George Ebersole

I hate to sound negative, but this is like the umpteenth post I've put up here with few serious replies. No offense meant to you guys, Liam and Adrian. I'm wondering if I should blow thousands of dollars by going back to school, or investing a few thousand into one of SONY's programs to get certified on their stuff. Is the Art Academy a good choice? Should I send my transcript down to USC or UCLA and try to get into their grad programs? Locally in the Bay Area we have BAVC, the SF Art Institute, State, SF City College, and a few other places. I've got lots of support training, some hands on camera ops experience, but no formal tech training. I can't load a mag on either an Arri or a Panaflex. I can thread a projector, but not a camera (is there a diffrerence?). I used to do 35mm still photography years back, does that help? I've laid dolly track, pushed various Chapmans and Fishers, and assembled and torn apart cranes. Hell, I've even sat on a dolly and looked through the eyepiece. But, not to repeat myself too much, I've never pulled the trigger or pressed the button and shot anything on 35mm. The closest I've done is BETACAM and home 1/2" VT. I'm really lost here, and would really like any real world advice anyone can give. Am I pursuing a pipe dream? Am I wasting my time?

I think most of the sustaining members here got their training at one of three places; USC, UCLA, or NYU. Did anyone else get their training elsewhere? If so, where did you go? Thanks.

Okay, this is a newbie-ish question, which I asked on the RED board, but got no response. How many of you DPs actually do the tech and physical maintenance on the cameras you use. Are you interested in the inner mechanism of whatever it is you're using to shoot your stuff, or are you strictly a "the camera is my tool" kind of guy? I'm just kind of curious.

Wow, amazing stuff. To answer your question, not much to nil experience, other than holding and playing with one at either Fry's or one of the local photographic rental houses. It's the camera I've had my eye on for some time, and the camera I wanted to use to create a small demo reel of some shorts I wanted to shoot. Years back I had the forerunner, the Canon L1, which was also an amazing camera (for the time). But, it couldn't capture anything like what's posted on your link.

Thanks. As you can tell I've been out of the loop for many years, and need to do some catching up. One question I do have; are DPs responsible for the working mechanics and electronics of a camera, or are you guys strictly concerned with capturing the image and knowing the tools that can get you the best shot?

Is that true for all digital cameras?

Thanks all. I've done camera ops before. Read that as handling an Ikegami, Sony and a few others, and where I've touched and worked around various Arriflexes and Panavision cameras, I've absolutely no formal technical training. The RED seemed pretty popular, so I figured I'd go check out what classes, if any, were offered. Thanks again for the replies.

I emailed the RED guys about formal training classes, and the reply I got was that they didn't offer any, but did give informal seminars, and could provide a list of people who offered some kind of hands on training. Does anyone here know of any official or formal RED classes?

I saw "Full Metal Jacket" in the theatre, and it was matted. The DVD shows the full unmatted frame. It is a bit different. Kubrick framed for the widescreen with that film, or so it seemed. I'm not too sure about the others.

I was afraid of the 3D thing, so I went and saw the standard version. I'm watching the original now, and I have to admit that it's got more character depth and character charm than the remake. But a couple of those effects shots still make me cringe a little. EDIT; I dunno, I still like the remake a bit better.

Wow, lots of pent up hostility here :) Okay, I admit it, I saw the original a couple of times in the theatre with my then best friend, who absolutely LOVED the original "Clash". Me? I was luke warm to it. I loved Harryhausen's stuff growing up, but at the tim I thought effects technology had evolved enough to add more magic to Harryhausen's touch. But, when the film rolled all I saw as the same stop motion that had been used since "King Kong" (the first one). As a kid I thought it was okay. I'm actually wondering what you all think of the cinematic aspects of the thing. Visually the film seemed pretty dark to me, and I'm wondering if that was a stylistic choice or if there was some weird technical thing happening here. Thanks for the input :)

Heh, I meant the remake that's in the theatres. Thanks for the reply.

I went and saw "Clash of the Titans" last night. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this film?

Thanks Keneu. Yeah, using the common sense approach works best :)

Thanks Adrian.

Nobody, huh? I've got nearly 40 people looking at this thread, and not one of you has ever tossed a script to a director? Interesting.

I have an acquaintance on another website whose written a fairly outstanding period piece. I contacted a director I used to work for many years back and asked if would like to read it. He said yes, thank goodness. Has anyone here had similar opportunities, and if so, how did you go about introducing the work you found to capable hands? I ask because I feel I got lucky this time around, and am wondering what the usual procedure is for this kind of thing.

Very cool. Can't wait.

Oh dear, did I shut down another thread?

I think it's the "hot topic" icon.

Pretty impressive.

Thanks Satsuki I used to crew, but always shot for the writer/producer end of things. I figured I'd combine the two together at some point. Thanks for the tips. Will certainly look into your suggestions.

Totally agree. Whenever I've seen a Tim Burton film I'm always left with a sense of "huh... uhh ... neat". That's not to say the film is bad, but to me his films are like what Lewis Carrol is (was) to literature. He's existential, but maybe doesn't realize it. Tim Burton IS the Lewis Carrol of commercial films. Just my take. Pretty much. But even then the market gets divied up a little bit more, like what age group are you focusing on, what ethnicity and region. It's the whole key to successful commercial film making.

Does anyone here belong to this group? Thoughts? Good? Bad? Waste of time? Bunch of wannabes? http://www.meetup.com/BayAreaFilmandTVConnection/

I'm not convinced. I actually read that essay some time ago, and the thing that hit me was narrative structure in interactive story telling. I used to be really into computer games, and the one thing that movies and games provide is a visual experience. Beyond that their approaches of tapping into someone's emotions to get a reaction are polar opposites. Just my two bits.