Jason M Silverman

i just saw sin city (just in theatres here). i noticed that earlier there was a comment that the project couldn't have been made on film. It was amazingly stylized for sure, but at times I thought it came off as a little too slick or clean. As it seemed to be going for the grainy seedy film noir style, I'd think film, albeit with lots of green screen, would have been a natural choice. Maybe it was to kep the comic-book-ishness to it. Does anyone know if there is an American Cinematographer article out on it? peace jason

I'm looking to buy an XL2 shortly. I'm living in Ireland, but will most likely buy it in the states, since they are much cheaper, and the Euro is stronger. B&H is the only american retailer I've found willing to sell the PAL version and it costs more than the NTSC. I think I want the PAL for two reasons: 1) Ireland uses PAL 2) the 25 rate should be better for transfering footage to film. Do you all think it is worth the extra cost? Also, I was wondering if I move back to the USA, will having a PAL camera cause me problems? Peace Jason M Silverman

Hey, Unfortunately, I don't know flash. I'm familiar enough with graphics editing through Final Cut and Photoshop. Some of the archival items (such as 300-year old books) may not be easily moveable or matte-box-able. I was thinking that maybe a good still picture scanned well might serve better for such items, and perhaps for collections of more easily manipulated items use the camera. In general, I agree with the comment that it is often better to leave most effects until post, in case one needs to change one's mind, though with a documentary I think I would tend to shoot archives twice, once still and once with a pan, etc just to give myself more options. In this case, I want to make the post as easy as possible, since much time will be requirted on the audio, and on a few choice graphics. But maybe I'll invest in both a scanner and a matte-box... Peace Jason

Scanning could produce more digital artifacts than perhaps shooting them. I suppose it might depend on what one was planing on doing with them; it may be easier/better to pan from one to another on camaera, but if planning complex cgi type effects to scan. peace jason

Hey, I'll be working on a documentary (filmed on XL2, edited on Final Cut 5) which will involve the need to record archival still images as well as documents. The project will hopefully end up being put onto 35mm. I'm wondering what the best way to record them is. As far as I can tell, I have three choices: 1) film them with the XL2 and some sort of mattebox 2) scan the pictures/documents on a high-quality scanner and manipulate them on Final Cut 3) take stills with a 35mm still camera and work the negatives into the edit when going to film. Opinions on the best option? What is the minimum resolution I should look for if I go for buying a scanner? Thanks for the help. Peace jason m silverman

As a matter of interest/planning, I was wondering if there are any places which still sell and/or develop Super-8 preferably in the ROI or the UK, or do I have to go to CH or USA? peace jason

thanks for the comments. I won't feel too bad about the DV quality then. Anyone have experience with the wide-angle lense which Canon makes for it (XL2)? Peace Jason Silverman

Hey, Does the Mini-DV format have enough resolution for professional work in your guys' opinion? I love the Canon XL2, but am worried that the mini-DV format might not hold up well if the documentary I'm planning gets put onto 35. I'm not sure which will cost more-- buying a DVcam or the extra work the mini-DV might take to look better when transfered?? Opinions? I'm generally a fan of film myself (my other projects have been super-8 and super-16), but this budget and type of film calls for video, but I would like to aim for cinema distribution. Peace Jason

i thought the film was well done... there was quiite a large use of fog (hence the title...) i was wondering if these shots were filmed in a studio, or if they produced fog outside, or if they waited for real fog?

"Film is also entertainment. TV could be art. Is Jerry Springer Show art? No, it's entertainment. So is Howard Stern. Is Ali G art or entertainment? It is both. But the artistic level is very low." why can't film be art and entertainment at once? 'film is art, theatre, life, and tv is furniture...' "Do people like art? Does it really matter if they like art? People have to learn to enjoy art and it does enrich their lives. Unfortunately our materialistic society is the oposite of what art is and the people surround themselves with materialistic not spiritual pleasures. " does demand create supply or supply condition demand? "Ihe French government is an example of leftist fascism? There's no such things. Fascism is rightist. " far right and far left are essentially the same thing. just like being 'politically correct' is a form of censorship as well. but, i would contend hollywood could use some reform, just not sure government is the way to do it.

there are reasons i've left the states and am livin abroad... and, as an american citizen, wether or not you agree with phil, the *vast majority* of the wrold outside the states agres with him. whether it is right or not, americans need to wake up and take notice of this fact. and, while we're bashing the lack of healthcare in the states, why don't we complain about lack of arts funding too... (another reason to head to europe...) peace jason

uh, nevermind...

are the old forum archives still available with this new format? jason