Jump to content

dan kessler

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by dan kessler

  1. There was something called a pic-sync, which was basically a synchronizer with a small viewing screen attached to one end, and may have even had a small motor built into it. I think they were more common in Great Britain than the U.S. Been a while since I've seen one on ebay, and I think the seller was asking close to a grand for it.
  2. Probably a reference to a type of motor used on film cameras starting back in the 1970's. Precision speed control was achieved using crystal-controlled electronics. The main advantage was the ability to record synchronous sound without the need for cable connections between camera and recorder, but it would also provide extremely accurate, constant exposure from frame to frame.
  3. I wouldn't know how your specific lens was set up before, but I'm still inclined to think you were provided with two different methods of mounting. Seems like you would have interference issues otherwise.
  4. I have a similar type of attachment. Looks like you have two options here. First, the bracket would allow you to mount it on rods in front of any lens, as long as your rods provide correct centering. Also, you're limited to lenses whose front diameter closely matches the rear of the anamorphic. Second, I don't know of any spherical lenses with a bayonet mount in front, but I'm guessing the bayonet ring you have would allow you to build an adapter for one.
  5. Nothing to be confused about. You were told correctly. 100 feet is a daylight spool, 400 and 1000 foot rolls are not.
  6. Based on that last photo, seems to me the mirrors are out of position. When angled correctly, they would throw images from the side lights out in front of the camera, with the camera lens shooting between them. There might be another component, like some sort of screen, that the rig needs. Or, yeah, the close-up illumination idea.
  7. I have considerable experience with camera building. Tell me, are you already an accomplished machinist, or tool and die maker, or mechanical engineer? If not, then step one is to acquire some meaningful experience and skill in these areas. No chance of success without it.
  8. Hence the rationale for buying and refurbishing rugged old units like this. Best deal I ever scored was an old studio 10k fresnel for $7.00 Yep, seven dollars..
  9. True, that's not the smaller 650 or 1k keg fixture, but it's very possibly a 2k or 5k. Bardwell made those, too. I've got them all. Works like any other fresnel, just as rugged as any Mole.
  10. When the industry was booming in LA, it seemed to me that fx studios did a lot to expedite the employment of foreign workers. Demand for artists was high, and even in the US, there weren't enough back then. If they wanted someone, they usually got them, no matter where they came from. Besides the tax subsidies, the other reason often cited for the industry's decline was the inherent weakness of its business model. Bidding was intensely competitive and everyone always felt pressured to low ball. As a consequence, even with high profile, big-budget projects, vfx studios were often operating on the edge of financial disaster. They were also dependent on the repeat business from a tiny group of deep-pocketed clients, an advantage the clients often exploited to ruinous advantage. An unnamed executive was once quoted as saying that if he wasn't putting fx studios out of business, he wasn't doing his job. Also, the demographics changed. The global vfx labor pool ballooned, barriers to entry collapsed... it's economics.
  11. The story most often told is that producers employing vfx went chasing the tax subsidies offered elsewhere. There was always a multinational workforce everywhere I worked in LA.
  12. Hey Greg, I live in Newport Beach, too. If you need a house sitter, I'll do it for free! ;)
  13. Used to be my industry, too. LA was the center of this universe in the '90's, but the offshoring started in earnest with the new century. Last two giants to fall were Rhythm and Hues, which went bust, and Sony Imageworks, which went to Vancouver. Only a few scraps remain.
  14. All those early DI's finished on film. That was always the final goal back then.
  15. Back when digital vfx was the new big thing, one of the major marketing points for the process was its superior integration into the film workflow versus traditional optical effects. First-generation quality was assured all the way through to final delivery. You originated on film, scanned it, added the digital stuff, then you output to film at the gloriously high resolution of 2K! Everybody was aiming for a film finish (no such thing as DCP yet) and companies like Kodak were constantly beating the drum that the digital pipeline preserved all of film's outstanding qualities.
  16. I agree just doing the top of the hat as CG would make tracking easier. If that and the bird are CG, it's just head motion you have to track. All the hat and bird interactions take care of themselves.
  17. How and why would you shoot the hat separately? I think I'd just opt for a CG hat along with the bird.
  18. This is a camera I built. My scale has newton and gram calibrations so the Arri values might just work. I'll give it a try tomorrow. Thanks again.
  19. Do any of you camera techs know if there is a typical recommended value for take-up tension in 1000' 35mm magazines? I've got a spring scale hooked into the rim of a 2" core mounted on the take-up hub. Thanks.
  20. Yes, I know and appreciate that this is your first cg animated movie. There are a lot of professionals on this forum, so it's a good place to post images and ask for feedback, which is what you did, and that's what you're getting. Rest assured that many here do understand exactly how you created your images. When you say you have no need to learn how to paint, you're quite mistaken. The principles of painting are EXACTLY what you need to learn. That was my point before. That's one thing that's missing in your work right now. Do that and your work will improve.
  21. Well, compare your stuff to what you yourself have referenced in the link you provided. Before a single frame of cg ever gets rendered there is an enormous amount of planning and design that has to be done. Composition, perspective, line, depth, contrast, color, lighting, tonality, texture, are all meticulously developed for every single shot, and then the flow of these elements from one scene to the next is hammered out. They create hundreds, if not thousands, of individual drawings and paintings in the process. Do you draw? Are you a painter? Can you work in pencil, charcoal, acrylics, oils or pastels, or create a scene in photoshop? That's where a cg movie, or any kind of movie, really begins. The storyboard artists, the lookdev artists, the art directors all do their work before anything else proceeds. You have to do those things, too, even if it's just you working alone, and no cg software can do any of it for you. At the moment, your sample frames don't really show very much beyond the software default settings.
  22. What do you have against cgi? Happens to be a good way to add set extensions. If you shoot miniatures, you have the focus, depth and lighting issues, and your models must be painstakingly well-done to look convincing.
×
×
  • Create New...