I'm going to say it's pretty much insignificant, that minor a difference, as far as recording time...

Good luck.

Mmm, Fuji + Hawk Anamorphics... Looks great.

There were a few toughys for the focus puller. Namely one where Pitt was taking cued long strides directly towards the lens. Focus is so critical, it can be sometimes nearly impossible to get what you want in focus (the eyes). But in that shot it looked like he may have even gotten so close to the lens that he was beyond minimum focus.

I actually wasn't speaking of those scenes. Those actually looked really great for focus - I was especially taking a look at those. I'm talking about I think later in the film that were just simply static shots. Kinda strange. I saw it at the Ziegfeld though, and I doubt it had anything to do with the projector or what have you.

A couple of the shots had a out of focus vinnetting (two shot with brad pit looking at the german officer when he asks for the whereabouts for other germans AND the last scalping in the very last scene), was this because a wider lens was used and possibly with a wider aperture?

I unfortunately noticed some shots that were just out of focus. 99% of the film had wonderful use of depth of field and spot on focus, but once in a while a medium or a close-up would appear to be focused on a foreground element that seemed off...

Buuut don't get me wrong, it, for the most part, was one of the best lit, beautifully pieced together films I've seen in a while in theaters. Robert Richardson's a master - no doubt about it.

It was shot on the D20. The DP's name is Seamus Tierney. I could drop him a line and ask where they did the post coloring.