J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR

I emailed you Dave.

John, how do you find out when and where these launch demos are? No matter how much I try Kodak just never seems to send me any information. Like, I've gotten emails about getting a free subscription to InCamera or something and I fill out forms on the site but I never get anything.

That paragraph really describes what the art of filmmaking is all about. It's all about the many decisions made that service the story. Sometimes you may find that going a different way than what was planned might not even be a compromise. It may lead you down a path that was better than the one you conceived in the first place. Of course sometimes compromises are just that and you have to live with them.

Don't tell me your Bollywood shoot is also underwater! I gotta see this thing... :blink:

Thanks Dave, I didn't think so. At least the stuff I know as Griffylon.

So if it's not backed with a solid, you could punch a light through it?

Also add crappy interlace video!!!

Could somebody please clear this up for me? Is a Griflon the same or different than a Griffolyn? I thought a Griffolyn was a bounce material, often backed by a black solid. However isn't a Griflon that shoot through stuff that was originally used to cover haybales or something?

Thanks Tim, I think the forum has improved a great deal this year with the movement to have people sign their posts with real names and attempts by all to engage in constructive comparisons of techniques. I do hope the politics will not continue though. Improvements? How about Cinealta and Varicam sub forums under the HD heading? It would also be nice if the site would play disco music while I'm reading threads. Merry Christmas everybody!

Every exact thing I'll need to accomplish what I see in my head. After all you hired ME to shoot this movie, right?

If you're bidding on this job, you should figure out what it will cost you to shoot with, 16mm and HD with rented equipment for the month plus your overhead then give them the lower bid of the two. End of story.

I don't remember how old he was but Phil Joanou got press for being hired by Spielberg right out of USC to direct some episodes of "Amazing Stories." He then directed "3 O'Clock High" which I think was also for Amblin.

I usually set master ped down a bit and set detail down to at least -4. I never go above -4 detail because IMO it just looks more filmic below that. Most of the time I shoot 2:3:3:2 pulldown and edit true 24p in Premiere Pro.

LOL Dave, that's too true!

I have Nuendo software and the EMU 1820m interface. It has the same ADC's as Pro-tools TDM. It will do 96khz 24 at a reduced number of tracks at a time. I usually record at 44.1 though for music and stick to 48 for sound for picture. I've got a Behringer 12 channel mixer, DAT machine, Event audio monitors, DBX Driverack (1/3rd Octave EQ/pink noise genertor) and a Focusrite pre-amp is on the way. Sometimes a buddy of mine will bring over his Pro-tools LE system along with a bunch on microphones to record his band. The EMU system can be had for $500 and it's amazing. A little buggy at fist but it really is a marvel and you can do full 5.1 mixes in Nuendo. I think the next thing I might get is 3 more monitors and a sub for surround. The room is quiet enough I was able to record a pocket-watch ticking with a shotgun mic that had to be gained almost all the way up. You could pick up a mouse fart with that much gain so you need a very quiet room.

I saw that re-release Technicolor print of 'Gone With the Wind' a few years back. Obviously a great film in every way but I just kept thinking "Man video sucks, this was shot so long ago and still blows every video format out of the water." Especially the part where she's standing on the hill screaming she'll never go hungry again. That is a million times better coming off a print, it's so beautiful.

I think the director and DP should know enough about the film that they probably could get it to a reasonable fine cut if they were so inclined. Pro editors are good at the beats and timing of cuts. I really believe one or two frames either way can make a big difference. Sometimes they do come up with something you never thought about if they are allowed to play with the story progression. I think Clint Eastwood spent two weeks with his editor cutting the rain scene in "Bridges of Madison County." Fairly short scene but the editing is so delicate and tender the acting just flows out like a liquid emotion.

Though that is certainly true. You can't obscure something you never showed in the first place. In that movie the 'plot' kept going forward but the character of "what's out there?" is never revealed. Halfway through the movie I was like, "well there isn't anything out there." I was wondering maybe they're not showing anything because the characters are delusional? But that wasn't the case. Or was it? For me it just didn't work, I wasn't scared one bit until the end part when the camera fell on its side. But only because it was unexpected. If you give the audience something to wonder about as they did in "signs" by revealing only glimpses of the aliens, you start to ask many more questions than just "What is out there?"

Where do you live? Maybe you can score an invite to somebodies set.

How about www.watchreels.com I think a few posters here are on that.

I've been cutting 7246 in regular 16 format with the DVX-100 and it's a fairly close match for SDTV viewing. They seem to have similar 'grain.' What I notice in the 16mm is the grain is sharp and the 'grain' (noise) in the DVX is soft.

If you take the front off you will have access to the right-angle prism that throws the image back to the eye-piece. Its surface can get dust on it easily. That is probably what you are seeing. It's a bit tricky to remove the front cover. You have to take a thin blade and pry up the thin metal cover on the front of the camera. It's the trim piece with the logo. Don't bend it, once you get it off you will see several recessed screw holes. Remove those screws and the front cover casting will come off exposing the shutter, the ground glass holder and the prism. After you screw the cover back on it's a good mod to drill holes in the thin trim plate so you don't have to remove it to service the camera. After you drill the holes just glue the trim plate down permanently. Also if you lokk under the film transport and light baffle in the magazine of the camera, there is a slot in the viewfinder tube where the light meter needle goes in. You might have fuzz or dirt in there. That is also a good place to insert a 16x9 mask but you have to be good at making a tricky little small one. If you're not confident you can reassemble the camera, don't take it apart.

it's a good thing if you need an awful lot of concentrated light. I find pars to be extremely useful on exteriors for washing buildings and making pools of light. An example would be if I have buildings close to the streetlights and have access to the roof. I can shoot PAR's down to the street to make a more concentrated pool of light. I then use another more precise instrument to provide an actual backlight on actors but the PAR's are good for that too if you get them far back.

Since no one else is answering, I'll take a go at it. They can be as detailed as you want. The more complex a setup the more detail you might write down. Especially if you are handing off instructions for a pre-rig or something. I write my notes right on the script while discussing shots and general blocking with the director in pre-production. I draw an arrow at the beginning of a scene down the page until the shot changes, like on a piece of important dialog or when the director feels he wants to jump to a CU or something. On that arrow I make a note like "Medium 2-shot, push in to isolate 'Marvin.'" or whatever. Then if we do singles I'll draw a second arrow down the page that represents all the dialog shot as singles etc. Then, if I feel the need I will insert a sheet into my script with specific lighting notes for the scenes listed on the previous script page. There I will write down motivation for the lighting, quality of the light, lighting units, filters, processing notes etc. as needed. I might even draw a lighting diagram or include a panel from the storyboard. I might write emotional notes like, "soft, warm, gentle, romance, evil, strong, menace, loose frame, isolate" or whatever. If I don't need a sheet for a specific scene, I always have a master but general plan for each location then work out particulars when we're there. The one thing I usually never do is anticipate actual lenses, I do that on set with the director. That's when you turn the concept into a reality. The lens approach is dictated by the shot list. We would have discussed if the director likes to be on the wide-angle all the time or has a more classical approach. So when you're on set, if you want wide-angles you start lining up for a that. But, on some shoots you may need to be more precise in pre-production for the benefit of other departments.

That's what I got from it too. The thing that always bugged me about "Blair Witch" was you never saw anything in the woods. They got me all keyed up but there was never a payoff with a real fright. It would've been better if you caught a glimpse of something ala "Signs." Something that would scare the piss out of you. Also the format IMO robbed attention from the plot when the guy is killed and all they find is something in a cloth. Everybody in my screening was like, "What was that?" It was just a big blob on the screen, useless. I still don't know what it was.