Benson Marks

You have to take all trailers with a grain of salt: They're basically all bulls***.

 

I'm kind of a Trekkie, but a bizarre one--since I thought Deep Space Nine was the best of the TV series.

 

But I love the fact that Shatner has been going around complaining that he wasn't cast in this film. The guy really has no concept that it's almost 2009, and his long history with the franchise has nothing to do with the continuing FUTURE of it.

I'm kind of a Trekkie, but a bizarre one too. However, I thought The Next Generation was the best.

Actually, I'm not very excited for this Star Trek movie. I don't really like stuff from J.J. Abrams and hearing him working on this makes me worried. But then again, that's just my feelings.

Ira, you're right on with the trailers. They don't mean a thing. I was excited over Prince Caspian after seeing that trailer, look how much of a dud that movie turned out to be.

Found this about a local Regal theatre. http://www.adn.com/arts/story/592848.html

 

Hopefully Regal continues this trend, because I hate paying nearly $10 a ticket to go see a movie.

 

Think about it, growing up I got to see maybe 2 movies a year in the theatre because I was part of a family of five, that's almost $45 in tickets alone, much less snacks. This is great for families, and the theatre isn't out any due to concession sales.

Yeah, I hope so too. I live in a family of 7 which costs us $70.00 for all tickets! You bet I would love to see those prices come down too.

I'm quite well versed in the US constitution, I ask Americans all the time, "What year was your constitution signed?" So far 100% have all answered 1776. Wrong.

 

Quick Americans....do you know the year without a Google search? ;)

 

R,

Most Americans have short memories and have too much on their schedules to know what year the Constitution was signed. The average American Joe usually wakes up, takes a shower, has his breakfast, kisses his wife goodbye on his way to work, works all morning, takes a lunch break, works all afternoon, goes home, has dinner with his family, watches the news, gets ready for tomorrow and goes to bed, and the process goes all over again.

An awful lot of Americans are just too busy to read the Constitution, let alone know what year it was signed. Indeed, it's a sad story but that's the way most Americans are. It's not like they'll know what year the Constitution was signed immediately when they're asked about it, so they're more likely to say 1776, which is the year America declared its independence.

I am probably one of the few people who have such a good memory, but even then, I have a hard time remembering that the constitution was signed in 1787. That's because we have a bad education system over here. One reason is because the kids don't need to learn from it, They just have to remember it for the next few days for that big test and then they can forget about it completely. Another reason is because it's a chore to pay attention without falling asleep.

A sad situation indeed. :(

"BTW, is the Second Amendment actually part of the US Constitution or is part of the Bill Or rights? Is the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution the same thing? Dunno? Just asking."

The Second Amendment is part of the US Constitution and the US Constitution is part of the Bill Of Rights.

"You mean YOUR constitution, not mine."

Of course not. David and I live down here in the USA, the thing at the bottom of your post says you live or work in Ontario, Canada. In other words, yeah, it isn't your constitution.

"Yes I see cameras not guns, so why does the quote beside it refer to "arms"?"

For your information, that quote you're referring to IS the second amendment. David's just using it as a comparison of what he likes to do.

If your concentration will be as a Writer/Director and not Producer, I'd suggest that you don't worry too much about the media that will be used to acquire the images. As a Writer, your goal is to create the best story possible. As a Director, it's your job to bring that story to life by "directing" the talents and skills of those around you. And that includes the Cameraman who will be the one, along with his Operators and Assistants, who will have to deal with all of that on set... and the Editors and others in Post-Production who will be handling the shot footage.

 

So, with that in mind, it sounds like you're already selling yourself short before you get started by assuming that the movies you make will not be worthy or good enough to attract a higher budget that can pay for a film-acquisition shoot. Particularly if you want your movies to make it to the "big screen," which I assume you to mean you want as wide of distribution as possible. Who wouldn't want that! :) So, go write the best stories you possibly can that will attract the money and the talent that will propel the project from being a "low budget indie" that just a few people see to becoming a full-scale feature that everyone will be talking about afterwards.

 

Sounds lofty? Sure, but if you aim for the middle, you'll likely always hit it. But if you never aim for the top, you'll never get there.

I couldn't agree more with all this. I once heard that Akira Kurosawa said "a first-rate script can be great even in the hands of a third-rate director, but a third-rate script can never be great even in the hands of a first-rate director." But, in my opinion, having both a first-rate script and a first-rate director can produce wonders! Indeed, putting your best foot forward is very important and crucial to whether you'll make it into this business or not.

Thanks, Andrew! I'll keep this stuff in mind when I get working in the business.

Anybody else have some advice for me too?

The Wizard of Oz will be released in Blu-Ray in 2009 for the 70th anniversarry edition. I thought the Wizrd of Oz was phony because they should have used a real steam powered robot.

But there weren't any steam powered robots back then! In fact, they didn't have any robots at all! :lol:

As for the rest of your post, I agree. Filmmaking is definitely a business, you need money, and yes, you should (at least) rent stuff for your first feature.

By the way, how much do those training DVDs cost? I couldn't find the price for any of them.

Digital projected cinema is not taking off as predicted, due to the high cost and short life of the equipment when compared to film projectors. And for a real dose of reality, technological advances happen in surges... as was the digital video surge of the past few years. With the world economy going down the tubes, I think we will be noticing the tech advances in digital leveling off for some time :P I saw a film in theater the other night shot on HD and digitally projected, it looked like stir fried crap. Super 16mm would have looked much more appealing.

It may not be taking off as predicted, but this might be a sign that digital will take over in the future:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10055919-52.html

Start Saving now! lol. You're going to need CASH, and lots of it. At first rent everything you need, so long as there is a budget for that project; And slowly build up a cache of equipment. Soon enough, you'll be able to produce an entire film on only having to pay for Actors, Crew, Sets, Food and Accomadations. Saves you alot if you don't need to rent or purchase equipment per particular project. First project rent (or if you own) a MiniDV camera (unless the rental price is more expensive then the purchase price; Long enough project it could happen.). And remeber it's a business, so if you want investors you'll need a track record so they know you'll get them their money (and some).

 

Personally, I'd have to say the Digital Cinema Training DVD series is a great buy.

http://digitalcinematraining.com/

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that sounds more reasonable if you're a film producer. I said I was going for a career in writing and directing. Then again, maybe I'm interpreting your post incorrectly.

I am planning to be a writer and director and will probably shoot most of my films digitally. The main reason for digital is because most of my films are probably going to be independent or low-budget films. What advice would you give to this kind of person?

Oh, and yes, I do want my movies to make it to the big screen.

Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

I don't know if this is a first for cable TV, but impresses the hell out of me! They didn't even stretch it!

 

Hurry up and you can see the transition from B&W into color. . .

I have the 2005 DVD of The Wizard Of Oz and it is absolutely INCREDIBLE!!!!! It's possible that the transfer came from that DVD, But I don't know. Is it on Blu-Ray yet?

the bottom right one looks like an alien... :ph34r:

Resistance is futile! Pretty soon, human civilization will have to surrender to her and, eventually, will be assimilated. :P

To all Veterans,

 

Thank you so much for the services and sacrifices you have made and continue to make for this great Country of ours. Without you, we certainly would not enjoy the freedoms we so often take for granted.

 

Thank You!

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

What can 35mm do that video can't?

I was just given an excerpt from the book "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood" and I think it explains what makes 35mm more popular than digital video. Here's what it says.

"Traditional standard definition video has a definitive "sharpness" and looks "real" like you'd see the action as if you were actually standing there. Film has a "softer" almost more "ethereal" look. It is not capturing "reality" per se, but a more "romantic" and "hyper-real" version of what happened in front of the lens.

Some of this difference can be attributed to the variations in how film stock and how a video camera process the light. And some of the difference is on account of the frame rate that is used to capture images. Traditional standard definition video in the United States is shot and viewed at 30 frames per second, meaning that it takes roughly 30 still image frames in quick succession to represent one second of real time (29.97 fps to be more precise). A standard film frame rate is exactly 24 frames per second, a difference of merely 6 frames per second. What's the big deal? Plenty. Our eyes and our minds perceive that slight frames-per-second difference in significantly different ways. The higher the frame rate that you are viewing, the more "real" and "sharp" the image will be perceived by your mind. The slower the frame rate that you are viewing, the more your mind will perceive the moving images as "not as real."

This is why some programming is captured using film stock and some programming is captured using video technology. Generally, fictional narrative and "dramatic" programs are shot using film stock and film cameras. And generally, non-fiction or "live" events are shot using video cameras. For instance, all news programming now is shot using video technology for two reasons. The first is that the purpose of news is to give you a true sense of what is happening in reality. They don't (or shouldn't be trying to) dress up the world around us to make it seem more "romantic" or "hyper-real." Video is perceived as capturing a more authentic picture of what reality actually is, so it is the perfect medium for the job. The other reason that news programming and video work so well together is because of the immediacy that video offers. Because it is an electronic process, the images can be seen right away, as opposed to film stock, which must be "canned-out" of the camera, taken to a film lab for processing, and then printed for viewing. Video can either be sent "live" or can be saved for later viewing on videotape.

In contrast to news programming, most movies are shot on film, which gives the audience a slightly less-reality based version of what was going on in front of the camera. And because fictional entertainment doesn't have to be put on your television by 6 o'clock tonight, there is time to take film to the lab and go through the methodical process that eventually becomes a movie or dramatic TV show."

No, no Benson. In that regard, he's right. Film is all about making a conscious choice, pre-production as to the "look" of your product.

 

I'm just stating the obvious that, while having choices is great, there needs to be volume to justify continued production of each one of those "choices".

 

It's like how Kodak used to offer a vast array of film stocks that had been unchanged since the '70s (sadly down to 2 or 3 now).

 

It used to be over a dozen.

 

Now, sure, these stocks are technically inferior to the new ones, but isn't it great to be able to get roughly the same look out of the box that they got in 1974, or a look that was roughly the same as news footage from the time of the Apollo program?

 

Sure, some people like digitally dickering around with this stuff instead. But, the only way to truely replicate a look, is to use that look.

 

I've actually just got through watching the Kodak DVD about their Vision2 line, and, believe it or not, I actually like the look of the original Vision stocks, seeing the two side-by-side, over Vision2, even Vision3.

 

Maybe the new '80 is a step back towards the look of '79, BUT, except for grain reduction, in every respect, I like Vision Stocks and EXR stock samples I've seen above Vision2 samples, because the look is *dialed in*.

 

Vision2 appears to be just a damned "telecine in" step by comparison. Sorry, but I spend enough time in front of one of these damned things every day. I don't like the prospects of stocks that basically need one of these damned things, a $200,000 scanner, and a $10,000 software package just to put the damned contrast back in!

 

In still photography, Kodak has basically covered up it's elimination of UC400 negative film by renaming UC100 "Ektar 100". It seems as though there is a real conscious effort on the part of this company to consolidate all of its films into a low-contrast, scanner-optimized category, and that is a shame.

 

Unfortunately, it looks like you are going to have to shoot slide film if you want to have a look right out of the box other than a low-contrast one that is easier to tweak in Photoshop :blink: Yawn. . .

I stand corrected. Man, do I wish we had all those film stocks. The only thing that gets close to a wide variety of film stocks today is a digital intermediate. I'm not saying that DI is a bad thing, just that it isn't the same.

Karl-

 

(no offense taken) I think choosing a particular film stock or a particular digital format is EXACTLY like choosing a type of paint.

But why is it still like choosing a certain paint when there is all this evidence by Karl going against your opinion? You didn't give out a single reason why it's exactly like that. Care to explain?

Uhm, good idea but VV can be 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2:1

 

IMAX Aspect ratio: 1.35:1 (camera), 1.43:1 (projected)

 

I would have to have black bars at top and bottom

I'm not saying you're wrong, but actually, Vistavision is 1.85:1. Go to this link to find out why.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingvv1.htm

Frame rate changes etc are more a feature of the camera you're on as opposed to the medium you're shooting.

For film; DoF Manipulation, Variety of Stocks for Different locations/looks, better color rendition, proven and mostly standardized workflows, better dynamic range. Now you take these technical benefits and pair it to the story you're telling. Without knowing the story you're telling it's pretty nebulous. I mean; hell, video works better for some stories than film does. . .

I couldn't agree more. Some movies are better when shot on video than on film. Personally, I don't give a care whether a movie was shot on 35mm or on some fancy prosumer-level digital camcorder. Nobody really cares what the movie was shot on as long as it was great. You can make a great low-budget movie shot on digital video ("The Blair Witch Project" is partly video), just as you can also make a really lame movie that was shot on 35mm (I don't even need to make an example. Most movies, I'm guessing 90-95% of them, are shot on 35mm.). I would pick digital video if you're doing an independent or low-budget film, but I would do 35mm only if you're doing a larger-budget film that is over the $1,000,000 mark. Then again, I'm not in the directing business yet, so I don't necessarily have experience with either of the two formats. All I know is that I don't have a preference myself. Who knows? My attitude could be different some years from now.

I'm shooting a short project for school this weekend and I'm terrified. This isn't the first movie I've ever written or directed, but I've noticed a pattern forming...

 

I feel incredibly nervous; almost like a panic attack yet I'm still able to function without showing.

 

All of the stuff I've directed I've also written, and sometimes I feel weird about having other people act or be a part of my script. I feel like they might think it's ridiculous and terrible, or I'm afraid that the movie will turn out ridiculous... there's just too much anxiety. Maybe because I'm starting to make more serious movies, subject-wise. Who knows...

 

My question for all of you guys is, does this happen to you? I'm not talking about nerves where you feel like you won't be able to handle the stress of directing a film shoot, but nerves about how the movie is going to look in the end. How do you deal with it?

Adam, this is stuff you should expect as a writer and director. I'm planning to be a writer and director (but haven't even written my first script yet) and I'm expecting it to be one wild roller-coaster ride for every movie I do. Even I have fears that my movies won't be great either, and it isn't just the serious ones.

My advice to you the person who is already in the business is this. Control your emotions. Just keep your cool, get to work, and think about getting the movie finished. Being a writer and director means being able to control your own emotions and getting the movie done. Just stop panicking. Your first movies probably aren't going to be your best movies anyway, so just hang in there. Unfortunately, and I don't mean to say you shouldn't be in this business, but if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you can't handle these emotions, I suggest you pursue another career elsewhere. I think that as you go on to bigger and bigger projects, the tension will probably be worse. If things are bad enough, then you might need to think about where you're going from here.

I am confused and hope you can help me. In my vision: Art is a way to impress feelings. I am a musician, when i am playing a nice piece i go mad about it, it's a great feeling. I also like to read, i like british literature like H. R. Haggard or A. C. Doyle. When i read them i get very excited and almost the same feeling that i get from listening music. I want to understand, can cinematography give me the same feeling of extasy? Maybe i don't watch what is right. Please express your point of views.

Maybe my advice is wrong, but I think it depends on your senses. For example, if you're an auditory person, you tend to use your ears more often than other senses. If you're a visual person (Like me), you tend to use your eyes more often than other senses. Music is an auditory artform, because you use your ears more often, while movies are a visual artform, because you tend to use your eyes most often when watching a movie. If you like using your eyes a lot, I think cinematography will give you quite a feeling. If, however, you prefer your ears to your eyes, you'll probably find that music still makes you go ecstatic and cinematography does not. I don't know you personally, so I can't figure out what makes you excited. Considering your love for reading, you might like cinematography (Considering that you have to use your eyes to read), but I wouldn't say that you will. Books are a special kind of artform that actually use the mind rather than a certain sense, so there's no actual way to tell if you're able to look at things visually or not. That's something you'll have to look into yourself. I guess the first question you should ask yourself is: "How much do I like movies compared to music?"

Well, that's quite a shame, isn't it? But then again, maybe it isn't necessarily bad news. I went to an IMAX theatre once in eastern washington, and learned that the screen was 67' x 60.' The experience was great (Even if it wasn't cheap). Now, if the average IMAX screen is 100' x 80' (The dimensions of that Lincoln Square auditorium), then this isn't much of a big deal. If I still had a good experience, and the screen was smaller than most, then it's really nothing to sneeze at. I still enjoyed my time there despite the fact that it wasn't as big as all the others.

I worked both in cinematography and post production(vfx)...

 

Right now I am getting chance in both the field... And I dont know wat to choose...

 

I love cinematography as a lifestyle/passion more than a profession... But I am scared abt the future... I need money... I am depending on myself...

 

Even rit now most of the hollywood films are containing more CG shots than live action shots...

 

And on the other side digital cinematography is booming up, where we no need to worry abt focus, exposure and we can see the result immediately...

 

So the grip/control of the cinematographer over the camera/image is reducing...

 

Also I have a thought like may be in documentaries there will be still value for cinematographers...

 

Once the 35mm goes out of the market I think there would be a drastic change in cinematographers value... I dont know whether the value for cinematographers will go high or down after tat...

 

On the other side CG is also competing with us... There are lots of things to think before choosing cinematography as a career for me...

 

Now the James Cameron's movie 'Avatar' which is going very much advanced technically is also containing 60% of cg shots and only 40% of live action(tat too wit vfx)...

 

So tat only I am a bit scared... I dont know wat to decide... So people here plz tell me wat to do?

 

In which field shall I go?

( my ambition is like to work in documentaries for discovery, NGC etc which is adventurous and in which we can travel around...)

 

So plz guide me considering all the above facts... I also need a peaceful life...

plz tell me wt do u people feel abt this...

I'm no cinematographer, and I am not in the filmmaking business...Yet (So, maybe you shouldn't take my advice, who knows?), but from my point of view, I don't see the cinematographer disappearing anytime soon. Why? Let's look at the possibilities.

What if film were to go extinct? Would that mean complete annihilation of all cinematographers? Of course not. In fact, digital video captures even less light than film and thus digital video needs more light than film does. So, even if we replace film, there will still be a need for cinematographers who are experienced and know how to light up a movie.

How about CG? Is that going to bring about the extinction of the cinematographer? Doubtful. As somebody else said there will always be green screen where lighting is badly needed. Green screen is not the only thing that indicates cinematography won't die anytime soon. Very few mostly CG movies have been extremely successful. Beowulf did well, but it didn't make really huge achievements. Sin City made the top spot on its first week but then dropped by more than 50 percent on it's second week. The last time a mostly CG film actually did well was 300, which made no. 7 at the top ten box-office results at the end of the year it came out.

The thing is, there would have to be an awful lot of computer geeks who are obsessed with CG to cause the extinction of cinematography, and since that probably isn't going to happen anytime soon, I don't see the end of cinematography as we know it. Even if Avatar makes a fistful of dollars at the box-office, I wouldn't freak out.

Here's my opinion, if cinematography is your passion, pursue it. I have a passion to be a screenwriter and director, and I'm pursuing that career myself. If you want to be a cinematographer, go for it.

Yeah, as usual, Bay focuses more on the visuals than the story. It works with all his other films, but just didn't fit with a WWII film.

 

Still, the attack sequences are amazing. That's the only thing I remember liking about the film.

I agree. I've seen this film more than once and I don't think I liked it more after seeing it a second or third time. Sure, all that CG glory was great, but the story wasn't that good and the characters just seemed rather unintelligent. I didn't even care about what happened at the end because the characters were so dull, it didn't matter what happened to the characters because you just didn't care. That, I think, is why the movie wasn't fantastic. Not even all the great eye candy in the world could fix those problems. If only we could've had great CG and a great story at the same time.