George Ebersole

Hi, I'm trying to find a local group of San Francisco Bay Area filmmakers who could use an extra hand on independent projects. I'm talking anything; specifically am looking to lend a hand on a local low budget stuff. Shoot me a PM.

Totally true. They were the Rolls Royce of film cameras, but unless you were shooting really high end stock with special lenses, I never noticed too much of a difference between them and Moviecam or Arri. Oh sure, the high end and high priced DPs used Panaflex equipment, but to me there's a reason well shot indys used Arris. Most of the local stuff was shot using Arris (maybe even the same BL III package too). Even when the cameras were available through the local Cine Rent West rental hour, most of the locals used Arris. San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities to live in in the first place; using LA pricing for the Bay Area made sure that Panaflex cameras wouldn't be readily available. Well, that was over 10 years ago, so maybe things have changed.

I quit going to the movies for a while because of people talking in the theatre. It still happens on occasion, but movie going is a slightly better experience than the 90's. I used to look forward to going to the theatre, but both films and audience seemed to get progressively worse. I finally gave up, but went back on occasion. Films are a little better now, and film depending, audiences seem to be adult again. Now, on the other hand, there's nothing like watching a good film on TV, either with family, friends, or occasionally alone. A good movie is a good movie, and I'll go see it wherever if it's good enough.

I just came across a 3D like demonstration on Youtbe. Here's the link; The report starts at 1:12

Quite true. Psychosis is a totally different animal. But "mental illness" has the whole stigma of Norman Bates and Jason from Halloween attached to it, regardless of the flavor. They're actually quite normal folks, but let's face it, we of all people should know better how movies influence people's perceptions of the world. Oh well. Maybe now I can get more goddamn responses to my posts.

Who is Andrew Koenig? Well, he was the son of Walter Koenig, the guy who played Chekov on that Star Trek show, and had a number of editing and producing credits to his name, including working on a number of TV shows and feature films. Apparently this guy suffered from depression, and, for whatever reason, sold his possessions, left his home in Venice Beach, LA county, and went up to Vancouver where he took his own life. I'm a has been. My dreams are over as far as working in film, but I still like to stay "connected" with what's going on in the industry, so to speak. If today I had a fraction of what this guy had going for him I'd like to think I'd stick around and keep plugging away until I finally got the recognition I worked so hard for. I just don't get it. I used to meet people who suffered from depression on the set all the time. Smart actors, moody directors or art directors and the such. They were doing it. Sure, they were working on industrials and commercials, but they were filming stuff. And this guy actually worked on stuff he wanted to, and still takes his own life. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Are any of you people scared of the Andrew Koenigs out there? Have you met any that you know of?

I don't think it'll change all that much. And like the other guy said, for all of Avatar's impressive 3D technique it doesn't seem to be as relevant as when sound or color were added to film.

The closeups of the hands and toes are interesting. And that final shot looks pretty dynamic.

What shoot needs two best boys?

The only downside I saw by people buying their own equipment was the tendency for them to get pigeon holed into a niche they didn't want. The guy who buys a lowel kit just to have some extra lights, but then winds up buying some Mole Richardson lights, then some Arris, then some C-stands and what not until he's got a fully loaded grip truck, when what he wanted to be was be an AD or something. I think the only time you should buy equipment is if you intend to use it a lot.

Thanks. When I used to work a lot I'd always scratch my head on how fluid the setups were at times. I always understood that the DP and gaffer (or lighting director) got together a few nights before a shoot, and came up with a basic lighting plan. But then on the set, after all the lights are basically setup, the director would have his thoughts, the gaffer would tweak something (a gel, a highlight, a backlight... whatever), and then the DP would also have his thoughts. It seemed pretty chaotic to me. I never saw a floorplan of a stage with the set drawn in and lighting setup. And the director would usually just have a few pages of sides. When I shot my projects (low budget stuff), it was pretty much done on the fly. I knew what pages I wanted to get on tape, had a competent cameraman, and we were always able to get the shots I wanted, but I always felt like I was missing a step or plan of action. That's why I posted this topic. The whole reason I went to film school was to train on how to pursue my dreams in media, and so I focused on the writing and "show-concept" aspect, knowing I was getting on the job training at all the studios and production companies I worked for. Thinking out loud here... I guess what I'm hearing is that it depends on the size and complexity of the project.

Thanks Keneu I've been trying to save up for a cheap HD camera. But maybe I'll splurge on a 16mm of somekind (heh, they said they were phasing out the format 20 years ago... well, here we are 20 years later...). ;)

I guess one of the bits of advice I've heard is that if you want to be a good director, then you have to be a good writer. Still, I should've dusted off my own still photography background and learned more about loading an Eclair or BLIII. Thanks.

I guess I'm the only writer on these boards?

Are any of you DPs here directors who write their own scripts? Do you find it easier to shoot your own stuff, or someone else's? The reason I ask is because I skipped taking 16mm cinematography courses in university, thinking I would eventually learn camera ops on the side while I honed my writing skills, because I wanted to shoot my scripts. Now I'm not so sure that was a good move. Thoughts?

I think you have to join the service to become one. Specifically infantry.

Thanks, that's what I was hoping for. I need to buy as opposed to renting a package, because my schedule is pretty tight these days. I need something that I can keep with me in my car or pick up at home that'll give respectable image quality. I like the Canon's because of the EOS lens assortment. Thanks again.

Cheap as you an get without dipping into SD consumer cameras.

Home expenses are pretty high these days, but I still need to shoot something. Can anyone recommend a good cheap prosumer camera? Thanks.

Oh dear, did I shut down another topic? :)

When I used to do casting we always looked for proper amounts of energy and performance. It doesn't matter whether it's a speaking part or not. If your talent can show the right gestures convincingly, then you're more than half way there.

What, no more responses?

I went in with a blank slate, not really expecting anything from it. But, what I saw was a conglomeration of borrowed sci-fi and borrowed story material. Still, I enjoyed it as a film, but it seemed long, and it didn't seem "organic" as such. It seemed to include a lot of marketing strategy, and not so much one man's vision of a story he loves.

For me, my criticisms of the film weren't really with the film itself so much as all of the borrowing that had been done from other films to make this film. But even that wasn't so bad considering it was Cameron borrowing from himself (mostly anyway). My other real beef with the film happens to be with how the film's marketing scheme was integrated into the film itself. As another friend of mine on another BBS said, it seemed like a group-think product from a marketing team.

Not a big deal, Karl. I should've been clearer. All the SFX stuff I worked on in my 20s was all miniatures, and I have to say that I never saw anything that I worked on that looked "real", though they looked convincing for what the message of the image was. The hokiest thing I ever worked on was an industrial for some network technology firm (circa 1990 I think), where they had a volcano rising out of the ocean, representing their mini-mainframe connecting a bunch of 486 and 386s. Not the dumbest shoot I ever worked on, but one of the most headache inducing (the SFX artist I was working for kept blowing his stack at me because he didn't like the gig). The volcano didn't look "real" as such, but looked "professional". It didn't look like some paper-mache thing a kid made for the school science fair, but it didn't look real either. I think a lot of SFX fall into that category, and CGI has the advantage that processor technology keeps progressing. But like Karl said, the tool's only as good as the person using it, and even then it has limits. On the upside, I really like that museum piece. To me that's smart artistic use of CGI.