Tom Jensen

Technically the shot had some flaws but it is what made the movie. After that it went downhill. I remember the first time I saw it I thought this is going to be good. I liked the beginning and ending. Today we have the equipment to make that shot flawless. I remember watching Citizen Kane back in the late 70's or early 80's and there was a discussion afterward. The point the moderator made was, "Yeah, you've seen all this technique before just not before Citizen Kane."

In the 80's it was not uncommon for a music video company to get so far behind on their bills that a large part of the budget for the video went to paying off the bills from the previous video. When it got so bad the company would fold and start a new company.

Have you tried the phone book? Last time I talked to him he was living in Venice Beach. Or try calling the ASC

That's a film that Kurt Rauf shot, isn't he on here? I know he's on CML.

That's an interesting observation. It's often the thing we dislike the most in someone else is the the trait we possess as well.

There is one guy that did it. It's just plain nuts. I'm just trying to point out to Dev that this is going to be more trouble than it's worth. I'm not saying, "I've seen every single movie there is, interviewed every single Steadicam operator, scoured the planet on my rocket fueled jet car and had 1000 MIT scientists working day and night and there isn't a single Steadicam operator that can do this shot." I'm just looking at the big picture, trying to make a point. Let's look at it this way. Dev lives in New Zealand. First he will look in New Zealand for a Steadicam Operator that can do this, then he will look in Australia. If he doesn't find one in either of these places, he'll have to bring in someone from another continent. I don't know his budget but like you said, he's going to have pay the guy. Now, just because Tillman did, I wonder if he would be willing to do it again? I see you're a Steadicam operator. You of all people obviously know how heavy and grueling Steadicam can be. I've assisted a lot of Steadicam. I've worked with some of the best in the business and I have them all strain at one point or another. This is with 400'-500' loads. I just can't see the average or the good Steadicam operator holding a rig for an hour and a half straight without some sort of help. Again I was just trying to make a point based on my experience.

The number you have called 555-555-5555 is not in order. If you think you have reached this recording in error please heck your number and call again. That and the producer is in jail.

I don't want to get in a pissing match. You might. But like I said, if you think you can do it, have a ball. Tillman is the exception not the rule.

Anyway Brad, you're missing the point. Dev will be hard pressed to find a Steadicam operator that can handle the shot. Personally, I don't know a Steadicam operator on earth that can handle that shot for 90 minutes. Nope, I just read your last post and you do get the point.

Ok, so there's one. Unless you think you can do the job. Anyway, you're late to the party.

Something Sprung, huh. I will do your surgery for half of what they are charging you. Jeez man, good luck with that. Did you break your neck or something? It sounds very serious. Good thing medical technology has come as far as it has. Could you imagine this 100 years ago?

Not bad. You need some more footage. Have them drive around in a old classic car looking disinterested, throw in a couple of really aloof hot chicks and you'll have a video.

That was a mistake that I made. I had spent 20 years learning film and exposure and became very bitter when Video reared it's ugly head. It was an affront to everything I had been taught. I made the mistake of devoting myself to the tool and I couldn't see the forest for the trees. If I had any sense I would have embraced it and learned the new tool. I had this love affair with film. A lot of editors had the same problem. Guys who were cutting on Moviolas and Steenbecks that had no computer skills didn't want to touch video editing. Now how popular is it?

In film school grain often is a flaw from underexposure and big projection but on TV it is that big of an issue if exposed properly. It's all about the story. Just remember that. If a film is bad I start picking apart the production. If the story is good and the productions isn't great, I can watch it. Take Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It." Many flaws and I still think it's his best film.

Steven, you are a student and there is nothing wrong with that but when you get into the working film world, you will see that it is nothing like school. In school, everyone is going to be the next Spielberg or Michael Bay. Nobody's film is as good as their's. In the film world decisions are based on a myriad of things and practicality is one of them. Cost is another. Usually it will be based on where it will be seen, be it on the web, the TV, a movie theatre, a theme park, a corporate conference. It's just like auto mechanics or carpentry, you just have to use the right tool for the right job. If anything is dead, it's super 8. When I was in film, there was maybe one lab and one store that sold Super 8 film and this was even before video caught on. Video is the upcoming medium. As far as 16 mm being an acquired taste, I don't get it. There was a time when there was no other choice. If you couldn't afford it or the project didn't call for it, you had no choice but to shoot 16. Super 8 was used for the "look" and for school projects because it was cheap.

Several years ago I was at the ASC Awards and I went up to the bar to get a drink. Jack was talking to Freddy Young and they invited me to join them. I didn't have much to say, I just listened. It's sad to so all the old legends leaving us. He was a gentleman.

Dev, I'm curious about the director. What else has he done?

16mm is elitist? How is it killing film? I'm lost. 16mm has the been the backbone of the industry forever. I have to run but the significance of 16mm is tremendous. Video is what's killing film and it has nothing to do with elitism. It has to do with cost and the replacement of old technology vs new technology.

The difference between super 8 and 16mm is huge. You also left out the 70's, the 80's and the 90's. Most music videos were shot in 16 and many features were shot on Super 16. The video revolution was a cost issue, not an aesthetic issue. Now that the quality is high, it's here to stay.

All my lens books are in the garage burried. Disregard nodal point. I can't remember exactly what it is called. I'm lucky if I remember what I had for breakfast, if I ate at all. The one important thing that you students need to remember is you don't have to know everything. You have to know a lot that's for sure. Don't look at the camera, look through the camera. You are making art, not science. Science is just another tool. Think more about the quality of light around you. Look how it hits people's faces. Your light meter will tell you quantity. Sometime people get so wrapped up in the technical side they miss the art.

I'm just trying to keep it simple. Don't make me dust off my old optics books. :blink: :P ;):blink:

I do have to say I like the photos a lot.

At the risk of sounding nuts here, I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to say GET A REL DEPTH OF FIELD CHART! I had 3. One was a hard plastic one with the metal nut in the middle, the second was the thin plastic wheel that had a little booklet type case and last was an ASC manual. Don't reinvent the wheel here. Go with simple. If I saw an AC punching in numbers on a calculator, I think I would lose it. :blink:

It about drove me nuts for a minute. By rectangle, I think he meant that rectangle that almost resembles a square.

Think of a big cone of light entering the lens it flips upside down at the nodal point and is projected out the back of the lens. The reason that the image is a rectangle and not a circle is because you have an aperture plate that blocks or crops out the rest of the image. If you were to do the same the thing to an anamorphic lens which is not spherical (round) your image would be squeezed in the middle. It goes onto the film squeezed and is projected by a projector with a lens that un-squeezes the image so it now appears normal yet wider. Don't over think this. Take the 10-150 and look through the end of it. The image should be round, spherical. Most lenses are spherical.