George Ebersole

There's a thought. I briefly thought of a station wagon, but wasn't sure if they were making them anymore.

Point taken. Thanks for that. A $50 dollar bag is less expensive than a $2000 camera.

I'm thinking of getting a new vehicle to accomodate equipment. I thought of maybe a pickup or a van, but camera gear isn't that bulky, and requires a dry environment. For an indy camera dude, what's a good vehicle? Truck with a camp shell, SUV, van?

Thanks. Yeah, I don't want to get it wet, but I was wondering if buying a pro-bag was just spending a lot of money on something that could be replaced by a cheap roll of Glad wrap or something. Thanks again.

There's a nearby creek, and it's been raining recently. I'd like to get down to the shore and shoot some close shots of the water surface. But, with rain, mud and rushing water, I'm thinking that's not good for a camera. I'll be using a DSLR. Any reccomendations? Can I just throw some plastic around it, or do I have to buy one of those professional bags? thanks for any reply

A few years back someone mentioned that past issues of American Cinematographer had shot lists and basic designs listed for various films. If a man wanted to try and emulate some of his favorite films, could he do so by buying past issues of AC and reading what they had to say about those said same films?

I thought motion control was for miniature SFX shots only. I guess it stands to reason someone would make one for a slider.

I also tried a slider last weekend. Again, I had no patience for the thing. You'd think someone would have developed a computer controlled motorized version by now.

The chasis for the thing was about the size of a roller skate, and it had a flex arm that just didn't want to cooperate. It's meant for slow subtle moves, but I just didn't have the patience for it. Not a big deal. But thanks for the replies.

Has anyone ever mounted a DSLR on one of those mini table top dollys? I did the other day and found it difficult as anything to not only mount the camera but also just to push it around to get a smooth shot. Is there a secret to using these guys?

I thought it was visually stunning. I'm sorry it didn't grab more attention.

Rewatching a boyhood favorite; "Buck Rogers in the 24th Century" with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray. It's not reat drama, but seeing it in hid-def gives it new life. The props and technology are a bit dated, but it's a site better than the old DVD transfer. Truly, it looks incredibly sharp. *EDIT* John E Clark; games have also gotten much better than they were in the 90s or even early 2000s. They're replaced films and TV as the #1 entertainment venue for the young age demographics.

double post

Years back I gripped on a Sun Micro industrial, and it was a Star Trek takeoff with Kevin Pollack doing his Captain Kirk imitation. The "bad guy" pirate starship captain was played by a British actor who pronounced Milpitas as Mill-Pie-tas. The correct pronunciation is Mill-Pee-tus. He did another take. Beyond that I can't see the issue with actors from any corner of the world working on any shoot where needed.

I don't think it matters where a person comes from, as a long as they can do the job. What difference would it make anyway? I asked about the SW films because I think all the stage work was shot in the UK. Meaning you're going to cast local talent, ergo British actors. I seem to be under the impression that a lot of American and Canadian actors actually go to the UK looking for work anyway.

Weren't the Star Wars' films shot in the UK?

I don't know about this particular footage, but didn't NASA used to rely on specially designed hasselblads for their still work?

There were also some high strasoferic clouds that acted as diffusion.

Smart comedy is smart comedy. Example; "Zorro the Gay Blade" is a comedy about two brothers who follow in the footsteps of their father who was the actual Zorro in old Spanish ruled California and Mexico. There's no fart jokes, no groin kicking jokes, the sexual humor is tasteful with just the rightr amount of innuendo and a bit of silliness. In simple terms it's tasteful. Compare that to some raunch comedy that someone mentioned here about a serial killer. There's a shot where someone's being put through a wood chipper and their guts, blood and just gore are being spewed out the other side. Why on Earth is that funny? It isn't. You've got to be really sick and perverted in the most sincerest way to think that's funny. Smart comedy doesn't have to be about science or politics, though it can be. Woody Allen in "Love and Death" tosses in a lot of old fashioned sight gags, but then makes fun of the intellectual elite with metaphysical debates between himself and Dianne Keaton's character. Smart comedy is tasteful and makes fun of all kinds of things without being base. If you've been weened on Porky's or sexploitation films with a lot of jokes about human waste (feces and urine) and putting down people for their bodies, then I feel somewhat bad for you. Not too much, because you took the low road out of peer pressure, thinking it was cool to include tasteless material into a humorous vein. I'm glad old guard Hollywood has had to transform, because there really was a sort of "old boy's network" in some social circles that excluded good honest people who had taste, but were otherwise excluded for whatever reason, because old guard Hollywood, even though the government clamped down on them from getting nearly out of hand, made quality films with quality humor. Fun films. Now that nearly everyone's got a "video" camera of some sort on their person; phone, go-pro, or people like us with high end consumer or professional gear, you find absolute horrendous junk being uploaded everywhere. So it's a little harder to get to good smart comedy, but it can be done. It's all a matter of your personal character.

David, I think we got our signals crossed. I've never been a DP on a shoot in spite of my coming here. I've done camera ops, but I've never designed a shot for anything, which is why I posed the question here. Thanks for the extremely insightful replies.

Thanks. Occasionally (in the old days ) I saw floor plans of a set, and the dolly track would drafted in, along with positions of actors. I'm guessing maybe that was for more elaborate shoots, and not the industrials I used to grip on. Interesting.

Well, okay. I guess it's more of a case of getting the best setup you can based on a storyboard. Interesting. Thanks for the replies.

I take it back. I didn't see it full frame, but windowed, and that contorted the image.

I guess what I'm really asking in this thread is if you have a blueprint of where to setup the camera, where to lay track, and if any camera moves are already planned out with some kind of engineer's schematic, or whether it's just a matter of the director and DP saying "That looks good..." and go from there?

All the Indy features I worked on were like corporate video. I guess they didn't have the luxury of interviewing people. Interesting. Yeah, I can't ever sitting down with my resume dressed in shirt-tie and slacks and giving the best answers about myself. It never happened. For regular non-industry jobs, sure. But never for any of the independent features I worked on. Interesting. I guess maybe I'll never get back in as an employee or contractor, but, oh well. But, getting back on topic, other than a story board what kind of notes do DPs and directors have on shots come the day of the shoot?