Brad Grimmett

I saw this film the other night and I really liked it. I have to agree with the other people that said that the handheld is too much though. In scenes where there was hardly any movement by the actors the camera was flailing all over the place. It was obviuously intentional, but it seems like they went a bit far with it. Also, what's up with the focus? I'm assuming the out of focus stuff was intentional, but I just don't get the point. Anyone have any theories about it?

You're kidding me? Really? I'm very surprised to hear that.

Again with this? We all know your views Matt, you don't have to keep repeating yourself.

I'm curious how they shipped it back? I've heard that when a camera gets submerged in salt water the best way to ship it back is submerged within the case in fresh water so that the salt can't dry and start to eat at the camera. Anyone else heard this? Did they ship the camera back submerged in chocolate? :P

What's even more interesting is that they can scream and swear at anyone on their crew and think that it's OK. Bad behavior is bad behavior. A person's sex should have nothing to do with it.

I operated on a feature at the beginning of the year that was about 90% handheld. It was a mockumentary about kung fu movies. We did three different kinds of handheld: good, bad, and mediocre. We did these different styles depending on who was suppossed to be shooting. It was a lot of fun to operate this way, but it was also important that we maintained consistency. The funniest part was how tough it was for myself and the other operator to do bad handheld when it was called for. Hopefully there is some behind the scenes footage of us doing it. We were standing on one leg and doing all sorts of other things to compromise the shot. It was very hard to just "do" bad handheld convincingly just by trying, we had to make ourselves uncomfortable in order to get the results the director wanted. Sorry to get off topic. Getting back on topic....Narc had a lot of good handheld.

Wow! Scary stuff.

Oh, jeez, Walmart! Figures....

Agreed. Those stills were beautiful. Anybody know what they were shot with? 35mm? Possibly digital?

It was shot on both 35mm and HD.

Just as a point of interest.....Blockbuster is apparently in VERY bad shape right now. Have been for a few years. There are just too many options out there right now. Netflix has gotta be the best thing ever for someone who rents a lot of movies.

Are there different people chosen to watch each film, or do they have a panel that watches all films? Seems like randomly picking a few people could result in very wild swings in ratings if a few of the people happened to have the same religious beliefs or some other affiliation. I'm just curious how this works. Very interesting thread by the way.

That may be true in NY, but it wasn't true when I was in FL. The vast majority of jobs used Panavision. And if they used Arri or Moviecam most of the time the gear still came from Panavision. Of course, one big reason for that is that Panavision is the only rental house in Orlando. But most jobs that I worked on in Miami and Tampa also used Panavision the majority of the time. People from Miami may have a different view of this since they worked down there much more than I did. I know Cinevideotech does well in Miami, so there must be plenty of jobs using Arri gear down there.

Well, Gus Van Sant took that stand with "Elephant" last year. 4x3 shot in 35mm for release. Very good movie too.

James Glennon is also credited on IMDB, although he didn't win any awards. On a side note, while I was at IMDB I noticed that there are 19 producers on that show! Overkill anyone? And we wonder why the crew rates don't go up.......

I know a few people who have some of the accessories. One friend even has an old gear head with "Panavision Grips" written on it. I've never heard of someone owning a camera though. That lens that someone stole and tried to sell on ebay was the biggest I've seen.

I did a little shaking on that film as well. Remember David? I had the camera on my steadicam and I just put the rig on the stand and shook it around real good for some stuff where David wanted to roll both cameras. It was actually David's idea. Worked pretty well too.

No, but it's cool. I reread the post I made and it sounds a little snappy. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to snap at you. I guess I just felt silly because I assumed that everyone would know that I know what depth of field is.....but of course they don't know that I know that. Anyway, no harm no foul.

Why are you telling me? I know that. I just answered in the same terms that the poster posted. I know it's backwards, but that's obviously the way the previous poster understands. I guess I should have explained, but I figured everyone would get the gist, especially with the other explanations.

That's just ridiculous, and completely untrue. David's post is right on the money. If there was no depth of field then you would never need to focus. Nothing would ever be out of focus. Is this true with your camera? No, it's not. All the Pro35 and Mini35 do are add depth of field. They do not create it out of thin air.

No it doesn't. I've never loaded one, but I worked on a job with one and the guy loading it had a bit of a time with it. I've heard other people complain about them a bit too. I think it's more an issue of getting used to it than anything else.

Oh, come on Phil. People have been doing it this way for a long time and mistakes are rare. It seems complicated at first but it's actually very easy to do correctly over and over again with very little worry of anything going wrong. Video cameras jam and have problems probably just as often as any loading mistakes.

My responses are in between your previous post.

One sided? Propaganda? Were you watching Fox News again Matt? But seriously, it's only a Republican that could decide that everyone that saw Fahrenheit 911 has come to "only one conclusion after seeing a "documentary"". Who are all these phantom people that you speak of? What is the "one conclusion"? You make it sound like Nazi Germany or something. For the most part Moore let people do the talking for themselves in this film. He presented some facts and some of his opinions, but a lot of the film was people saying outrageous things that couldn't be changed, no matter what kind of editing was applied. Go see the film, you'll see what I mean.

The World Series of Poker is shot on Beta SP at about +12db gain and then film looked. I'm not sure what film look program they use. I haven't actually worked on the show, but I was working for ESPN on another show in Vegas while the World Series was going on and that's what some of the guys told me, so it could be incorrect. This is the exact same way we shot the show I was working on, and apparently that's standard for any of ESPN's orginal series. We used Ikegami's on the show I worked on (which was a first for me, not counting live sports) but I'm not sure whether the World Series was Ike or Sony. Hope that helped.