George Ebersole

When someone passes away it take a while for friends and family to pick up the pieces. Losing a close loved one is absolutely no fun. I'd be careful about the phone call. Maybe call to express your condolences. Just as a matter of course here, since his wife posted here, she's probably read your thread.

Nice details on the actors' skin.

Doh, my bad. I dunno... I'm not really anti-3D, in spite of my postings on other topics, but I just don't see the advantage of 3D films. I'd just assume watch a flick without having to don some glasses. But, I'm an older guy, and maybe the younger dudes and dudettes out there are craving this stuff.

The first 3D broadcast that I know of happened here in the San Francisco Bay Area from the now WB affiliate KOFY TV20. They had a big promo about it their broadcast in the 80s (81? 83?), and were passing out 3D glasses at 7-11's, some gas stations, and other places. The film they showed was an old 1950s "monster" film about a man eating albino gorilla. I can't remember the title (which is probably a blessing).

18 frames, thanks for the correction. It's one of the first things we learned in film school back in the 80s, because everyone wanted to shoot with sound. Yeah, I think it'd be a whole lot easier just to digitize the footage and use FCP. You'd still have the look of Super-8 footage, but far more control over everything you wanted to do. I think I shot maybe one... possibly two cartridges worth of sound footage, but I can't remember for the life of me whatever became of it. It was raw stock, and because of the 18 frame thing not really usable in any way. Super-8 cameras that shoot sound (I had one) are noisy when it comes to recording sound. So you're almost better off spending the extra money on a guy with a Nagra or something, and lay down your track later in post. Like Mark said, use a clapper slate.

The last Super-8 project I ever did was my own student film. I simply took it to a telecine, then edited the thing on 1/2" VHS. Super-8 sound isn't that good, and I think it's 8-frames before or after the image, making traditional editing a pain in the backside. Just my two bits.

I just don't see 3D as being interesting. If I want true 3D, then I'll go to a stage play. I mean, oil paintings aren't "three dimensional", yet they get their point across. I think the same goes for movies. The true 3D experience, if you want to call it that, I think belongs to the realm of computer games. There the whole point is to immerse yourself in an artificial environment. That verse a film where a story is being told via a presented environment. The story draws you into the world, verse the computer game where it's all about the environment and how you can interact with it. Trying to add a third dimension to films, to me at least, is an interesting exercise, but unless it looks natural and adds something to the film going experience, I don't think it's a real necessity.

The local nut-case is going to chime in here (and I'll probably stop the thread cold, and no one will reply, but it ain't a big deal, because I paid my dues, and am going to vent a minor spleen); To me the 2D image on screen already is a 3D image. Adding a third dimension to the image so it looks more three dimensional may have some minor artistic merit, but until it looks natural, to my eyes and mind at least, it's just a gimmick--and a poor one at that. I already talked about how I saw Captain-EO when it first showed down at Disneyland, and how disappointed I was when I saw Avatar because the technology hadn't evolved. I still think that. Captain EO was a "wow" moment in cinema history, because it looked passable enough to be an actual 3D image projected onto a flat screen. Previous images had that red and green thing going on, and weren't all that convincing in terms of realism. Captain EO promised a breakthrough, but it never came. 20 years later we still have the same technology and image quality. It looks cool every so often, but so does a children's pop-up book, or an illustrated version of a classic novel. Once, if ever, the 3D looks natural and doesn't draw attention to itself, then it'll be worth using. Again, I told this story elsewhere, but I'll rehash it. Back between 1980 and 1984 there were a couple of guys down in the San Jose area (Silicon valley for you non Bay Area types) who came up with a 3D system for television that they developed in their garage. The concept was different: Instead of having the image come at your (giving the image added volume and dimension), the idea was to make your television look like a window. So in essence you were seeing a really cool 3D diorama, only shot on video. Wish I could track down that news piece. Oh well, 90%+ of you people think I'm a basket case anyway. No biggie. Just thought I'd share.

There's an over the shoulder lock down in "The Never Ending Story" where the kid is talking to the two Sphinxes. The composition and lighting with a starfield background, to me, is very magical. There's a shot of two planes in "The High Road to China" whizzing by the camera as they fly over a waterfall late in Act II as the characters fly to Nepal/China. Another airplane shot is the famous one in Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun" where the boy imagines an American P-51 Mustang pilot waving to him with his canopy open. The thing that gets me about that shot is that it's the actual pilot smiling and waving as he flies by (perilously close I'll add). No matte work whatsoever. Another film, "Dragonslayer" is full of great shots. Some good long shots, and some solid composite work with the dragon. Whoever shot that really captured Ireland's natural beauty and worked it into the film.

Thanks for the responses, guys. I was just curious because I didn't understand what it could mean.

Interesting, what kind of camera did you guys use on this shoot?

Hi, I haven't gotten answer to this yet, so I'll ask here. What does the "Reputation" thing on a person's profile represent? Popularity? Overall opinion on how good your work or knowledge is? I'm just curious.

Yeah, as long as you're not all over the place, and the audience has their bearings, you're okay. More of a guideline than a rule.

Did anybody here work on the latest Robin Hood film? Can you tell us what it was shot in?

Yeah, $1200/day seemed a bit steep. Still, with all the financial fires I've been putting out these last couple of years, it'll be a while before I can afford anyone's camera package.

An interesting upgrade. What is the "reputation" thing on a person's profile? How does it work?

Hi Brian Well, my position is that if a film has enough reliable talent on it, then the backers, whoever they are, will flip the bill regardless of where they shoot. If the talent doesn't have a track record, then the money people will cut corners where they can. I think your reasoning is going a bit far afield, but I can see your perspective. However, I think things are just a bit simpler.

I think the flipside is that if your company is more focused on market analysis, then you could wind up in the same boat as the production company that hired the "bean counters". The whole reason films are a chancy investment is because you're banking on someone's reliability to be a creative genius. When that doesn't succeed you hire marketers to do test market screenings, and have audiences fill out questionnaires to see what they liked and what they didn't like. What you wind up with is a lot of crap that's allegedly focused on target audiences, but which ultimately fails on all levels; ticket sales most notably, but also expected sales and general appreciation. One of the classic examples is a film that came out 7 years ago; "Legally Blonde 2". It had a bankable actress, was test marketed to to no end to target audiences, young girls (pre-teen to mid 20s), was given a huge budget, and, from all sound business sense, should have made more on its investment. The problem was that for all the money dumped into safety valves to see that the film wouldn't fail, it bombed anyway. It eventually recouped its cost, but you never saw nor heard talk of a "Legally Blonde 3". For argument's sake, say you were a studio exec placed in charge of making an LB3. How would you do it? Well, you'd probably cut the budget. This means ditching Reese Witherspoon in favor of some other actress, tell the writers to make this new girl Reese's cousin or something, then shoot it in Bangkok, South Africa, or someplace really cheap to cut costs. It's the safe thing to do, because the "Legally Blonde" franchise is seen as bankable, but only marginally. That is it's enough of an investment to make another Legally Blonde movie, but the expected return dictates that it be a film done on the cheap. Now, to confuse things even more, what if you put some first time director on the project who turns out to be very gifted and talented? And say LB3 turns out to be a huge success with this new director at the helm. What to do? Why, you go ahead and make another LB movie (Legally Blonde 4; milking a franchise), but yank that director off the film and put him on bigger budgeted projects, and put some other B-grade director on the new film. It's the financially safe thing to do, and studios are businesses like everything else. From a sole proprietorship perspective, the smart thing to do would be to throw that director back onto another LB sequel, give him a slightly bigger budget, then move him onto an entirely different project. But, the key here is to keep investing in what's good and what works. I could go on with this stuff, but I'll stop here. Needless to say from the money-people's standpoint it's all about the dollar. From the creative peoples' standpoint, it's all about making the product the best they can. The trick is to make sure you got the talent so that both aspects either even themselves out or synergize to make something good.

Yeah, that's what I used to do when I had lots of financial support and free time. That may happen again pretty soon, but right now I'm just looking to get some tech courses in. That way when I do become a pain in the backside, I'll at least look and sound like I know what I'm talking about (in terms of camera ops). Right now I have a lot of support and artistic knowledge, but little tech training.

Well, yesterday I took a tour of the Art Institute up in San Francisco, where apparently they train their students on RED and Panasonic (not Panavision) cameras. $22grand a year seems a bit pricey to me. I think a couple of weekends down in LA, maybe some BAVC classes should help spruce up my resume, though certainly not certify it. Thanks all.

Thanks Hal. A good portion of my younger days was spent making movies with my friends. That and writing. I'm not sure how far that's going to push me forward, but it's nice to think that my own version of tinkering will get me somewhere someday. Finding an opening isn't the problem. It's getting myself more qualified to get hired by anyone that's holding me back. It seems like the guys who run deck or man whatever camera is used are the ones who are most gainfully employed. I know that's not always true, but that's how it appears to me.

Thanks Liam. I really didn't want to quit, but there was a lot going on at the time, so I had to apply the breaks. I don't need to work on big name features or whatever. I just liked the work and the atmosphere. Having said that, I'm not sure I'm going to buy a pop-psychology book. But thanks for the thought. Rob; I may just do that. Anyone else?

Thanks Sam. I actually went through SF State's program when Dean Coppola was in charge. My work history involves joining an internship program circa 1988, training as a stage manager, grip & dolly-grip, PA, AD and some producing and casting. I painted sets, sanded stages, dished out orders, delegated authority, but I never learned to load a BL or Panaflex magazine. I've done some work with 16mm cameras, but I've never touched a digital movie camera in my life. I'm thinking enrolling in SONY's training center to get certified on their F35 is one way to go. If I can get a week or weekend off I can hopefully get one of those crash courses on a RED or a SI2k or one of the other bad boys on the block. I'm just so goddamn tired of sitting on my backside and having to put out financial fires... it's frustrating.

For what it's worth, I did go to film school, but pulled the plug on my career mid 90s for a number of reasons. I avoided the tech training thinking and hoping I would get a chance to learn camera ops on set, or inbetween shoots from someone I knew. I was too busy at the time, and had a number of other things going on at the time. I still want back in. I enjoyed the work (regardless of the stress and ulcers it sometimes gave me), and really want to cap off my resume with some formal or good informal training. Anyone else? p.s. I'll shoot my transcript to one of the big four.

Thanks for the honesty. Back in my hey day I was perpetually on sets, and figured that at some point I'd get some technical training on the various gadgets and gizmos that separate an Arri BLIII and Moviecam from my old Nikon Super-8 or GE Home VHS (80s technology). Truth is I wanted to make myself more marketable. I've got tons of on set experience, and tons of support training. Heck, I remember spending all night in editing suites making dupes, or reorganizing prop and grip rooms. But it was all contract work. Nothing steady. I liked the energy. I liked the freedom. I liked working in media. It didn't have to be a feature film. It could be a photo shoot for a slide show presentation. Some industrial. Anything. Anyone else?