DanStewart

I agree with Bill that a certain degree of unconcious - or underhand- nationalism reads in many posts recently. I'm not an American but I can feel a certain self righteousness coming from certain quarters towards the US and I do think it's unwarranted. Far be it for me to accuse anyone of intellectual elitism or showboating in the name of defending honesty and truth but I for one would be happier if a) we could be a little less intolerant of each other's percieved cultural shortcomings and b ) when challenged we could either respect the fact that the challenge probably does come from somewhere honestly felt (even if inaccurate) and not to resort to childish abuse. And I do think that giving Tim a hard time is right off the chart. There's nothing wrong with working bad karma out of your system but there are other forums on the internet and some of them are designed for it. This one isn't. Peace, Dan

Come to think of it, if you could rely on the colour fidelity lasting you could use different colour 1's and 0's to represent more complex strings of information. I've no idea how many discernable hues you could reliably use, but at 16bit linear RGB that's a lot of information. Even leaving large safe gaps in the colour space you could get a LOT more data on a roll. If Kodak added a few layers off the visible spectrum you could really go to town. If they went so far as to make the film unuseable for film work by using color layers designed purely for data storage, they wouldn't be obliged to charge film prices for it. Skip the perfs off and use the whole neg area, say 6 layers from IR to UV, sell specially designed fast laser printers and line scanners. You could get into the terrabytes per roll, maybe sell the rolls for less than a few 150gb tape cartridges. Sorry for hijacking the thread Daniel! Back to reality - I make a few tape backups (not DVD-R or CD-R for the reasons given) and store them seperately, and duplicate them every 5 years or so.

Well, that's about 30gb per 1000' roll, right? And 4k would be 120gb. Not spectacular but it will last 100 years or so...

I wonder if John can tell us how Kodak's project to write digital information to 35mm film is going? The plan was I believe to use some sort of dot matrix at near-grain size. In theory anyone with a filmout system could offer this service, and at 4k probably approaching the maximum resolution even Kodak could do it at. This could be a nice alternative to huge tape backups for digital masters as well as all sorts of valuable data - and it could be read back fast on a datacine. A finer mind than mine could probably work out the likely data density... Phil?

Yes, it's in the lighting not the camera. Get a 35mm stills kit and try to do 1 frame in the style you want. You'll find it's mostly to do with design and lighting as Phil said. Once you can do 1 frame you can do 24 a sec - and if you get that good you should be able to convince someone else to pay for it! Good luck.

This is getting surreal.

Use a 24p camera if you can, it's less hassle and looks more 'film-like'. Also if you can afford it use a mini-35 adapter. The PSTechnik and the dvx-100a together are generally considered the best on a budget right now (other forum members have shot this combo, I haven't). Or you could just shoot film.... what's your budget?

I don't have a problem with any ratings system. But digitally 'blacking out' parts of the film is really hardcore. I wouldn't mind so much if there was a second or two of colour bars and ref tone to let everyone know they're not being allowed to watch the proper version. Doing it in this insidious way is very worrying. I was watching The Royal Tennenbaums the other day on a digital sattelite subscription channel (not subject to the rules governing free TV broadcasting) and they cut the scene where Gene Hackman is racist to Danny Glover. Just skipped the scene - but left in the reconciliation stuff later in the movie. I've seen this movie about 10 times but my friend who was watching it for the first time would never have known, he'd just have thought there was a plot hole. I think people should at least know what's going on. The ratings board people all see the uncensored versions of everything and survive ok. By their own logic we should lock them up in case they freak out or something.

If there is only a 4:3 image then that's all that can be broadcast - like the European footie recently. But you still can't stop people electronically zoming in to a 16:9 frame on their modern TV's - unless you deliberately and regularly put key action outside of that frame :ph34r:

70 minutes is a very long short. Write in another 10 and you've got a short long. :)

A friend of mine is a doctor. Imagine checking a patient for symptoms and thinking every day 'oh my god am I missing something here, are they going to keel over on the way home from the hospital?'! Somethings you just get good at because you have to and then you stop worrying about it.

I'm not 100% on this but I think using frame mode on the gl2 will halve your vertical resolution. If that's the case then it would be much better to shoot in normal mode and deinterlace afterwards for a more filmic motion. Good luck.

It's not really difficult, just a bit unusual. http://www.abelcine.com/Products/frames/AM...techcenter.html Going off topic a bit, does anyone else find it to be a bit noisy? The one I shot with seemed to be noisier than a typical SR2 (albeit without the barney).

Woah! Steady on old boy. Religion is stories from the mists of time that mean different things to different people. Gibson's enthusiastic about his faith as are many people around the planet from all different backgrounds. The events depicted in his movie shouldn't be taken any more seriously than -and yes I am British :o - the US single handedly liberating Europe in Saving Private Ryan or the British burning churches full of civilians in The Patriot, (directed by a German who admitted to taking the incident from the eastern front of WW2). It's just movies, and that applies to Moore as well. Anyone who's made a documentary knows how manufactured it has to be, all you can do is try to be true to the spirit of the situation - an analysis that is so fundamentaly subjective anything becomes propoganda for one side or another. I'm sorry about your sister. Many of us have known people killed or injured by extremist nutters shedding innocent blood for one cause or another. And we can all plainly see the often unreasonable actions of statesmen that outrage these people. No large group of people can be judged by the actions of a few individuals, and labelling people by their nationality or religion is both questionable and dangerous. Here we are, an international group with a shared love of cinema. If we can't work out our differences peacefully, what sort of chance does the rest of the world have?

Where are you based Ted?

I think that's the shot Mitch said they called the 'thesis shot' at ILM. And yes i was joking. :D

I think the 1978 version was spinning dowels covered in super reflective tape with lights pointing at them. If Obi-1 and Darth actually touched sticks they would break and shower the camera crew with shrapnel. With the technology available today the new movies are naturally so much better...

That's exactly the thinking behind over-scanning at say 4k for a 2k job, or now maybe 8k for a 4k job. As you say the amount of data quickly gets very silly if you try to keep an 8k+ scan, but as long as the scanner has the buffer (and you have the time) a higher res scan is evident even after downres, which makes the point nicely.

Consider getting a clean background plate - you may get better results doing a cg glass. I'm assuming it's geometrically simple, and any of the usual packages (max, maya or lightwave) can do a fracture animation very easily. You'll need someone who knows what they're doing with the renderer, but this will probably still end up being cheaper than a massively high speed shoot.

Perhaps now the friendliness of the environment will no longer be an issue for you, you'd like tell us your real name before you go?

It sounds like that's the right angle, considering the perceptual factors that draw the eye to any part of a composition, ie contrast & affinity in line, space, shape, colour, tone and movement. Perceptual psychology and books on the visual system may help. Also try 'The Visual Story' by Bruce Block which is a great primer for any one working graphically.

I saw this movie on the Odeon leciester square for about 12-bloody-quid and it looked @!*&ing terrible. Mr Boyle's explanation is ridiculous - mini DV we've all got, the truckload of lights to make it look half good and the hundred grand in post work for the other half we haven't. Kodak should show this film on big screens to put the wind up the video crowd! Actually my bile should be more directed at the UK marketing campaign (which avoided any images from the movie) and my own masochistic tendency to avoid all information regarding films I know I'm going to see (you'd have thought Episode 1 would have taught me that lesson). Incidently they didn't use the mini 35, they fitted PL lenses straight to the camera.

Just wandering what the effect would be of shooting a flash in slo-mo..? If you're going digital post you can always increase the speed back up to realtime, but perhaps you'd capture more detail in the effect? In any case your editor would probably thank you for it.. :huh:

You don't seem to realise that you're not saying anything new, you're just being vociferous. This technology is interesting and everyone here is interested in it, but repeating how great it is doesn't make it any more useful to the working pro. Why don't you shoot something and make your point that way? You can always fall back to the marketing if it doesn't work out...

I've heard this called lots of things, often 'reverse dolly zoom' or 'Vertigo shot'. I'm not sure there is a recognised name for it - correct me if I'm wrong someone. The classic examples are in Vertigo, Jaws and Goodfellas.