Brad Webb

David, If you can get me a Blu Ray and a drive, I'll dub all the scenes you want to Digibeta and then get you Apple ProRes or uncompressed 8 or 10 bit Quicktimes. brad

I have to do this all the time for work. We cut a lot of sizzle reels for the studios and it's like pulling teeth to get them to send us an HDCAM or even a Digibeta of a feature. First I rip the VIDEO_TS folder with all the VOB files using Mac the Ripper. Use Main Feature extract and not Full Disk. This gets the feature onto your desktop so that you can convert the video files. Once that is done I drop the VOB file into MPEG streamclip. Sometimes there are some dummy files in there. You may get an error message that says that there are timecode breaks. Click "Fix Now" and then click "Do not skip any frame" on the pop up box. Usually I convert them to Apple Pro Res 422. Another good codec is Photo - JPEG. Both of these codecs are FCP native. Make sure you check the Deinterlace Video check box. You can also mark In and Out points in MPEG Stream clip, so that you only export the scenes you need. I for in points, and O for out points (just like in FCP). I haven't used handbrake in forever, but I think it rips the file into an MP4. Going from this codec to a larger one may be causing some of the motion stuttering. If you're still having problems feel free to PM me here, or at Reduser.

This is like saying you hate Pepsi because they use celebrity endorsements, you won't eat at McDonald's because you hate clowns, or you won't use by an iphone because of all the hype behind it. None of that matters. If you like the taste of Pepsi, drink it. If you like the images Red produces, shoot it. Red has done something that no high end motion picture camera company (film or digital) has ever done before, which is make a high quality camera that is relatively affordable.

If there were ever a time that an actor's voice performance as a CG or animated character was so incredible they get nominated for an Oscar, I have no problem awarding the oscar to an Actor because the voice you hear is the actor's voice. It is still acting. The oscar is for best cinematography, not best virtual cinematography. Now, can there be a director of photography on animated and CG movies, YES. Look at the credits, there already are. However, the oscar is for best cinematography, not best director of photography. That is there difference. What is cinematography: cin·e·ma·tog·ra·phy    /ˌsɪnəməˈtɒgrəfi/ Show Spelled[sin-uh-muh-tog-ruh-fee] Show IPA –noun the art or technique of motion-picture photography. No, I was using the sun as an example. The art of cinematography comes with shaping the light.. real light. Whether you soften, add to it, or block out the light, you are shaping real light. In turn, would you take out all of the light bulbs in your house and use that light you rendered instead? You house would be pretty dark at night. How about you light a plant with only virtual light? That plant's not gonna last too long. On a less serious note, this has been fun sparring with you. You are a great debater.

Both are equally difficult and take very talented artists to created beautiful imagery. One group uses cameras, lights, lenses. The other group uses computers and software. One is cinematography, the other visual effects. This is not the same thing. The end result is the exact same, a written script. This is like comparing a hand cranked camera to the cameras of today. Yes it is much easier to write a script on a laptop, but it's still a script. Filmed cinematography = photograph. Rendered cinematography = painting. No matter how photo realistic the CGI looks, it is still a computer painting. It is visual effects. I'm not saying it has less value, I'm only saying they are different. Wrong..A render of a sunset is not sunlight, but a computer simulation of sunlight. The word "the" is the word "the" no matter how you write it, but the word "sunlight" is not sunlight. That is the difference.

There was a problem with the clips for cinematography. Some of the source footage got corrupted and there was not enough time to fix before it aired. That is why there was no cinematography clips.

There was a problem with the clips for cinematography. Some of the source footage got corrupted and there was not enough time to fix before it aired. That is why there was no cinematography clips.

The Teamsters that drive the big trucks, the trailers, the mechanics, etc deserve that kind of money. The Van drivers do not. This is the biggest problem with the unions. It's a total waste of money that could be going somewhere else. On the flip side, there is so much money wasted above the line that it is ridiculous. Every show has a few producers in name only that take a big paycheck for doing nothing. Then there are always useless political hires that do nothing and get paid for it. Many office PA's do nothing all day. Money is wasted all over the place in the film biz. From top to bottom. If a real company wasted money like that it would be out of business in no time, or it would be AIG or the Government. You are 100% right Tom, this is not sustainable. The Unions really screwed themselves with the latest deal that made it so much harder to get health insurance. That was one of the big reasons to join the union, and that is gone. All the Unions have gotten too big and care more about having political power than protecting their members. What the hell are your dues paying for? Once you give that up, there is no way the studios will give that back. People will start dropping out of the union, fewer people will join, and power will dwindle. SAG totally f'd itself by threatening to strike after the writers. The studios were able to see they could save a ton of money by switching a bunch of TV shows to digital, and by passing SAG altogether. Not to mention that there was a political struggle within SAG which made them weak. They had no bargaining power.

Is a photographer the same as painter? They may look similar but a photograph is photograph and a painting is painting.

I have no problems with a voice actor winning best actor in a cartoon. They actor still created the performance with their voice. But you are right on, the cartoon character is not an actor, and CGI is not photography. There are elements of cinematography used to create CGI, but it is still CGI.

When you shoot a sunset you are on earth, and you move the camera, actors, grip gear, to get the great shot. When you render a sunset you put the sun wherever the F you want it, you have the light fall however soft of hard you want it to, you can put whatever you want in the background be it a lake, the sun, a burger king, the sun and the actors faces are at the same brightness level.etc. Hell you can have the camera start at the sun and follow the ray of like a few billion miles to the actors sitting on a hill and have it all in one shot.

White Ribbon.

I'm not surprised it won, but I was surprised it got nominated. Only members of the Academy that work in the field can nominate films. Obviosuly those that work in the profession feel like Avatar was amazing achievement in cinematography. All members get vote on the winner. This is why every Victorian era film wins best costume.

Obviously nobody could predict that. My original intention was to reply to this: I just wanted to point how digital has a lot to do with the issues at Panavision. It's not the only factor, but it is one the big ones.

Best green screen lighting

True, but you no longer HAVE to rent from Panavision. You can rent F35's from a number of places, or you can work out a deal with Panavision to rent the F35 for less since they ran out of Genesis cameras. All of these are losses in revenue for Panavision. Then add on to that the number of productions that in the past would have rented film cameras from Panavision, that now don't even consider Panavision. That's a lot revenue streams that have dried up in the last couple of years.

That is exactly why they are in trouble. I doubt Panavision ever ran out of film cameras to rent out. That is a huge loss of revenue, revenue that Panavision needs. However, I do totally agree that Panavision will pull through.

Yes, as of right now, many TV shows and commercials are shot on 16. However, less and less will be in the future, until none are. TV shows and commercials will either be shot on 35, or digital. This is when Kodak will stop making 16mm film, because no one will be buying it. Film schools are buying digital cameras, and film students are going to shoot digitally. It's just so much cheaper. I love shooting 16mm, I think it's beautiful and I just love the grain in it. In fact, I just convinced the director and producer of the feature I'm about to shoot to NOT shoot on Red or the Arri D-21 and shoot S16 instead. 16mm is alive, but on the way out.

The number of cameras rented from Panavision has gone down due to digital competition. Music videos, short films, cable tv, and even some prime time TV has switch to digital. Now only big money productions are renting equipment from Panavision. This is a huge loss of revenue. Yes, Kodak is still making 35mm film, but it's no longer the only game in town. 16mm films is almost done. Digital has pretty much replaced everything that was shot on 16mm. In a few years Kodak will stop making 16mm because no one will be buying it, and there will be too few places to get it developed as film processing business start to go under. I doubt 35mm is going anywhere, but it won't be the dominate force in film and TV production. In a few years time big budget film and TV will be 50/50 split between film and digital. 35mm is amazing and beautiful. Digital has yet to come close to matching the dynamic range of film, but it's getting closer every year.

I just watched this on Blu-Ray, holy smokes. I think the opening train scene is probably Deakins' best work. How did this NOT win Best Cinematography. There Will Be Blood was great, but this movie just looked beautiful. The movie itself was Ok, a little slow I felt, and I agree with many of the previous posts, it was very Malick influenced.

The 2010 ASC open house is Saturday Feb 20. This thread is for the 2009 ASC open house. Here is a link to the details for the 2010 ASC open house http://www.theasc.com/news/News_Articles/News_279.php

:lol: Oh my gawd you guys are hilarious.

Some schools still have film cameras, some don't. My advice is to go to a film school that has 35mm and 16mm film courses. Shooting on film will make you a better cinematographer. It will make you a better decision maker when it comes to shooting because you have plan everything out before hand with film. Shooting on film will help you learn more than shooting digital. Everything that digital cameras do are based on what film does. It doesn't really matter which film school you go to, as long as it's a good one. New York, Chicago, and Florida also have some pretty good film schools.

It seems like every student film and low budget indie film has lots of action in a car. I know every time I work on a shoot there is a bunch of stuff in a car. Very difficult to do on the cheap. My suggestion: Get someone short to drive, pull the driver's seat up as far as it can go. Remove the headrest of the driver's side seat. Sit in the back seat and use your shoulder and the driver's seat to support the camera to get the driver's POV shots. Also, drive in places with there is not a lot of people.

Fire in the Sky. The last 15 minutes of the movie are the creepiest and scariest crap I've ever seen.