Patrick Neary

despite the added weight and bulk of the equipment, having that larger negative feels liberating compared to shooting 16, like stepping up from 35 to medium format in stills. On jobs, crew management also tends to be more of an issue, or needed skill.

well, my greater point is, if this forum has an unofficial policy of signing posts with our real names, why doesn't that apply to job posters? Look, if you're trolling for crew, actors or whatever, it doesn't matter if it's this board or Backstage West or any venue, or whether you use your real name or not, you're going to get a slew of wackos and unqualified people, that's just part of the game. And another reason, i think, why most people i have known in my limited experience just pick up the phone and start asking around. Regardless of whether or not this particular post is legit or not, it's such a textbook of red flags that simply signing it might dispell some of the concerns raised here already, and probably make it a far more attractive proposition for the kind of DP they are looking for. This is a cinematography board, after all, not Yahoo Personals or something. it would just be nice for things to be on the up-and-up, wouldn't it? I don't see the harm in that, and would help seperate the legitimate opportunities from the posers.

Hi- not to stir up the bees' nest or anything, but it does seem a little odd that someone with 35 features in their CV doesn't just network with past DP's/production managers, etc. I don't know anyone personally who shops for Dp's via anonymous internet postings, it's just kind of weird. Maybe there's a good reason for taking that approach, i can't think of what it would be though.

hi there- get the cheap version (or free one , if they still have it) of ACID- and a pile of free loops at acidplanet. Even if you're musically retarded (like me), you can create better music than most stock libraries. Plus you can time peices out exactly, and it's just fun to mess with. :)

I've used Cooke zooms with the ultra-speed MK-II primes from Panavision (based mostly on their recommendation) and thought they matched quite well. I've raved about the 20-60 zoom here before, it's a sweetheart.

Hi- The feature was "The Parrots of Telegraph Hill" - a good, very warm-hearted little doc about a man in san francisco who adopts (sort of) a bunch of wild parrots that frequent the area. Although I noticed it just left the theaters around here- probably headed to dvd soon. oops- unless you mean "November" which is the Nancy Schreiber-DVX-100-shot feature with Courtney Cox.

all things being equal, and for all practical purposes - no.

howdy- the June issue of Wired has a good little interview with Steven Spielberg about "War of the Worlds" and in it, he mentions possibly doing the next indiana Jones movie in *gasp* digital (no specific format/system mentioned) About it, he says: "But do we want to evolve things to a clarity that is indistinguishable from real life? .......We're interpreters. If things get too clear, it won't look like there's an interpreter." It's funny, because it's the first time I've heard anyone worry about the quality of digital being too good- (Maybe future HD systems will have a "cine-alta" mode to knock the quality back down a bit!)

...but you're assuming that all of your blacks are just at the fringe of the bottom end of the film's range, when in fact the darkest areas of your scene might probably require qrotesque amounts of overexposure to bring them into the 'straight line'... like Sam sez, black is black- it's an area of no exposure.

Does the conversion still give you 14mm at the wide end, or is it like a doubler, so that the wide becomes something more like 28mm? (and do you lose a stop or two?) how's the optical quality compared to a run-of-the-mill Ang. or Cooke zoom?

Good God- they didn't know this before putting it out on the market???

just saw the trailer for "November" at the local plex- and dang, if it didn't look quite good. The dark shots seemed a tad mushy, but the brighter shots looked really nice. Much better than the slew of video docs also previewing with it ("murderball" and the kids/ballroom doc) And it was interesting to compare visually to the feature i went to see, "The Parrots of Telegraph Hill" (shot on 16) which, while it's an adorable film, looked disappointingly mushy all through. At any rate, it's going to be interesting to see the whole thing!

oh there will be lots of pay, on our full slate of upcoming projects - so if you'll just do this one for nothing :angry: .....

most festivals these days want proof from you that you have permission to use things like music. You might be surprised how much you can get by calling the company or artist directly and pleading your case. Better than being surprised later by a cease and desist letter or lawsuit.

what, no smoking jacket or ascot??? I think the best bit of advice i've ever read here (or anywhere) was in an earlier thread where someone mentioned taking TWO pairs of shoes and changing halfway through the day- brilliant!

a BIG ziplock and lots of gaff-tape- ...and a small savings account for the repair bill. I shot a small project in the sand dunes outside Albuquerque once, with just howling winds the whole time, and despite multiple plastic wraps and gobs of tape, the camera still had to go in for an overhaul.

the few times i've had that happen, we just send a note to the lab on the camera report, it's never been a problem. (what's worse is accidentally sending your collapsible core to the lab!)

It's been a long time, but if Disneyland still has their Indiana Jones ride, i remember one part where there was a video projection onto a sheet of (what looked like) dry ice fog falling from the ceiling- it looked very cool. I can't imagine garden variety steam working at all, it just dissipates/evaporates too rapidly.

your work is an inspiration to the proletariat! (did you dirty up the film before/during/after the transfer for more of a old-16mm effect, or are those stills just a little spotty?)

Hi Jarin- Here's a link to a music video i shot awhile back with the ultra-speed MK-11's: http://www.brokenskyfilms.com/peopledie.html I LOVED them! The only time i really noticed their flaring was on a shot of a guy on a sofa with a big window directly behind him- there was quite a bit of blue veiling. We shot clean, no filtration. For sure they are a tad softer (i think in a good way) than the primos, but they're still very fine lenses, it's not like putting an old sears lens on your camera or anything. And man, they are CHEEP to rent! good luck.

not to throw a wet blanket on this, but if these are all frame grabs from DVD's, then they're all video...and heavily compressed video at that!

Hi- sorry, I'm just wondering out loud if car shooters are being squeezed out of work by digitally-created cars, if that's the way the business is moving. So many car spots I see now are brilliant, but look like those from digital domain, where the cars are created in the computer and animated, as opposed to doing it the "old fashioned way" of going out to the salt flats with a full crew and shooting real cars all day long.

Most folks want to work with the production, not against it, so I think for some (me included) when they want a sweeping crane shot but only have a budget for a broken stepladder and 3 pieces of speedrail, there's a tendency to say "we'll try to make that work" knowing full well you're only delaying catastrophe. Unless you really know how to make a sweeping crane shot with a broken stepladder and some speedrail...(but then you start to cultivate a reputation as a junk-meister, don't you?) At a certain level of production you do just have to put your foot down, not to be confrontational, but just to get what is really needed.

Hi All- I looked at digital domain's "making of" bits on their website, in particular the car spots- Does anyone here shoot cars or work on car spots (not the local ones)? Is it a specialty going the way of miniature/model-makers, in favor of digitally created vehicles? just curious-

unless you have a high-speed gate and motor, the 2-C will usually only crank up to about 40 or 50fps before the footage becomes really shakey. We tried a couple shots on one project with a 2-C/CE base combo (and 2x 12v batts) at 60fps, and the registration was terrible, and the camera noise was just scary.