George Ebersole

I never bought a DVD of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", but I did buy the bluray when it came out, and then took a chance on the 4k Ultra HD. I was impressed, and so also bought a 4k Ultra HD bluray of "E.T.". The clarity of image and motion, and the richness of color and depth of black is outstanding. To my eyes the movies look better now than it did when I saw it down at the Stanford Theatre just north of Stanford Univesity off El Camino. Truly the movie looks better now than ever before. I'll even venture to say that it probably looks better now than the raw footage straight from the negative (if that's possible). But I'm tired of paying for repeated revamps of films I already own. During the 80s and up through the 90s and early 2000s, computer technology evolved on a monthly basis. Modem, soundcard, video card, network card you bought today at CompUSA or Fry's were already outdated, or would be in a few weeks. And that's the feeling I'm getting with digital media. I don't want to go back to VHS nor magnetic audio tape for audio (apparently it's also used for computer storage once again), but it would be nice that for once and for all there could be a definitive version of movie-X without requiring a household hardware upgrade of some kind. I don't like contemporary movies all that much in the first place, so I'm spared any expense of a film I'm interested in and may have otherwise been tempted to purchase. But I refuse to buy a 4k Ultra HD of say George Pal's "The Time Machine" or Irwin Allen's "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", or even something more mainstream like "The Blue's Brothers" or whatever else. I'm burnt out on media technology progression. Ergo the reason I didn't go see Lucas's 3D version of his Star Wars' films. I know my post will probably fall on deaf ears, and that 4k Ultra HD took a while to get here, also that I'm not longer striving to create my own media, but as former industry member who used to sit and watch rushes, who talked with DPs and cameramen back then when I was working a lot and here on this forum, who took footage to the labs and picked it up, set up lights, did slate and all kinds of other things, I think if I guy like me can get burnt out and upset about shelling out cash every few years for a new upgrade for films I already own, then I can't imagine what's going on through Joe average's mind who may have a few films in his library, owns an average bluray player and TV, and probably has to support a family. I'm an older dude. I'm kind of burnt out on movies anyway. I've rarely seen a truly good, profoundly deep and intellectually moving film, but I still appreciate good drama or good adventure. But unlike the continued computer tech upgrades of the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, which actually gave you significant processing power and data exchange capability, I don't think nor feel that I'm getting more bang for my buck with 4k Ultra. I think it looks great, but you know what? For both of Spielberg's films I think I would have been just as happy with your standard DVD transfer. I think of all of the Disney films in my library, from Snow White to Dumbo and beyond, and all of the other films I have on Bluray, like "The Right Stuff" or "Indochine", and to me if the film looks presentable and professional enough, then all of the extra data to clear the picture is just extra frosting on the visual cake. It's not that I don't appreciate it on some level, but I refuse to spend anymore money on it. Call me whatever you want, but I'm really tired of consumer tech progress that doesn't give me much.

I'm not convinced. YT has big business / corporate level resources where they can cut down the cost of storage and distribution and therefore undercut some indy person who shoots whatever and uploads it to their own personal server. It works because advertising is based on hits ads get to offset the cost. But if you're charging for streamed content, then you can pump up the price a little more (quality depending) and keep it in house without agreeing to some other terms. It was what I planned on doing. But, again, as of five minutes ago .... things went sour. There are online video services that are no YouTube, and they seem to do okay. They're not Disney, no one sleeps in their car, and no one screws with their 23andMe results. But whatever.

I think the reason TV still persists is that its' cheap and easy to use. With the net you have to think, decide, and search for what you want, as opposed to channel surfing and seeing what the stations have to offer. Having said that, I think a savvy indy producer knows how to digitally distribute and bring attention to his content. But I also think the reason the film crowd and online crowd haven't melded like was expected, is because they're two different audiences at the core, in spite of having cross platform appeal. All this means, to me at least, that if you're running a site like YouTube, then you need those advertising and subscription dollars. But I don't think that's the end all for getting your stuff seen.

Based on what I saw when they first opened their doors, I wasn't too impressed. There was some hack video "film" about some Asian girl fighting alien invaders who, wait for it, fight with martial arts. And as a former 30 year vet of Tae Kwon Do and semi-fan of Bruce Lee films, this thing made Kung Fu theatre look like Citizen Kane. Based on your response I'm guessing Amazon has raised the bar some. But again, when I saw what they were streaming when they first started ... I don't know. It feels like there should be competitors to Amazon streaming and whoever else is out there.

Yeah, I understand that, and I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant was that grad-A content from the television networks and / or major studios that offer streaming or direct sales of their product, seem to have bundled their content with ISPs. As for net based networks that create things like websites defaulting to a YouTube window, to me, is perplexing unless YouTube offers data storage at a rate cheaper than if they (TV stations, regular Joe blow websites) did it themselves. In the 90s, when net video was still in its infancy, the image was usually pixelated (high compression) and not very smooth. But those videos (usually gaming) were on the website's server. And personally, I still think that's a viable model, which is why I let off steam with my original post about YouTube and users whining about them. I shrug my shoulders at it now, but it's like the world is not GOOGLE. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but if I really want to find something, I don't restrict myself to Google, and when I use MS's default search (Bling? I think), I get video or search results that Google doesn't even touch on. So, in this regard, I'm not convinced that the world has GOOGLE and YouTube blinders on. They're the most popular, or so it seems, but there's other stuff out there.

Interesting, but you lost me, and I've been on computers since the late 70s as a kid. To me it seems like the major networks have bundled their stuff with various ISPs, so that they don't need a service like YouTube. I think some of the local stations store video on YT, but keep their video mostly on their local sites.

Whatever dude. I'm trying to discuss misperceptions about online media, not discuss sexually explicit material.

Mister Teoli, I really don't understand what it is you're coming from in this discussion. There are sites that cater to sexually explicit material, and that is not the topic of this thread. Again, YouTube is not a public utility, but a private company owned by another private company, GOOGLE. As per posting here on this website you either agree to the terms or find another venue. That's the issue.

Well, I really don't want to discuss the shooting on this thread, but the event does seem to be the apex for a lot of hollow grousing by people who don't have our experience, or much experience doing anything with cameras other than YouTube. Back in the 80s when I was contemplating digital distribution, I figured more advanced hard drives would be able to disseminate media over more advanced phone lines with higher data capacity. But, I figured individual filmmakers, companies or producers would have said HDs in their offices or maybe even based out of their homes. Given that there's a lot of tech savvy in the film industry, to me at least, I'm amazed that that kind of a model isn't the standard. Instead I'm seeing people bitching on YT like it's a public utility, and it isn't. It's a private company, and all I can do is shake my head at all the nuttiness that goes on there.

Well, okay, I'll accept that, but why 2010? I mean, I do remember around 2010 (2007 to 2012?) coming across sites trying to launch web-series. A few shut down, others I haven't tried finding again since that time. I'm wondering what happened then.

Well, I'm not a big expert, but I think websites like Acorn or ... trying to think ... Crackle, and Amazon, even though they offer grade A material from LA and NY, require a subscription from users. I also think so called "adult" websites work the same way (no, I don't frequent them, much less belong to any). And it just strikes me that if you wanted to make money off of the stuff you shot, and didn't like YouTube for whatever reason, that you'd fire up your own site with your own videos.

Well, there are other places to upload your content. I think YouTube is probably the best known, but YouTube isn't the end all.

Given the recent tragedy at YouTube HQ in San Bruno (the details of which I will not go into), I feel compelled to vent my spleen about Joe Average who thinks he's a great TV producer via that website (YouTube) and finds himself frustrated by a single website's changing of policy. Over the last year or so (maybe two years? not sure) I've seen a lot of people I subscribe to bitch, whine and moan about how they're not getting the money they used to from their YouTube accounts. If you're new to shooting anything with a camera, and want to exhibit it somehow, then you should know the following; A) do not rely on a single private company, like YouTube, to monetize your content B) there are other websites where you can upload your stuff C) you can create your own website and exhibit your videos there D) if all else fails, you can rent, lease, buy or build your own damn server and post your stuff on it. E) even Amazon buys below B-rated crap via Amazon studios I know I'm preaching to the choir here on this website, but I just can't help but remember way back in the 80s when I was contemplating digital distribution of content how frustrated I was that I would have to go through one of the major distributor shows to get whatever I had worked on exhibited in theatres. But I certainly didn't get angry to the point where I would take it out on my fellow man, and, if all else failed, I would personally drive my film to various art house theatres across the nation or shell out the cash to have it FedExed to the same. I'm burnt out on doing a lot of stuff, and personally find myself in a rut (a happy one, but a rut nonetheless) about getting a lot of projects done. But I certainly don't feel daunted by a single website owned by a private company, much less rely on them for my income. Anyway, I just had to vent. It seems like stupidity these days equates into anger and tragedy, and it's like the people f-ing complaining over a YouTube have no idea what it is to get a feature produced and distributed. And apparently there've been other tragedies related to nut cases posting whatever at YouTube's website of people going off the deep end because their videos were taken down, or they just did some crazy thing. I don't know. I guess I just don't get the idiocy of it all.

Admittedly I haven't, but every camera I've seen on set has either belonged to one of the local rental houses (or did) or the production company in question. I've never seen any camera that was ... I don't know ... "suspicious". I guess these days things are different. I mean one time I heard an AD talking with someone else about Panavision having an amnesty day where people could bring in gear that some how got into their hands, but nothing beyond that.

Some of stuff like flags, cookes and other odds and ends I can see being used, but how could hope to get away with trying to use a stolen camera on set? Don't rental houses and crews keep track of and recognize a hot item? I think I can safely say that I've never been on a set with stolen cameras.

Oh wow, that's very interesting. When I think of PVC I usually think of that semi-flexible (though not very) plastic pipe in homes built during the 1970s. lol, I remember laying dolly track, and the lightest I every laid was chorme stainless steel, which though lighter than the old iron stuff, still had some weight to it. How can you get a smooth shot with PVC though? That stuff is light. I would think it would magnify every camera bump.

I've never heard of PVC being used for dolly track. p.s. formatting is working again for my PC :)

I caught this a few moments ago abut Kodak's decline via NY Times' YouTube channel.

It's a style used in the late 60s and throughout the 70s.

Thanks. I have one from another kit, but, well....thanks for the reply.

The pocket cinema. I've looked around on sites, but all I see is "EOS", but it doesn't say if that's with an adaptor or not.

Does the BM require an EOS adaptor, or is it already geared for EOS lenses?

Test post.

Hmm, I guess not.

Very cool response. Growing up watching those films I was always impressed the way the images were composited together, and how they seemed to avoid matte lines and that white splatter when the composite was a bit off. Amazing. Thanks very much for the reply, and I didn't check Wiki first because there's always some error in the articles somewhere. Many thanks, again.