Benjamin G

That's refreshing to hear from an actual member of the academy. It often times looks from a spectators point of view, like that isn't the case. Perhaps it boils down to the different demographics of the members and the audience. I actually think its less flawed the way it is now. This way, at least the deserving films (mostly) get nominated. Which is almost as big of an honor, as its your peers who nominate you. The last thing we want is the best picture race to be between Twilight and Clash of the Titans. I watch them more as a celebration of the film industry than as an awards show anyways. It's very rare that my favorite film wins best picture, because there's usually a big difference between what's the most entertaining and what's technically excellent.

In the US it all boils down to advertising. They use the Nielsen rating system to track how many people (in the small group of Nielsen members) watch the show, then take that number and extrapolate the nationwide number of viewers. If they don't have enough viewers the show gets pulled, doesn't matter how many copies they sell on DVD it's all about live viewership. The system is so flawed it's crazy. Take a show like Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles for example. It was hugely popular amongst late teens, early twenties males. But they put it on Friday nights when everybody goes out, so they all PVR it. Which doesn't count as a view because it's assumed you will fast forward the commercials. So then advertisers pay less and the show gets pulled. Now that was a few years ago and I don't know if they've changed the rules about PVR and I don't know what affect things like iTunes sales have had on the TV industry. So it may be a little different now, but the majority of the revenue is still from advertising and DVD and online sales aren't enough to keep a show on the air.

Politics has a huge part to play when it comes to the "Big 5" awards. Take last year for example, if Tom Hooper wins best director now we can put that title on everything he ever makes. Making him marketable without any prior exposure. The Coens already have that title and a following, David Fincher already has a following and people go to see his movies because they know his other films. I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened last year but if you look through the history of the awards you will definitely find a handful of examples of that. As well as awards given because they were overdue, even if they weren't the best performance/direction of their careers. Martin Scorsese, Paul Newman, Kate Winslet are a few off the top of my head. I don't think those factors come into play nearly as much in the technical awards though so I don't think that's the case with this one. I think it's more about the 'obvious' cinematography as Georg said. As well as the fact that with Martin Scorsese they created the first live action movie truly shot and LIT for 3D. Most 3D movies to date have been shot and lit like any other 2D movie, the cinematography in this was specifically for 3D, it was new territory. In that area I thought it was more impressive than Tree of Life, and I'm sure a lot of Academy Members had the 3D aspect in their minds as well wether they should have or not. We've all seen pretty pictures in 2D but rarely have we actually seen 3D look good.

I watched them. I generally watch them every year because I feel like they are a big part of our industry. That being said, I think as awards they are less relevant almost every year. The Golden Globes are much more relevant (as an award) nowadays in my opinion. Their inclusion of comedy and being at the beginning of the award season are a couple of reasons. I find that by the time the oscars are here you know who's going to win the "big 5" awards based on the other award shows. Most of the technical awards at the oscars are usually still pretty accurate I find. I will continue to watch the Academy Awards though. More as a show, and a celebration of the film industry than an award ceremony. I do agree it was nice to see more Character driven stories at the forefront. I wish they didn't have to be "smaller films" to be character driven though, I don't know why Hollywood has such a hard time making blockbusters with a decent story.

Thanks for the replies. I had forgotten about the effect of sensor size on depth of field. I've been using a 35mm adaptor for so long I forgot how huge a difference it was without it. For this feature I will be shooting with Epic's most likely, unless I can get my hands on a pair of Alexa's. I agree about not wanting to shoot the whole thing with wide lenses, and that's why I'm curious about what other factors can be used so I'm not stuck with a limited lens selection. Compositing is definitely something I will need to do for a few of the shots in the script but I'm hoping to avoid it when possible since it will be harder to cheat perspectives in 3D. If I were fo use lenses like the Cooke Panchro/i which are relatively slow at T2.8 and stopped them down 3-4 to get the best out of the lens (and add deeper depth) would you think that would give me a good start at what I'm looking for? Keeping in mind, the script all takes place in one house so the greatest distance would probably be 50 feet. As for the comment on increased contrast could you explain that a little more? I was always under the impression that blacker blacks and whiter whites were a good thing. Or do you mean it lessens the dynamic range in a sense?

I'm prepping to shoot an indie feature in 3D. Produce and Direct actually, I am hiring a cinematographer for this one. I don't like shallow depth of field in 3D, I find the unfocused areas are much harder to look at if they do catch your attention. So I'm trying to take a page from the book of Greg Toland, and shoot it like he shot Citizen Kane. With pretty much everything in focus and use composition to focus the audiences eye. Now I understand the basics of depth of field and the circle of confusion. I understand that longer lenses have shallower depth of field than wide lenses. That the aperture being open leads to a more shallow depth of field, and that the opposite is true for a greater depth of field. What other things make a big difference to depth of field? I remember reading in a cinematography book at some point that a lens is at it's sharpest when shooting at around an aperture of 4. Is this true? If so. what techniques could be used to give greater depth of field with the aperture relatively low like that? I know Greg Toland experimented with many lenses and also coatings on lenses to achieve the look he got. Is there a specific set of lenses that is best for deep focus? Any answers to those questions would be great, as would any other thoughts you have on the topic.

Still have everything for sale, open to offers.

I'm selling off my whole camera package including tripod. I am willing to split it up but would much prefer to sell it as a package. JVC GY-HD100 camera package - $3,250 - JVC GY-HD100 camera and stock lens w/Anton Bauer adaptor - 2 Anton Bauer dionic batteries (one Dionic 90 and a brand new Dionic HC) - Anton Bauer MultiTap - Focus Enhancements MR-HD100 DTE w/5 year SageMax warranty (covers everything INCLUDING damage from mishandling) - Pelican Case 1600 (yellow) P+S Technik Mini35c - $3,250 - P+S Technik Mini35c lens adaptor for JVC cameras (fits newest models) - Nikon Lens mount - PL Lens mount - Nanuk Case 915 (yellow) Tripod - $1,500 - Miller Solo VJ Legs (http://www.millertripods.com/product_details.html?camera_brand=&camera_model=&type=2&system=&application=&series=&id=188&back_url=%2Fproduct-type%2Ftripods) - Cartoni Focus Head (http://www.cartoni.com/eng/focus.html) $7,500 for everything For pictures go to: http://s1123.photobucket.com/albums/l557/Omniflic/Camera/ Password: camera Any questions at all, please feel free to ask Benjamin@omniflic.com

Capturing JVC HDV tapes to Final Cut has always been a problem for me. Instead I use DVHSCAP to record it as an .m2t and convert it with MPEGStreamclip (or clipwrap if you have it). That has been the most efficient and reliable method I've found. You can download DVHSCAP here: https://developer.apple.com/downloads/download.action?path=FireWire/firewire_sdk_26_for_mac_os_x_20416/firewiresdk26.dmg I think you have to register as a Apple Developer first but I believe it's free and quick. I do believe you will lose the TC though, so it may not be much help to you.

That's great information, thank you. I know there is no for sure way of quantifying the extra amount of time it takes so I was just looking for experiences/opinions. Which is what you gave me, so thanks again. For this coming project we would be using RED epics. So handheld would be out of the question, but I generally don't like handheld and prefer dollies anyways. You say you finished on schedule, I'm assuming the schedule was created with the extra time for 3D in mind? If so, do you have any idea how many days were added on?

I'm considering shooting an upcoming feature in 3D. But the schedule is tight and I'm trying to figure out roughly how much time is added on set when shooting in 3D? I think anything more than a 10% increase in time (on set) is a deal breaker for me at this point. Post production time is not a concern. Any information from someone experienced in shooting this format would be hugely appreciated. Thanks in advance

EL wire would open up a lot of possibilities. I'm going to have to get my pool balls (and table) out of storage and do some tests. Thanks for the info

I had noticed it in still lenses as well as I recently got a 35mm adaptor with a Nikon Mount (and a PL mount). This is what actually led to me noticing the big difference as I was comparing cine lenses and still lenses as well as lenses from smaller formats. What is the title of that book on lens design? I would like (to try) and read it and see if I can get a better understanding of why things are the way they are. Thanks

Thanks for the info. I already understood about the short focus ring and the inaccurate marks and whatnot. I guess I was more wondering about the specifics of the Mechanics and build quality rather than general differences. Like why cine lenses match color transmission and stills don't is it the way the glass is smoothed or coated. . .etc. I guess I should probably read a book on lenses and how they are made to really understand it. And thanks for clearing up the widescreen thing for me. I thought it sounded a little strange.

I've noticed that the smaller the format the faster the zooms are. For example the Fujinon 5.5-88mm that came with my 1/3" camera is a T1.4. I've seen 16mm Angenieux zooms under T2. Yet when you get to 35mm T2 is about as fast as you can get for a zoom. Is it just because more glass is needed to cover the sensor and more glass equals more light loss? Or is there something more to it than that?