Joshua Jackson

One of the most noticeable things in that segment is the "crossing of the axis." As for 120fps at 45 degrees: Just keep in mind that even at 500EI, you're looking at at least 190 Footcandles on your subject to shoot "wide open." Although, it could make for an interesting choice, seeing as how I've never done it.

Ok. Imagine the key light coming from the left of the frame. Let's say that you position it to hit only the right side of his face (Let's assume no light is reflecting from the walls, etc. onto the subject). The key reads 520 Footcandles on the right side of his face and nothing on the left side of his face. Turn off the key light. Alright, let's put in some fill from the camera's position. It reads (by itself) at 280 Footcandles. It washes both sides of his face, so that the left side gets 280 and the right side gets 280. Alright, turn back on the key light. Now that key light is adding 520 Footcandles to the right side of his face, but nothing to the left side of his face. With both lights on, the right side now has 800 Footcandles and the left (only affected by the fill) gets 280 Footcandles. 800fc : 280fc. Little under 3:1.

According to ISO 2720:1974 , This "calibration constant" is suggested to fall between 22-37. So what's the calibration of your meter? Constant = [(Footcandles)(ASA)(Shutter Speed)] / (f/stop²)

Correction: Footcandles (lumens/feet² ) = 25(f/stop² )/[(ASA)(Shutter Speed)] Sorry, I type too fast for myself!

Sorry. More ISO than ANSI.

Be careful! This "25" does not mean frames per second. It's a predesignated value according to ANSI standards to represent that the footcandles given in the equation will illuminate an object of 17.67% reflectance to be captured as the medium value of the recording medium's individual latitude. If you plugged in 60, you'll overexpose by about 1.4 stops! The fps comes in the equation later: Footcandles (lumens/feet² ) = 25(f/stop² )/[(ASA)/(Shutter Speed)] The Shutter speed, at a 180° shutter angle, is simply one divided by two times the frames per second: Shutter Speed = (1)/2(fps)

I have a question for any/everybody. What would you say is the paradigm (simple and concise) for Christianity? I'm just curious what most people would say.

And how do you know that it's round (egg-shaped) by looking at it? Because it doesn't have four sides and four corners. :D I'm just kidding. Not true. Christianity is at 33.2% (2.1 billion'ish), Muslims at 21%, and Buddhists under 6%. Many speculate that there are about twice as many buddhists as recorded in consensus, but that would still bring it up to a paltry 12%, at best. Yes, it's occured to a few. ;) You would be very interested in what's called Apologetics. It is clear enough. Let's leave the bible and keep it as historically accurate as possible: Abraham, a patriarch of Judaism, coming from Ur, said that God told him he'd have a son. His wife believed him. Well, time passed and no son. What did his wife do? She gave her mistress to him, thinking that that would be the mother of his Son. Well, they banged and out came Ishmael (the grand-daddy of Islam). God evidently told them that Ishmael would be a "wild donkey" of a man and he'd fight with everyone and everyone would fight with him. Poor dude. Well, later they had the son Isaac. Who led to the creation of Israel. This is all just common history, regardless of whether God really "talked" to them, they had two sons who branched off to form Judaism and Islam. Hence the first conflict you are talking about. Later, through the line of King David, Jesus is born claiming to fulfill Judaism in His name. He claims to be the Son of God and even God himself. A rebellious group of individuals (who later called themselves Christians) broke off from Judaism to follow Jesus. The second conflict. He is crucified, not by Roman Law in is exclusivity, but by the mainstream religion of the day. Judaism. Interesting that the main religion of the day had it's cold hands on the balls of the government, underneath the table. Sound familiar? So, according to our understanding of history, it seems as if it is people who want to kill in the name of their religion more than God confusing people to be murderous. Don't get me started on the crusades... I don't exclude scientific explanation as being invalid. In matter of fact, I have supported this very perspective as seen in my prior posts. Agreed. Hence the reason I posted the verse from Romans chapter one in a prior post. You seem to be more on track with Christianity than most Christians! Christianity was never meant to be a "religion." That's what man has done to it. Yep. No where are Christians told to know the mind of God. In matter of fact, it was Satan who told mankind that he could (Genesis 3: 4-5). And, of course we will create. Christianity tells us that we are created in the image of God, so there will be likened attributes within humans that reflects the capacity to create and recreate (on a smaller scale) fundamental principles of life, be it mechanical, biological, etc. The reason I use scripture is to provide an accurate perspective of a true Christian in debates around Christianity, as many Christians unfortunately use it to just pick and choose what works best for them. And this can often confuse someone who hasn't, or doesn't want to study this type of literature/history/culture in great detail. I understand that if one is not a Christian, it's just a book that Uncle Charles uses to yell at people on the side of the street with and-for some reason-has gold feathering on its pages. So, in an argumentative fashion, it is inconsequential if it is truth or if it is not, since my motives are not so much persuasion, but clarity of understanding.

Action first, emotion later. Emotions are a bi-product of the actions that an actor takes. If you give actors direction via emotion, you're down the wrong path from the start. Instead, focus on action words. "Fight, find, dig, explore, capture, etc." Never ask the actors "to be" anything. It's too passive. And not to mention, professionally trained actors will pick up on this as bad direction. Honesty. An actor must act upon his impulses honestly. If he doesn't have the impulse to [insert action verb here], then he shouldn't force it. Instead, an actor needs to be given the objectives (if they haven't already figured them out). They need to fight for these objectives, regardless of the scene's purpose. And silence can be taken on as a form of action. And remember, intensity doesn't mean more. Think of intensity as "how can I (the actor) focus the intentions of the scene in a more concise, seamless way?"

So, according to science, one must disprove in order to come to a declarable theory.

According to the Scientific Method, a "theory" consists of general principles drawn from facts that explain observations and can predict future events. Each must be based on a Falsifiable/Null Hypothesis. Scientist, according to this Method, must make Null Hypotheses that must be disproved in order that they may prove the working assumption describing the observed phenomena. So, according to this, we know that the "earth is round" only because we know the "earth is not square." Just a scientific point of view.

Psalms, written by David. David was going to war (or rather was attacked frequently) and this particular passage, if you will read the entire chapter, is his prayer for those who "hated" God and was despising to crush the nation of Israel. God did not say this, David did (fyi). And, if you know anything about the father of Solomon, he was anything but perfect. Same applies to the next verse as well. Before I go further, the actual words of Jesus in Luke 6: 27-31. "27. But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withold your tunic either. 30. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them." And since Jesus IS God: "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8: 57-59) [ "I am" is translated as the name of God and it was considered blasphemous for man to utter the name of God. That's why they tried to stone him] Those that are skeptic (like myself, mind you) should read all of Romans 1. It'll get you on track with starting to study the "proof" of God. More on that later. First off, you must understand that everything deemed "sin" is worthy of death, by the same degree . Don't pick out homosexuals. With that in mind, we are all worthy of death. Hence the need for Jesus, as Paul lays out in the rest of this book . If I'm reading an argumentative paper (which is very much the structure of Paul's writings), I'm not going to stop at only a few paragraphs in! How confused I would be! Who gathers those that don't abide in God? "...and men gather them..." As for hell. God didn't deem man to go to hell. Man deemed man to go to hell. (Romans 5: 12-21). My point, guys, is this. Pick up Blaine Brown's Cinematography book. Open to page 51. Let's pick a sentence. How about this one: "The essential point is the focus as a storytelling tool." Page 128: "Visible light is only produced when an electron falls into the second shell of an atom." Page ix: "To a great extent the knowledge base of the cinematographer overlaps with the knowledge base of the director." Now, if I'm an amateur cinematographer, will these three verses suffice for my understand of cinematography as a whole. Hardly. Are all of these sentences true? Yes. But it doesn't help me understand the context and application of what's being said. What would you suggest me do instead? Maybe read the whole thing. A couple of times, maybe. If I really want to know about it and be able to discuss it with you guys. Maybe take some classes. Maybe practice it... I'm not suggesting that anyone here necessarily even wants to know more about Christianity. All I am saying is that, if you want to know what Anna Karenina is about, you read Anna Karenina! All of it. Agreed.

It should. It annoyed the hell out of Jesus too. The Law (Ten Commandments, Deuteronomy, the "organized religion" of Sadducean and Pharisean doctrine) actually came to show man sin. To show that he can't save himself, even when he has a book of all the do's and don'ts. (Romans 7) There are many things that should bother you about organized religion. I follow Jesus. I'm bothered by it. Lot of hypocrisy, yes. But what I don't want to happen is for people to get the wrong impression of who Jesus is and what Christianity is REALLY about, all because of some selfish, unloving "whitewashed tombs" hating and condemning people. Not what Christ taught. I fail at this constantly, but if I-as a Christian-want you(plural) to know anything, it is that Jesus loves you, wants to save you, and will take care of you. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Mahatma Gandhi

Old Testament from Septuagint. Sorry for the typo. New Testament still applies to argument, however.

Actually, the scriptural (Old and New Testament derived from Septuagint) conception of God is that He is working to redeem man and loves man. In matter of fact, He sacrificed His son to save mankind. The son of destruction (often referred to as Lucifer) is actually the one to blame for the initial lie which bestowed Sin Nature upon man, thus separating man from God, until God saves man with Jesus. You are free to not believe in God and even free to say it. All day long, if it pleases you. But to say that God is a megalomaniac douche bag is just plain ignorance. The description of God (according to all descriptions in the Bible) cannot back up such a base judgement.

Already done. Called Theistic Evolution.

I agree with Karl. VHS. Rub some Vaseline on the lens and you've got an old school Kama Sutra flick in no time.

Cinematography.

Actually Brad, you have been misinformed concerning "judge not, let ye be judged." It's a verse often taken out of context and bleeds into what many call "christianese." You're actually talking about Matthew 7. You need to read the entire chapter to understand the situation that is being set up in, what I believe to be, Decapolis. In matter of fact there are a multitude of scriptures urging righteous judgement. Before you get lost, let me define. The judging is suppose to be a judgement of RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT itself, not appearance, be it visceral or contextual (John 7:24). Just to get it right, David's comments were leaning a little more towards slanderous speech than judgement. I do agree that this is not what this thread is about. The disregard of belief is, in itself a belief, and if you (plural-everyone) believe in Agenda Setting (simple communication model) you would also understand that the disregard of a belief in fact demonstrates a bias as persuasion because you are not polling any particular argument but, instead, setting ground work for an "opposing party." Oh. And I ask no one to speak on Darwinism if you haven't even read Origin of Species. Shall I qoute Darwin himself? "There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one, ...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Pitting Darwin against Creationism (or Intelligent Design for that matter) is like debating whether the sky is blue or if oranges can fly. SO, let us ALL talk about something that at least ALL of us know a little about, eh?

First of all, what kind of equipment do you have at your disposal?

Correct me if I'm wrong, David, but there are methods to give the impression of richer saturation. Besides adjusting elements external to the film itself (Production Design, Art Direction, contrast control via lighting), rating the film slower -in theory- produces a richer look in saturation due to the increase in the density. Needless to say, after thorough testing to resolve exactly where to rate the film. To piggyback Spencer's initial question and spur it even further; what limitations does one run into when attempting (if attempting) to boost color saturation even more when choosing a higher-contrast/richer saturation print stock? I need to take a more in-depth study to look at what repercussions emerge when a less saturated image on film is taking into DI, enriched in all colors or selective colors, and then printed onto a film stock with tantamount or more saturation than the original negative.

If I have control of the framing: I like to work the most with the background to contrast (or blend, depending on the needs of the scene) against the subject. If I don't, or my options with detailing the background is limited: I like kickers and edgelights on the subject to maintain texture and I let any kickers, etc. on objects blow out. I like the texture of hair :rolleyes:

In my paltry experience thus far, I've found that the make-up dept. can really step in here to help with the issue of picking up your darker-skinned actors in a high-contrast, low-key setting. I've found that a glossy lotion/facial oil will help create a nice sheen on the harder edges of the face and, when it catches one of those point sources, the definition of the face can really pop. On close-ups, I'd keep it pretty much the same but maybe cheat a very low eye-light in. As far as balancing, depends more on what type of flourescents you're working with. I really like the third image down by the way. Definitely is conveying urban jungle to me. You balanced to the tungstens in that pic?

There are a few basic things you can do to aid in lowering saturation of colors. First of all, contrast and saturation are not completely dichotomous. Obtaining a low saturation with a distinct contrast in your deep blacks will be difficult, unless you go directly via silver rentention. In front of the camera, work with production design and scenic artists to soften the colors. Any amount of smoke/fog in the scene will begin to soften the colors and level the contrast. On the camera, consider filtration (i.e. Mist, Diffusion, pantyhose, etc.). Consider, carefully, the possibilities of pull processing a slightly overexposed negative (1/2-1 stops). Although, I recommend testing this through to print to see if this is what you want. Choose a Low-Con stock. From what I gather, however, it sounds like you're wanting a bleach-bypass.

A pick my film stock, clean the camera and gate, load film, shoot, and then...I don't know. Do I need to run the camera until there is absolutely no more film going through the driving mech? I feel stupid. This is the one thing I don't find information on. The proper way to unload a daylight spool from a 16mm camera. Will I lose footage when I have to open the lid again to remove the film? If so, how much? Thanks for humoring my ignorance... :)