Brad Grimmett

And we are talking about 170 screens in major markets. Add 250 planned screens in Great Britain, which I think will be installed within 12 months. Does anyone need more hints that optical prints will no longer be necessary on most digital indie productions? <_<

Clearly you're right. 420 screens worldwide should make optical prints obsolete any day now. I guess we should all throw away our Russian hand crank cameras now, huh? Darn it!

Mitch,

Weren't you the one who posted that link to the "don'ts" of student filmmaking, which included not using this type of shot in your film? All the talk about this kind of shot just reminded me of it. I still think it's a cool shot, but it's definately over used.

Eric Steelberg, I don't care if you reply to my posts or not. But when you post something, try to say the truth, or if you don't know the facts, don't make untrue comments.

Don't you mean to say, "Do as I say, not as I do"?

So if Blair Witch was not made on DV, then what, Digital 8? Pretty pathetic either way.

What's really pathetic is that you spout off a bunch of crap and you don't have any clue what you're talking about.

I've done indie filmmaking for years, but not as a DP, although I've done my own photography once.

 

I'M SHOCKED! I FIGURED YOU WERE A BIG NAME DP.

 

These people here will be talking to you about 35 mm quality and IMAX quality, but ask them what they shoot most. It is DV. Same as Blair Witch Project.

 

FIRST OF ALL, BLAIR WITCH DIDN'T SHOOT ON DV AT ALL. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

ALSO, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE THAT FREQUENT THIS BOARD THAT WORK WITH FILM ALL THE TIME. I WORK WITH 35MM AND 16MM AND SUPER16 JUST AS MUCH AS I WORK WITH HD AND DV. IF YOU PAID ATTENTION TO ANY OF THE OTHER POSTS ON THIS BOARD BESIDES YOUR OWN, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.

 

See Once Upon a Time in Mexico. That is the quality you get with the $60K digital production and postproduction system. The people on this board will put it down, because they claim that 35 mm is better. Unfortunately the number of them who have ever shot a 35 mm feature is so negigible.

 

YOU'VE GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! LOOK UP SOME OF THE NAMES YOU SEE HERE ON THE IMDB AND YOU'LL FIND THAT YOU ARE WAY OFF. MANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM HAVE SHOT MANY FILMS ON 35MM, AND CONTINUE TO DO SO. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE ALL THE CRAP YOU'RE SPOUTING, OR ARE YOU JUST A LIAR?

 

Ask who shoots DV. Almost all the hands will go up. Then they will start badmouthing HD. 1080p HD looks sharper than film because of the lack of grain. DV looks like s**t.

 

JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE THINKS FILM LOOKS BETTER THAN DV OR HD DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T SHOOT DV OR HD SOMETIMES. SOMETIMES THE LOOK IS RIGHT FOR THE PROJECT, AND SOMETIMES THE PRODUCER FORCES DV OR HD ON THEM BECAUSE OF BUDGETARY REASONS.

I THINK YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOU PROBABLY DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING AND THEREFORE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE WORK AS IT COMES. SURE, MANY OF US WOULD PREFER TO SHOOT 35MM ALL THE TIME, BUT WHEN BILLS NEED TO BE PAID AND MOUTHS NEED TO BE FED, WE WORK WITH WHATEVER WE CAN AND MAKE THE BEST OF IT.

 

Only if it shows a strong potential for a wide release, you need to worry about optical prints. Your distributor will at that time pick up the tab. :D

 

THIS IS THE EXCEPTION FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

HOW CAN YOU BE SO OBVIOUSLY FAR REMOVED FROM ACTUAL FILM PRODUCTION, BUT PRETEND TO KNOW THE FUTURE? ALL THIS CRAP YOU CONTINUE TO SPOUT ON AND ON ABOUT IS LUDICROUS. BUT I GUESS IGNORANCE IS BLISS. I HOPE YOU SAVE YOUR POSTS AND GO BACK AND READ THEM IN TEN YEARS. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT NOT ONLY IS FILM STILL IN USE, BUT IT'S STILL THE MEDIUM USED TO SHOOT MOST MOVIES.

My response is in bold within your quoted post.

I don't believe EVERYTHING that Michael Moore says, but then again, I don't believe EVERYTHING ANYONE says....

Sometimes you have to scream and yell and "paint in broad strokes" to get people's attention. If his only intention is to get people thinking and make them really take a look at what's going on in this country, and the world, then he's doing a good thing. Of course, that's not his only intention, but it's an important one. I know many people who hate Michael Moore and think he's a liar and a grandstander that makes propaganda films. That's fine, they're entitled to their own opinion. Of course, most of those people that I've spoken to haven't ever seen one of his films. When I ask them how they came to form their opinion about him they say, "Oh, I've heard about this, and I've heard about that......" That's fine too I guess. Everyone is entitled to think and say what they want for whatever reason they want. But there are also those of us who think he's making important films and is really trying make a difference in the country and in the world. What Disney is doing is just sad. That line from Hamlet comes to mind....."The lady doth protest too much, me thinks." I believe that's the line, but you get the idea.....

Just as "The Passion" deserved a release (despite all the naysayers), "Fahrenheit 9/11" deserves a release too (despite all the naysayers).

We don't have to agree with someone to still believe that they have good intentions. It's our right, and duty, as American's, to speak out against the government if we disagree with what they are doing and the direction they are taking the country. Many people consider Michael Moore a true patriot for speaking out and making his films.

This post is not meant to stir anyone up. These are just my opinions. I'm sure many people disagree with my opinions, and I'm sure I feel the same way about some of their opinions, but I respect their right to have those opinions, and to voice them.

Very interesting. Thanks for the info Alvin.

No problems with mine either.

Apparently they crank the stuff out so fast they don't have time to finesse the color during animation,

I've heard that they crank out a Southpark every week. I had a hard time believing it, but it sounds like it's true. Pretty amazing. On the other hand, what about The Simpsons? I heard it takes many months (9 months is what I remember hearing) to complete one episode. Anyone know if that's true, and if so, why? I know very little about animation, but it's very interesting to me that there could be such a huge difference in the time it takes to produce a show.

Odd, when I saw it I actually thought to myself it was better than I expected.

Well, I guess it's relative. I didn't really have any expectations about the look of the film, so I was surprised at how bad it looked. I think we pretty much agree. We both think it looked bad.

I flew back into LA for that weekend to see my wife, and we caught the movie at the Grove as well. Big screen.

Yeah, it was still on the big screen when I saw it a few nights ago. I think I would have preferred to see it on a smaller screen....at least the flaws wouldn't have been as magnified.

What was funny was that the theater I saw it in had digital projection for the pre-show commercials -- not quite HD quality but OK, definitely good enough for standard def video-shot material. Using it instead probably would have made "Super Size Me" look better than the 35mm print did!

Did you see it in LA David, or did you see it on the east coast? I saw it at the Grove, which I find is normally pretty good as far as projection goes. I'm curious if they also project their ads digitally....

Was it as bad for you as it was for me, or should I consider it a possible projection issue, or possibly a combination of the two?

When I have to watch a picture like that, I try to sit at the back of the theatre, where the deficiencies are not as obvious.

Good point. I was a little closer than I would have liked to be. I was about in the middle of the theater, but I think had I been in the back row it still would have bothered me.

I saw "Super Size Me" last night. I liked it a lot, but boy did I have a headache at the end! The blowup looked awful! In the credits there is some mention of HD, but most of the film looked worse than the DV to film transfers I've seen in the past. Anybody know how much of this was HD and how much was DV? There was one particular interview that they cut back to multiple times that was so bad I could barely look at it. It was SO soft and pixelated it hurt my eyes. I guess there's a chance that I saw a bad print or that the projector was out of focus, but it varied so greatly throughout the film that it didn't seem like it could be a projection problem.

The operating itself wasn't bad. Of course it was mainly handheld, but good handheld for the most part. Just curious if anyone else had seen it and what their thoughts were.

Normally, I'm not too bothered by a DV to film blowup if the story is good, but this was worse than I've ever seen.

I'm not in the 600 but I've been working jobs, mostly commercials, for a long time that have been paying my P&W to the union and them taking their 1% of the paycheck. What I want to know is if the P&W is set aside for when I do join or does it go into their coffers. If that is true do I not begin accumulating P&W until I'm 'in'? :huh:

Interesting that you ask this question. I've done many union jobs without being a member of the union over the past 5 or 6 years. None of these have been local 600 jobs, but they have all been IATSE jobs. I worked as an electrician as well as a prop assistant before I started working exclusively in camera. Anyway, I too knew that I had Pension and Welfare that I couldn't touch, and I too wondered what would come of it. I recently recieved a letter from the company that manages the unions money that said I had been issued a check and that my current balance for pension was now zero (I had recieved some statements from them in the past telling me how much I had). I hadn't recieved a check, so I called them. Turns out, they had my old address, and I hadn't recieved my check because of that. I let them know what my new address was and they sent me a new check to my current address. They were very friendly and helpful by the way. I didn't ask too many questions, but I believe what happened was that if you don't work a job within that particular local for a certain amount of time (I'm not sure what that amount of time is) they issue you a check for what you're owed (or maybe a certain amount over a certain period). Anyway, I moved, and I don't, and won't, work with that local anymore, so I guess that's why I got the check. But I believe whatever you pay in now will still be available to you at a later date, but I don't think you're going to have the same situation that I had (recieving a check) unless you don't work within that local for a while. These are just my experiences here, so I can't really account for how true they might be for someone else, but I thought it might be good info for you. It was actually very nice to get a check since I thought that money would just vaporize. It reminded me of why it's nice to get P/W in the first place.

I believe Oliver Stapleton was one of the first customers to buy a set of the Cooke S4s after Beta-testing some from Les Zellan. But even that would cost me about $150,000 and so it's not worth it to me. But it is a point well-taken. I did advise David recently to follow his agent's suggestion and start investing in filters. It's a cheap start and one that no real production can argue with. And Greg has told the story in the past of a DP's filter kit sitting in the truck for a shoot untouched yet earning more per week than I get for my entire Super-16 camera package.

Yeah, that's a hefty investment for lenses uless you absolutely know that you have the work lined up for them for a string of projects. But who really knows that? Even the huge name DP's don't seem to have that kind of work lined up.

You're right about the filters. You can give the production a bit of a deal, but have more filters available than you would had you rented them. Hard to argue that one. And I too thought of Greg's filter rentals when I was writing about buying glass. He seems to have a pretty good thing going with that. Of course I'm sure he's constantly replacing and adding filters, but that's pretty minor when you consider how much they cost. The great thing is you can buy a few and then slowly add one or two here and there and the next thing you know you have a nice size filter package. Seems like a pretty good deal for both production and the DP.

Of course, you could do the same thing with lenses........"Um, I think we should shoot the whole feature on the 40mm.....on the next one we'll use the 40mm and the 75mm, etc." ;)

Lenses and filters don't become outdated nearly as fast as anything else, or at all really, for that matter.

Well, shooting with a 30 year old lens affects image quality more than shooting with a 30 year old camera by far. I can rent the latest and greatest glass and slap it on my Arri (provided it's available in that mount - I don't have one of those hard front PL mount mods), and get the newest looking images, if someone else is willing to pay.

Good point. But I was thinking more about buying more up to date glass, that you know you like to use most of the time, and that works with most cameras. Panavision is of course the exception here. But I would think buying and maintaining a set of primes would be much cheaper than buying and maintaining a camera body. I could be wrong on this point since I don't own lenses or a camera, and am not that well versed on the upkeep of either.

Personally, I own a Steadicam and all the bits, pieces, and accessories that go with it, including wireless follow focus and wireless transmitter and receiver. And I gotta tell ya, it's expensive to keep this stuff up! At least it is if you want it to work properly. I spent $3000 in December buying a couple of bits and pieces and doing an overhaul on my arm. That's not a rare thing, it was basically normal upkeep. Almost every job I do I have something that I need to upgrade or service or repair at the end of the job. And that's not counting the latest and greatest stuff that comes out all the time. I have a very nice rig that does it's job perfectly 99% of the time, but it's not the newest rig you can buy, and I'm always hearing about friends of mine that lose jobs because they don't have the rig that the producer is familiar with.

Producer: Do you have a Pro 2?

Op: No, I have an Ultimate.

Producer: Oh, well I need someone that has a Pro 2.

Op: Um, OK.....

The truth is, the producer wouldn't know a Pro 2 from an Ultimate from a Ultra to save his/her life, but that's what they hear is the best, so that's what they want. And there are many operators who believe the Ultimate is the better rig. But in the end it doesn't matter. What you own is what you own.

This is just an example of what owning gear can be all about. I know the same thing happens all the time with camera owners. Some of it is based on ignorance and some of it is based on other factors.

I guess the point (before all my blathering) was that if you're going to buy gear you should be aware of what the advantages and pitfalls of owning the gear are. It's not just "buy the gear and watch the money roll in". There are many factors to consider. Lenses and filters just seemed like a good way to go in my opinion.

Sorry to go on and on, but I think I made SOME sense. :blink:

If I ever get enough money, maybe I'll start with some filters...

I once heard a guy that owned a ton of gear say, "If I had it to do over again, all I would own is glass." I think that's a pretty decent phiosophy. Lenses and filters don't become outdated nearly as fast as anything else, or at all really, for that matter. It's not a bad place to start if you ask me.

Don't own gear unless you want to be in the business of owning gear.

This coming from a guy who owns a bunch of gear! I know what you're trying to say though, Mitch. Of course, I own a bunch of gear too, so what the hell DO I know?

Yes Brad, exactly. And you and I both know what it really means to own that gear, with the insurance and productions trying to get you and equipment for package prices and dealing with clients who want the latest/greatest and on and on.

Yep. The assumption is that owning gear will help you get more work, but in reality you end up getting a lot of calls for you and the gear for the same or less than your rate before you owned gear. That's been happening to me a lot lately. They want everything for next to nothing, and they're happy to remind you that they know of some other person who'll do it for less. The problem is that those people do exist, and they really will work for less or nothing.

I recently did a job out in the desert, and I realized very quickly that all the sand blowing around and into my gear could cause some serious problems. But the biggest problem was that the rate was very low and if I did have a problem with the gear, the rate they were paying wouldn't cover any maintenace or repairs I might need. Since that job I've been much more wary of "helping someone out" than I used to be, because if I have a problem, how quick are they going to "help" me out? Not bloody likely I've found.

Owning gear is great in some ways, and a real pain in the butt in others. I think a lot of people that are looking at buying equipment tend to look at all the good things about it, but not many of the bad things about it. You have to look realistically at both the good and bad.

Don't own gear unless you want to be in the business of owning gear.

This coming from a guy who owns a bunch of gear! I know what you're trying to say though, Mitch. Of course, I own a bunch of gear too, so what the hell DO I know?

I recently watched Party Monster on DVD. I was watching some of the special features and it seemed like the movie was shot all with a small DV camera. Does anyone know if the movie was shot with film or if indeed they chose to use DV? Thanks.

I think I remember reading that it was shot with an XL-1. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.

Even at the risk of nitpicking, here goes... :P

Nitpicky? Absolutely! Informative? Absolutely! Thanks for the info. ;)

David,

Congrats on your new membership. Not only are you an incredibly knowledgeable and gifted cinematographer, but you're a nice guy and fun to work with. What a great combination! I wish you continued success and happiness in the future!

Try Fred Davis at Production Cable Services (fred@productioncableservices.com) in LA or Gervin at Abel Cine Tech in NYC (don't have email address handy, but ACT's number is 718-273-8108).

I'll second that vote for Fred. He's made a bunch of cables for me that work great. And he's a really nice guy to boot.

I've always considered the off-topic catagory to be things like: Production design, art direction, screenwriting, dramatic performance etc. But all film related subject matter. Anything outside of that, however vital in another arena, is misplaced on a finite amount of hardrive space dedicated to our very specific, common purpose.

I agree with this. It seemed like common sense to me that "off topic" meant topics peripherally related to cinematography, but it seems that other people thought that it meant "post whatever you want about anything". I think if you keep it you should create some parameters for that particular section. But it won't bother me a bit if you get rid of it either. People will post something in "general" if they really have a legitimate question.

Unfortunately, some people will continue to make non-related posts whether you have an "off topic" section or not.