Mike Washlesky

Amen. Gory and pure awesomeness.

I can tell which one NOT to buy. The Birns & Sawyer Mini is terrible. I purchased it through the ASC a fwe years ago and the curtains for for aspect ratios fell into the lens housing. I returned it, got another one, and whadya know, same thing happened to the new one. Pure crap. It seems the ASC is now selling the Cavasion viewfinders like you mention. Not sure if they switched because of the poor quality of B&S, but none the less, stay away.

Dude, thats not professional advice you're asking for, you want someone to do your homework for you...

Ahhh, thanks.

Well not looking to pirate movies, just getting my footage off DVDs which is why I posted this question here and not on websites catering to illegal duplication.

Its weird right? Whats even stranger, is the thumbnail image of the clip on the timeline will be a totally different one than from the actual clip. Then the bugs really come out in Final Cut.

I also have a Mac. Thanks for the tip. I will check it out.

Been using DVDxDV to pull footage from various finished project DVDs I have shot for use on my reel. Has anyone used this app for this reason, and if so, any sync issues in FCP? Been running into a consistent problem and am looking for alternatives.

Yes, in hindsight 2:35 was overboard for Cable, but then again, we were expecting a theatrical release which ultimately didnt happen. But, it is possible to broadcast 2:35, so why not show that version of the film? I guess thats kind of the core of tyhis whole discussion about Kubrick and multiple ratios..why exactly isnt there the one theatrical version that gets ported to broadcast,DVD, etc. Is it a matter of a perception of public taste? I used to hate when friends would refuse to watch letterboxed films with me because they hated the black bars, obviously not understanding that 4:3 was not the intended format for viewing. But now with the popularity of HD TVs and 16x9, the public is primed for this. So why not show the whole image 2:40 or otherwise?

It was framed for 2:35 and shot in 2:35 Cinemascope using the Canon ACV235 adapter It squeezed the image to fit the 2:35 ratio and then was un-sqeezed in post. So there was never any room to move the image around in the post process and hence no matte. The aspect ratio for distro was intentionally altered, although I have no idea why. I was far removed from this point in the game and had no say in color correction or anything else for that matter. They have simply enlarged the image to fit the 1:78 ratio and lost the balance that I originally shot. I am totally perplexed why they would do this, as it was the first film to use the ACV235 adapter, there were only 2 on the planet at that time (which we had one), and Canon graciously donated the adapter and a set of 5 primes for nothing. The master was in 2:35, but at some point in the process, some marketing genius probably made the claim that 1:78 would be better for broadcast, which is where it ended up at on the SciFi Network and at retailers as a DVD.

From the book, "The Complete Kubrick": "Purists wondering at the absence of a widescreen edition of "The Shining" should note that the film was shot at the 4:3 ratio of television screens, and 'matted' for cinema screenings at a ratio of 1:85:1. For all home-video versions, therefore, the 'matting' was simply removed, leaving the perfect full-screen image that Kubrick himself approved." So that said, was Kubrick being safe and shooting for both TV and theatrical? Should I go buy the re-release and view it as intended? David, when you shoot a project, is there and understood mindset that the film will possibly shown full frame at 4:3 and does that affect you framing while shooting? I ran into this problem a few years ago on a project called the Insatiable, where we shot it anamorphic using the Canon ACV235 adapter. I framed it for 2:35, and it looks (well, looked) fantastic. When the film was sold to THinkFilm and distributed, they released it as 1:78! Which makes me look like an idiot when actors faces are cut in half on opposite sides of the screen. Has this happened to you, and if so, do you just roll with it?

Ok, so while doing some post Christmas shopping I ran across a new DVD release of the Shining which boasts a Widescreen Enhanced tag at the bottom of the jacket. (If this has been discussed ad nauseum I apologize) This really confuses me to no end because I searched high and low years ago to find WS versions of The Shining, which there werent any. The old Kubrick Collection in the whiter boxes had no WS at all, not for Clockwork, or any of them except Eyes Wide Shut and 2001 (if I recall correctly). Apparently, according to the book "The Complete Kubrick" by David Hughes, which I read years later The Shinning was framed specifically for 1:33 because Kubrick knew it would be eventually ported to broadcast TV. Older versions of the film, you can see in the opening the chase helicopter's shadow on the ground/trees which was supposed to be masked by the gate in theatrical prints.The book later says the film was shot in 1:85 when referencing Terry Rawlings's use of the extra footage from the helicopter sequences for the closing shots in Blade Runner. So, that said..how did Kubrick intend for this film to be viewed? Cropped on the top, or cropped on the sides? Or does it matter at all?

Havent done it personally but I am pretty sure Cinematools in the FCP studio suite can do it. And it will probably look like DV blown up to the size of a 5 story office building. Depends on if crappy is the look you are aiming for!

The TIP program.

Oh man, that was a funny read..

this is from a music vid a buddy did. not actual dialogue, but the same style you mention. http://deathforsale.com/womm/index.html

How were they stolen? Equip truck broken into? What were the circumstances? Inside job? Curious if it was a random street theft, or someone who new what the equipment is used for..

There's also that rooftop scene from "The Departed" you might want to view.

Do you have any knowledge about what stock and the lighting approach was used in "Serpico"? I love the look of that film and it will always be ingrained in my mind of how New York should look.

Ouch.

i thought those were called "Circles of confusion". Different?

I guess I am an idiot. What is "bokeh"??

I had to do this recently as well, sort of. My last shoot had a mexican soap star as the lead who is accustomed to being on over lit studio sets. She was always complaining that I wasn't lighting her enough. So I took a 2x2 shiny board and would place it near her in every shot, just out of frame. It served no purposed except to keep her quiet. We called it the Pacifier.

Dont think there is back focus on HDV cameras. He mentions Canon serviced it, which leads me to believe its the H1, which I am pretty sure there isnt BF. And the Sony's have fixed lenses, so no BF right?

Dont think there is back focus on HDV cameras. He mentions Canon serviced it, which leads me to believe its the H1, which I am pretty sure there isnt BF. And the Sony's have fixed lenses, so no BF right?