Vincent Sweeney

You are way too young to permanently mark yourself.

Ok, $950

http://thefilmstage.com/news/watch-video-of-terrence-malick-directing-christian-bale-at-austin-city-limits/ I never thought I'd see this kind of video footage. Rare, to say the least.

The new Alexa has an optical VF.

I'd dump the 85, especially when stacking filters. You can time out the blue in the transfer. Don't forget your costume and production design will get you more mileage than any filter or stock choice.

You really should rent a S16mm camera or just buy one if you are going to use it more than once, which you likely won't. They rent for nothing these days. A perfect condition Aaton Prod just sold for $5000 total, SR3's are going in the same price range. There is no 16mm short-end source. Why go to all the enormous trouble to shoot a movie, which you will spend the next two to three years of your life dealing with, and use a format that will be nothing but trouble? Call your state's Kodak rep and make a deal. Buying film is like buying a used car.

Several years ago after searching a very long time for the best sunglasses on earth, and tiring of the old, heavy Julbo Expedition/Glacier sunglasses I had, a friend sent me a link to what I had been searching for, for so long. It was to a photo of Oakley's Mars Leather series and I knew they were "it". I saved up a lot more than anyone would normally spend on sunglasses and felt good about spending it when the day came. I was right, they fit perfectly and the lens quality was perfect. I knew I would have them for years. They were, for sure, the best (and still are I think). Though not so long after buying them, I took them to one of the dealers to ask about new lenses since they scratch fairly easy. The dealer basically laughed, saying they were "ancient" and he could not get lenses or rubber for them anymore. Eventually I ended up with unknown brand lenses off ebay which I question. I've ended up with no rubber, other than half of one of the ear pieces. It's been several years now but I am still trying to keep them alive. I finally found some of those little metal C clips for the lens frame, which I had done without for 2 years at least. My Aaton, which I had up until about a year ago, could still be serviced and it was built in 1983 I believe. A friend's Arri was made about the same time and his parts are still on shelves too. Your first camera might now be becoming outdated/bulky but is being replaced by something better and I respect the work you have done on getting up to this new level, but what about service 5 years from now for those who don't care that it's outdated? Longer than 5 years? How long will the new Epic's be serviceable for? Will some ass laugh when someone needs a new part some years from now, even if the new camera is "30K" and the size of an iPhone? I'm just curious how you guys plan to handle this. I already know how Arri and Aaton do. Oh and do you know anyone who has real Mars parts stored away somewhere!?

http://www.tecca.com/news/2011/03/15/saturn-fly-by-video/ Make sure to full-screen it.

$1000 "Modern Studio" brand. Like new. Used on one feature. Heavy case included. Paid about $1400 with shipping. Will ship anywhere.

Why the now-outdated red standard? Most top DP's agree the Alexa wins hands down in getting closer.

A "Digital S8" camera makes no sense in any form. I smell spam, or is that Sweet and Sour chicken?

What are you guys using for your HD scanning work now Rob?

Has a (properly funded) feature been done before on S16mm with anamorphic glass? Looks great. Trailer

We? Looks like you are trying to start something there Chris. Why do you need so much attention? I'll gladly continue this offline. You can send me a msg. anytime you feel the need.

I'm not the biggest fan of it usually, yet, but go see the feature Bellflower if you want to see how "digital" can be used in its own way to really kick some ass. This may be the first indie film I have seen to actually make use of the format in an appropriate and well-done, deliberate way. (SI2K cam)

If you can find it, go see it. This film has just about every recent indie beaten in every way. Best I've seen in years! The camera work alone is worth the ticket. Endless justified, experimental, genius shots. The SI2K has a look all its own and they maximized it. Overexposure and dirty glass made into an art form. This is how you exploit digital. Joel Hodge should be getting more work soon. http://www.bellflower-themovie.com/trailer/

I was very recently told that Fuji has no intention of stopping film production in the foreseeable future. I heard something close to this, "We are a large company that makes a lot of different media products and motion picture film is a small part of that. We'll keep making it as time goes on; if nothing else it's a prestige thing and easy for us to keep doing.". Investing in camera gear is a whole other topic. People who bought first gen. reds are now begging people to rent them out for $300/day or less and lots of indie guys (esp producers) hate that camera now when one or two years ago, it was the only camera in existence. They like DSLR's for the same gigs, more often than not, and now with the F3 and AF100... The current Alexa will be outdated in a year or two since it doesn't shoot 4K (as of 2011) and this game will just go on and on. A film camera won't need updates but will anyone pay to process in 5 years? It will be more rare for sure. Investing in a film camera, or any camera, makes little sense to me as an individual these days. Unless you are one of those fairly rare map-hopping "shooters" that has great connections for constant video/film gigs, you will lose money on any pro camera investment I would bet. And this is why rental houses stay alive. They will update for you as well as keep older cameras around. If you think buying a film camera and then trying to find some work with it is a good idea, I think you'll be in for a huge disappointment. Now if only someone would build a poor man's Spirit machine for $10K. Kodak should do this, actually.

Not one festival that I know of, and that is most of the established ones, require that of any entry. Who told you this?

Well, it does seem to solve almost all the issues. I think you know that. This thread is about film projection issues. Film based acquisition is another story and will hopefully be around for many years.

I appreciate your passion Karl (sort of) but audio is just as critical to a film's viewing experience. I think you are in a very small minority when you say otherwise. You didn't take in my whole post. This wasn't some one time thing, these problems occur about half of the time, or more lately. My experience isn't just an audio problem. I continue to see severe registration and focus problems. The fact is that 35mm projection no longer works on a national (or international) scale. I don't care what is at fault, only what the solution is. In this case 4K digital projection is the only solution I see. You can cry all you want but that isn't going to transform the hiring, training and maintenance practices of thousands of theaters. Not all theaters can be Arclights, which do a good job at film projection. I'm as frustrated as anyone when it comes to film's issues. I personally like the experience of film more than I can explain here and Im a die-hard, dedicated fan of it but it's mostly over now and we have to accept that. This is similar to my other post about labs needing to cut their rates. I felt very strongly that the last indie feature I was involved with should be on 16mm and spent days trying to make it work budget wise, but using an F3 saved them over $10,000 in the end because of the scanning costs, so that was it. This will continue, and as theaters keep getting complaints that a BluRay is a much better viewing experience, digital projection will be in order, just not fast enough. If not they will suffer till closing. If you could see the Muvico, on a Tuesday night, you'd see what a difference it makes. It was crowded and this is because, in part, it is an almost perfect viewing experience. The layman feels the difference.

Thank you guys for the informative replies. Too bad Phil, that complaints go no where these days. No one working at these places care anymore. These are sad times in the theater world, with the exception of the 4K theater I just got back from tonight. It was very refreshing to see perfect projection, and sound, after so many trips to useless theaters recently. This trip was to a "Muvico" theater which has them all beat so far, for me. I assume the server systems gets rid of any possible idiotic forgetfulness in the audio department. That theater would be an ideal place for some serious camera comparisons. Sony or RED should rent one out for a night and invite a bunch of Directors and DP's.

I never did work in a theater so I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around the seemingly complete absence of quality projection in movie theaters today. I went to see The Tree of Life one last time before it leaves theaters today. Just like last time, but at a different theater, there was a massive audio issue. This time not only did it sound like one of the speakers were blown but, and this is my main point in posting, the surround sound was off. So once again a film of this quality level was reduced to a couple of speakers, with light warbling on top of that. So specifically, why does the surround sound not play in 40-60% of the film-based theaters I have been to in the last few years? Why can't it be turned back on after I complain each time? Why is there even the option to have it off, ever?

Wow, you never know who might share some advice here. Thank you for that. Funny enough I was just looking at some Moles at the Studio Depot store beside their showroom. Very nice work on Captain America! I still haven't got my hands on the August AC magazine (they stopped coming showing up) but Im looking forward to reading about the multi-format shoot. If you did more coverage on it elsewhere, please let me know. (did you use any LED's on it?)

You will drown in details if you don't get help. Find a student locally that attends film/acting school and have them help as a casting director, or post for a casting director that is just starting out (you will need to pay them a little). Some have "extras casting" experience only and might want a better credit. You keep free actors by treating them well, along with having enough help so that they believe the film is of a level of quality worth being a part of, and is being executed as professionally as possible. If you don't have a somewhat professional casting process, good actors will smell this a mile a way and wont even show up to begin with.

Hasn't all of this sort of plateaued now? If people don't know the general limits of film, SLRs, RED's etc. there is something seriously lacking, as in paying the most basic attention to movie-making tech. What you need to know beyond that, you'd find on your own and this kind of testing would mean nothing at all. The rest from now on is a game of marketing and detail features between these guys. RED had 4K and low prices, but now needs 5K to stay relevant and raises prices because they want to be "professional" now like Arri. Sony had the best in HD, then made cheap HD 35mm (F3) but now needs 8K to stay relevant, and so on. It never ends but the differences are becoming as subtle as Kodak vs. Fuji. I'd be more interested in the different looks overall, with different sensors. When you see an SI2K, it is very different than red's stuff or a 950. Just like Aaton's 6K CCD should be pretty different than the other's CMOS chips, and the Sony 8K is bound to have a unique look as well. Compare this stuff rather than trying to show me how film can't shoot as well in 1000asa set-ups or how a DSLR can almost be good enough to shoot something on, etc.