John Allen

Of course I'm going to say the Harry Potters(and you've gotta remember that for years I decided to boycott these films).

Ah ok, I think I understand now. Cool. Thanks for explaining David. :)

Yeah, I've come to realize that we're a lot like mathematicians in that we try to find the easiest, yet most effective ways to solve our problems.

So I was watching Northfork today and was curious as to how you created the over-exposed window look, while maintaining the darkness within the angel's room. Did you cover the window's exterior with some kind of white cloth and then shoot HMI's through to get the shafts of light? I'm sorry if my question is unclear. Great work by the way.

Dude that is great! I have taken quite a few time lapses myself, and I'm very impressed with your star lapses(not excluding all the others that were amazing). Great work!!

The only thing with that shot though, is that it just looks too unrealistic, at least for my taste(but I may have none at all). I would base my lighting on practicals. You know? When you're driving down the road, what kind of objects create light within the car. To me personally, I always think of the radio, other car lights flashing by, street lamps, and other things. So sometimes just a little glint of light in their eyes or on their face can have a great effect. As Gordon Willis likes to say, "it's not about how much light can you add, it's about how much light you can take away." Sorry if my comment wasn't very helpful. I just felt the need to comment about the lighting in that photo.

Those out of focus shots were on purpose. As for it being the director's idea or Rogers, I don't know, but they were definitely not mistakes. It was shot using an Arricam and an Arri 535B. The film stocks he used were Kodak(as is the norm for Roger) 5217, and 5218.

Somebody needs to start a topic about Joaquin Phoenix now. lol

I thought it was hilarious when Ben Stiller did that, but at the same time, I was kind of wishing they had done it during another presentation. Ultimately though, I found myself cracking up on how funny it was. And actually, I don't think it took away from the presentation at all. Throughout all of the presentations, there were many comedic stunts taking place, so if we thought that the Ben Stiller stunt was disrespectful, then the Academy was just as disrespectful with the others.

Those are some good points. It doesn't change my opinion on how bias the Academy is, but it does make me feel a little better. It is too bad that some other well deserving films didn't get many awards though. One person, that I was very glad to see win, was Kate Winslet. I think that one was the most deserving Oscar win of the bunch, besides of course Heath Ledger. Kate Winslet did a fantastic job in The Reader. I guess that's a little off subject though. :/

Maybe I should say that it's less that it is a political move as it is a money-making move, or a publicity move. They were in a since, going with the underdog, because it would draw in a bunch of people around the world. But again, that's just my opinion. :/

Well Milk did win some that I was surprised about as well, but to give Slumdog a bunch is politically proper because I think that this is one of the first times that an Indian company has won this many Oscars before. Also not to mention it, I think, had the lowest budget of all the films there. I don't want to say anything to arouse an argument, but whenever different races or sexes comes into play, the Academy seems to always go with the politically correct candidate, which in this case would've have been Slumdog or Milk. Also, just to let you know, Slumdog took home 8 of it 10 nominated Oscars last night, and that alone forces me to question. But we've all got to admit that the Academy, in the past, have always based there judging, not necessarily on the quality of something, but on how many people is this will draw in. Slumdog makes for an interesting story, because here are a group of people that were from India that made a low-budget film. So they gave most of the awards to the underdog, and in turn, probably made a lot of money off of the reviews and how many ppl watched it. Anyway, we all have our opinions, mine is that the Academy is a little bias in some areas, but it doesn't mean that I don't like Slumdog, it just means simply that it's hard to enjoy Oscar night, when all the films that I really liked, went home with next to nothing. So anyway, here's to Sundance! lol Cheers!

Yeah totally. It's such a bummer. Oh and let me get this straight. I've noticed that ppl have been saying that Slumdog was shot somewhat on an HV30. Is this true? Cause I didn't see that when I looked at the IMDB.com spec page.

After a ton of wins for Slumdog, I am seriously starting to think that the Oscars, as always, are getting bias in there picks. I mean honestly, Slumdog is a good movie, but it to win this many Oscars is just ridiculously odd. It's definitely a politically proper thing to do, which makes me wonder if that's what's been going on. But I can't say for sure, after all I'm just speculating of course.

Congrats to Anthony Dod Mantle for his win. I still think that Benjamin Button deserved to win, but I think Slumdog was a very well shot film as well. Congrats again!

Yeah, he should just join this forum. That way he can still interact, without the burden of maintaining the site.

This is a real bummer for me. I have learned soooooo many things from Roger and I was hoping to keep learning more. Roger is such a cool person, and it's a shame that this had to happen. I only wish that the guy would have used his real name, because it would have been tossed in the mud, in this industry, for a very long time. I'm sure Roger knows his name, seeing how you put your name and email when you sign up, and I doubt that he'll be working with Roger ever in his lonely, pitiful life. Anyway, yup this sucks.

Oh yeah, I really want to see that film.

Dude that reminded me, I think that in "Magnoriums Wonder Emporium" they credited their DP that exact same way. Their credits were so creative on that film.

Do you guys mean that you thought that the film was hilarious as in not as well made as you were thinking, or did I miss something? I haven't seen it yet. So that's why I ask.

It is merely a title, but here is my personal preference, I do let myself be credited as a Director of Photography because of course I am the creative brain behind the visuals, I direct where the lights go, etc, etc. It doesn't automatically mean that my work is considered a "quality" piece of work, but it is work. I have done my part and in practical terms I then deserve the title "Director of Photography" or "Cinematographer" if you will. Except, as for myself, if someone asked me if my occupation was a DP then I would say no, because I don't make my living from it, yet. So if people ask, then I tell them that on the set I am a DP, but really I'm just a student, that in a few years will make it my occupation. Though really, like everyone else have been saying, it's just a title, and doesn't mean that you are just automatically a good DP or Cinematographer. It's just that you do, do that work, or have in the past. It's kind of like this; I wrote a book. So technically I am an author. Am I a "published author?" No, but I am an author, because I do have written work. Anyway, again in my opinion it's just a title and it's mostly up to your personal preference whether you deserve to be known as a "DP" or "Cinematographer." But hey I'm just a youngling, so don't listen to me. lol :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's almost the same as your sense of smell. If you smell a bunch of different smells then after awhile your nose will adjust so that every smell will start to smell the same. That's why at perfume stores you will find little containers filled with coffee beans for customers to sniff in between smelling fragrances. To kind of rejuvenate their sense of smell. Don't ask me how I knew that, I just did. lol :blink:

Yeah, not too long ago, I was color grading a period scene that me and the director wanted a kind of sepia/cream color for it. After hours of looking at the same thing, I started to put too much yellow in it and when I showed my director he was like, "wha?? They're like really yellow!" So I decided to take a little rest for my eyes. Then when I came back to it, I could totally see what my director was talking about. Since then I've made sure that I take little rests for my eyes. Oh and the scopes help too. But yeah, it's amazing how deceitful your eyes can be when you allow them to adapt.

Yes exactly David. Very, very well said. :)

Couldn't agree more with ya Adam. I had heard some reviewers saying how bad and simple it was, saying it was "as if a young cameraman had lit it." When people say that about a film I highly doubt that they really know one of the most important things that goes into achieving "great" cinematography, which is to portray the story through the lighting. To capture the vision of the director. Most people seem to think that you have to have visually stunning images to have a well shot film. Though I'm not saying that's wrong, I think it's often times misunderstood. Images can be visually dynamic if they work well with the story.