Lars Zemskih

So you think the CEO of Microsoft would be a good film director!? Since the director is like a manager and all. I mean talk about bad analogies.

I'm a director and I think film is very much about technical as it is about artistic skills, but also skills. But you get them not from watching all the movies, but also by reading books, studying photography and paintings. What it comes down to, your advise on saying don't go to school, go to the local store and just watch movies is not a good advice for someone who wants to be a filmmaker.

http://emilerafael.com/blog/index.php?showimage=50 ok, see the line on girl's nose and the rest of her face, why do I get that? I use Lightroom to export jpg and the quality is 100 per cent, why does it do that? I mean I have never seen such lines in Photoshop and it just looks bad. Thank you!

Pumpkin five!

Well first of all, not every film school costs 120,000. There are also MA programs which are only two years and less money. The schools in England and France are also cheaper. Not to mention free schools such as La Femis or FAMU. I am sure this topic has been discussed in length here, but again, a point many agree on, don't discourage people from going to school, just because you feel it is not necessary for you. You do learn from doing, but you also do it by studying, I have seen film schools that are only practical and I didn't need that, because I have already been shooting by myself before that, I needed someone to also sit me done and tell me how it is done, before doing something. Plus sometimes you can't afford to properly shoot on film and prof. lights by yourself, when in school you get that and you learn a lot from it. Second, I don't think it does a WORLD of good for you if you just watch everything from the local video store, there are of course movies that are great and you learn a great deal by thinking how they were done and that does good for you. However, I think there are so many many bad movies out there that it is not necessary to study them or even watch them, you can study why a particular film is bad, but if you watch too many of them it might do you more harm. All those people who want to be like Tarantino or Smith get a job at a rental store and watch tons and tons of movies, but I wouldn't consider them to work on my set based on how many films they watched. No.

I always found this argument a bit ridiculous, as it is coming from the same logic as thinking that you can write a symphony by listening to a lot of music. There are just so many many people who think they know how to make films because they have watched so many of them and it is usually not true. I really disagree with you that film school doesn't teach you anything as well, I mean if you feel that you never needed it, it is fine, but that doesn't mean somebody else won't benefit from it And it is not that easy to always get to the proper film set to learn from it.

Lance Acord, I like his work and he seems like someone I would like to hang around with.

Do it! It's a good camera. But seriously, it depends on what you are looking for and what type of films you want to make and other factors.

Wow, I must say you are extremely good at utilizing what you have. I mean this stuff looks much much better than what you would expect form these particular cameras and After Effects as color tool. Great job man.

Actually, most of the time I can tell that someone is hiding or being evasive about something in respect to this. Especially me being a student and all most of the information is new to me and of course very interesting. But those people just look really bad when the are so protective of what they've done or how they did it, especially when they are not that far ahead of you. The just look ridiculous to me.

I am going to be Woody Allen.

I am also moving to London in January, so if this works out, keep me in mind for the meet-up.

Where is this video embedded from? Or is it a script? I'm starting to notice it on websites, I want one on mine too.

Looks really really good, were you a colorist on all of them as well?

I'm not a D.P, but I've worked with some that really utilized and were very good with natural light, adding just a few touches with when needed. And I usually liked that, because some really overdo do it with a lot of lights and the set-ups usually take much longer when all the D.P relies on is his own lights. As Dominic also pointed out, it depends exactly what you can get, of course it wouldn't make sense to put up a small light in a bright daylight usually (but it also depends). So if you don't have many options, no, you don't need lights all the time to have a decent picture. Light reflectors are really good outside. The other thing is how exactly are you testing all of this? If you say there is not much difference that you see when applying lights, do you judge by camera's LCD? Because especially with an untrained eye you don't see much difference in it at first, but it might make a huge difference once you see it on the screen or proper monitor. Also be careful with white balancing it blue, because usually want WB to be proper on white, so in post you have more control over it. As if you white balance it to a different color you can't change that much in post. Later you can just make your whites to be blue. You can pre-visualize with different WB, but shoot on a proper one.

Looks great David, I look forward to renting it the dvd. Are there special features with concerning cinematography? Did you pre-visualize and knew exactly that the film's title will be in that shot? Or was it decided in post?

I would definitely say DVX100b is better, but it is of course many times the question of preference, this might help: http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/ It is comparing DVX to Sony z1u, but it sitll has a great deal of information about DVX.

wow, I really enjoyed the video, great work Tom

I've been to Paris many times and I absolutely love the city. I wish the film industry was in a better shape though.

Well, I was using my old DVX once and it was a dirty tape which made a piece of the head to come off, so I had to pay for the new head which wasn't that cheap and I was out of my camera for some time, after that I told myself I will always use something else as a deck. I'll guess I'll just be rewinding stuff. Thank you for clarifying the problem to me though.

Only this particular camera has this problem. What's an overhaul? I just don't want to use my HVX to capture tons of footage, trying to save the head.

I think the video is bad that it makes the footage look bad as well.

I'm using a really basic consumer miniDV as a deck, and it keeps on missing the timecode when I'm batch capturing. So I have to rewind it a little and let it search for it again and usually it find it the second time. Is there anyway to solve the problem? Thank you.

speaking of which, does GY-HD100 record HD on tape??

PAL is usually 25p, but either fps will give you a "movie look", firstly because p is "progressive" second is that the fram rate is much slower than that of normal digital recording.