Adam Thompson

Yeah that'd be so cool. I can't get enough of those great romantic comedies and experimental B.S. movies. I'm gelling up just thinking about it! <_< Really- I think there should be more male directors with less feminine traits.

Who are you talking to? I'd love some muffins actually. Know any girls that want to make me some for the credit? :D The wrath of the forum Richard? I think it's scary that people don't speak obvious truths anymore. They prefer to dance around it and what's worse is they even start to believe things and feel things they are told to by systems that develop simply to push their own economic interests. ANYWAY... James, you ACTOR, DIRECTOR, CAMERA GUY, FILMMAKING MASTER OF ALL...... you SHOULD stop USING CAPS all the time BECAUSE it's REALLY annoying.

Uh, reversal film stocks.

I cant believe I'm commenting on this but.... Why is it so important to have women in film? It's not in their nature to hang out in work groups like men do and it's not in their nature to be involved in technical jobs. And the ones that are, are often lesbians with male traits. I find it really strange that many people in the film world seem to be so concerned that everything seem equal to the point where it's absurd. Directing and DP work rarely involves a female because it's natural for men to be in such roles, always has been, always will. Get over it. Nature will always rule, not laws, not opinions, not what the media or what your leftist school wants you to think.

She is actually a he!

Then why do anything else? Tangable mediums will always prevail when it comes to matters of the heart.

When the sissy soldier character "Opum" (spelling?) finally gets the balls to shoot the Nazi they earlier spared, near the end, the highlights smear upward on his shot. I was wondering if anyone knows if this was a filter or was it a post effect. I've seen a plug-in for FCP that will do it but is it mimicing a real filter?

Robert... how did the test go? You said you had some V3 you were going to shoot.

Ok lets say someone wants you to shoot a project (on 16mm) but you have to be the sole gaffer, operator, DP, loader, AC, grip, etc.? I did it on a short once and I did it on some micro budget feature shooting small 24p cam. but I'm not sure it's realistically possible on this one. Even if I get an AC that will work for $100 a day and some 18yo PA I doubt I can say yes to it. How many days in a row can you pick up and adjust a fully kitted out S16 cam on a tripod and then rush over to adjust some bare bones lighting set up and keep track of everything without breaking your back or brain? Has anyone else been faced with this? How rediculous is this?! And why do I keep getting into this kind of thing!? :blink:

Since you have perfs burned into the film it looks like that could only happen with a major light leak as it was rolled up, or it was flashed when it was being unrolled. Either the lab did it or your mag. has a major leak issue.

I'm really not trying to pick on the footage but seriously man, it's so video-looking. I mean it's nice video, yeah, but still has that cheap feeling and lack of texture. I honestly don't see the big deal anymore. And this is coming from someone who almost put down $ on a red back in '06. And I didn't mention the obvious grip's legs and fluid head reflections on the parked engine chrome. ;)

I find it annoying when someone disgards information that someone else bothered doing their homework to gather. The little bit of HD infrared footage was shot with a converted Sony HVR-Z1E set up by Extreme Facilities U.K.. The day for night was shot on 35 as well as plates for better fx rendering. The rest, which is easily 90%, was S16 using Arri and Aaton cams with the new Ultra 16 and Ultra Prime Arri lenses. Mixed format? Not really. Babel was for sure because several scenes were shot on different mediums.

You may want to check out the new film "I'm Not There" about Bob Dylan. The scenes with C. Bale in them were shot on S16 then cropped to 2.4 to fit with the rest. (There's a lot of formats mixed in that film)

Then load up an old 16mm cam with a daylight load and shoot your landscape. Use a 500 film, push it, use an old lens and crop to fit and it might cut in with your S8 just fine. S8 just isnt a landscape film, never will be.

Uh, 28 Weeks was 95% S16mm and if you saw something switch around, it was probably a different lens or lighting affecting the S16 image. The limited night vision stuff was not on an F900 either, it was one of the little prosumer Sonys I believe. The Squid and the Whale was all S16. As was The Devils Rejects which is prob. my favorite use of it recently. The cleanest S16mm I've seen is Last King of Scotalnd (It went 2K DI I heard) or the Brad Pitt/African stuff in Babel- it was 99% S16mm and it was crazy good looking. In fact the DP said he was hoping for more grain but Laser Pacific did too good a scan so he didn't feel it off-set the 35mm enough and when they tried to add grain in the DI, he didn't like it so they left it the way it was.

Once again, people are coming from different core needs here. I care little about competing with video cams and losing all organic traits of a medium on a HDTV screen because I do little to no work that isn't for indie film production. What you want (and that seems to contradict itself a little) is different than what I want. I'd like to know something: Why is it when I mention a 16mm movie no one ever comments back about it? I give examples of great work shot on 16 like once a month but all I get back are comments like the one above? Let me try another one: Have you been able to see any of the Ken Burns "The War" on a big HD set yet? Basically all the new stuff was S16 and to me it's HD broadcast looked shockingly great. Do you honestly think an HD cam, with it's sterile, boring, cheap and plastic look would be a better way to have shot that? I guess I'm relating that kind of work too much to narrative films where HD simply serves little purpose for me. If I did the kind of work you do, maybe I'd hate what I now like so much about physical capture. Can anyone honestly say that any of these new HD TV shows look high-end to them? No, you can only make excuses as to why it fits the material so well. Every time Dr. Who is on or that unwatchable Tyler Perry's -whatever- show, or Sara Silvermans Program.... I can't help but think they didn't care enough to even rent anything above a DVX to shoot with- at least thats what they look like. I'd also like to know why so many great DP's now, and over the last many decades, use nets and diffusion filters to degrade the look of (those even older) film stocks? I guess they needed higher resolution and cleaner images and that was some really weird way of getting there. Wake up guys, Sony, Panasonic and now red has your creative ball$. :huh:

So now grain is bad in 8mm stock?? Ok dudes, I think I'm on the wrong bus or something.

Well even the older "Vision 1" 500T stocks in 16mm were perfectly viable for real production. The Squid and the Whale was shot that way (all on 500), Leaving Las Vegas on even older 16mm stocks, and lots since and before of course. You see grain that bothers you in 35mm, on TV?? Wow, you must have a 40ft TV screen. I can barely notice it (and its not a bad thing anyway!) when I'm watching 500T 35mm movies in the theater, much less on TV, unless it's purposefully done. But maybe it's because I'm not trying to find some problem with every little thing; I'm enjoying the movie like everyone else. What bothers me are TV shows shot with Varicams or the like. It always looks so cheap and video like. Even worse are the huge numbers using little 3chip cams for TV... that's a joke and always looks like highschool level stuff (which I guess it is overall) Thank you so much MTV and VH1. I understand less and less about what people are seeing out there, and why they like or don't like certain things with every new post. I give up. <_< Long live real cameras and talent!

One rumor was that there was a new 500T coming but this appears to be a whole new line. A thread in the stocks forum went into it more too. I'm just very pleased to see the company investing in film as opposed to the other, plastic looking, capture mediums. Although the downside may be that the new stocks look even more clean and flat due to everyone's apparent love of sitting in DI suites forever. Id like a more contrasty stock option mixed in there myself.

Funny, I just posted a comment about it in the general forum.

Just saw that Kodak is going to officially annouce the new product they were hinting to... Vision 3. I thought this was pretty cool news!

I think we need to clarify the time and type of job here and how it changes things. If it's an indie feature that's shooting for a month or so, outside of LA, $150 is something to expect I think. A feature means solid work for a month, a commercial means work for a couple of days then maybe three weeks of no work!? I'd rather take $150 a day for that long than $300 a day for two days. Personal examples: I was paid $600 to gaff for two days on an industrial once. I was soon after paid $1500 total to DP a 24p feature that went on for over three weeks, plus I got food and a hotel room.

Don't be rediculous. You can not rent active military vehicles. <_<

Yeah I guess that's why, when Martin's and Sissy's characters are in the rich man's house in Badlands, Malick is the guy that knocks on the door looking for the home owner. <_<

Seriously man, they should use that money for reps. and marketing. Let the buyer print and show it on a pro HD or 2K projector instead. A buyer will want to add or take things off anyway but you'll have a locked print. I've seen $1mil. films that dont print because of that. Very bad idea in my opinion.