Brad Grimmett

So you were working with a student, and it sounds as if this person was overcompensating for his in-experience. Correct? That's a bummer if it's the case. But I can understand where your trouble started. Of course, a sub-standard camera package didn't help either obviously. But yes, you're correct, often you learn the most by seeing someone else do things the wrong way.

Why couldn't he see? Were you rolling the lens way out of focus before you rolled or blocking him from putting his eye on the viewfinder? If you were, then he had a valid complaint. It's not anal retentive to want to be able to see an image before you roll the camera. Also, what did he want you to "eyeball"? If he wanted you to eyeball a wide shot on an 18mm at T8, or a similar type of shot, and you were constantly fiddling with the focus then, again, he was right. Maybe my assumptions are incorrect....please explain what you meant.

Penta, Please change your user name to your real first and last name as per the forum rules. Thanks.

Agreed. I'm not sure what the point of just memorizing them would be. Unless they're just encouraging their students to copy other filmmakers work.....

According to my own (un-scientific) assessments there is quite a bit less feature production right now. A lot of operators I know that always seem to be working, aren't right now. And most of the ones that are working, are on a TV show or pilot.

Well now we're getting somewhere. You're finally saying what you mean instead of trying to hide it under thinly veiled compliments, "prayers", and strange responses to posts I didn't make. And the "Mr. Grimmett" thing is a bit childish don't you think? Call me a hack, or a jerk, and make incorrect assumptions about me and my work all you like, just don't act like you're "praying" for me. Disingenuous well wishing and passive aggressive insults are seen through far too easily.

Go sell crazy somewhere else.

I don't know why I didn't mention this before, but on the commercials I referred to that used green screen, I don't think they were sure what they wanted the screen to look like before they shot it, which is probably the main reason they didn't just shoot the screen. They probably wanted the flexibility in post to decide what they wanted on the screen at a later date.

Why are you preaching to me about the evils of socialism? I mentioned nothing about socialism in my post. I never said, or implied any such thing. Where are you getting this stuff? What are you talking about? What does your assertion that unions shake people down have anything to do with what I was talking about? Are you responding to something someone else wrote on some other forum?

Well, it's low budget to the vast majority of people working in movies as a profession. Hmm, you sure are defensive. So people freaked out just because you told them you were going with someone else? I find that hard to believe. I suspect that wasn't the only reason. And your, "I produced one horror movie and I know everything about the business" routine is getting old. You act as if you're smarter, and better, than everyone, and it's pretty annoying. On a personal note, you went out of your way to attack me personally a few years ago, so I just plain don't like you. You're own words and actions on this forum lead me to believe that you're the kind of person that only looks out for himself and doesn't give a crap about anyone else. Of course, you repeat ad nauseum how well you treat people, but your past actions here as well as your defensiveness when questioned about it is quite telling I think.

You're probably right, but for the record, they didn't paint the screen, they just used cloth.

This seems like a perfect situation for a low budget producer, i.e., you. The economy sucks and you've got jobs available. I'm sure you can take advantage of a lot of people. I doubt you'll take as much abuse for offering low rates as you did before.

Austin, I'd suggest you change your profession from "producer" to student. You're not a producer, so why say you are?

Plenty. I'd say more folks still have 4:3 than have 16:9, but that's just a guess based on people I know. I personally have one of each.

I've worked on a few commercials that shot cell phone screens and they used green screen every time.

That's a start. Also, every CG zoom that starts as a two shot and ends as a shot from above the earth, and vice versa, could go too.

Well, I think I'd disagree with you on that point. Breaking Bad would be a good example.... But I don't think the letterboxing is about taking chances, I think it's about money. Most decisions like this usually are, but I'm just guessing in this case.

Nobody mentioned that it's about 45 minutes too long. You could even trim an hour off it and not miss anything.

I've actually shot sync sound with the 235, but it was a big noisy fight scene, so it doesn't really count. On the other hand, I've heard from a couple friends who have worked on a few Indian films, that all they shoot on are 435's. I guess they do a lot of ADR, I'm not sure. I'm sure it's fine on longer lenses and in other situations like exteriors, but I wouldn't want to do it on a small quiet set.

The newer Sekonic meters have a adjustment function where you can dial in your meter to match another one, in tenths of course. I've done this before when shooting 2nd unit. Very handy.

Charles Papert was the operator on Office Space. He's a member here and might have some of the info you're looking for.

I'm surprised at the amount of people telling you to get the Arri III. The Arri III is by far the worst camera I've ever handheld. The eyepiece is too long, so the camera sits farther forward on your shoulder (it's already front heavy), which makes the camera really front heavy and awful. I actually had to devise a way to back-weight the camera in order to make the balance even remotely bearable. To do this, we put really long rods on the camera that stuck way out the back and over my shoulder, and we rigged TWO shot bags on the end of the rods, and it still wasn't balanced. It sure weighed a ton though, and my back hurt for days. Anyway, the point is, if you're going to do a lot of handheld, the Arri III shouldn't even be an option. It's just NOT a handheld camera. The 235 is a whole different world than the Arri III...a much better world. Do yourself a favor and stay away from the Arri III. Also, if memory serves, the fastest an Arri III will go is 120fps. I could be wrong though, it's been a while.

You guys are cracking me up.

Whoops! I should have read your first post a little more carefully!

You took the words right out of my mouth, or hands in this case. Of course it can be graded to fix the over exposure, but the move and operating don't quite cut it, especially as the opening shot in the reel.