Mike Lary

It's a gear head.

If you're worried about money I think you should work there for six months, then move to L.A. Forget about building a giant nest egg. Just get into your arena of choice and keep shooting. The security of a nine to five is only going to limit your ability to work on creative projects. Once you start turning down gigs your phone will probably start ringing less often. Getting another degree makes no sense at all. It wouldn't be free because you'd be spending your valuable time earning it. And it has no value in the industry. Life is short. Do what you love.

If you were a newly decided business major, would you open a restaurant by yourself and learn a little about cooking so you could avoid hiring a chef?

I would ask a lab to do it for me. I've done that with 400 rolls that needed to be on 100 foot spools. They'll probably charge you a small fee or ask that you send the film to them for processing (in which case the downspooling would be free). There are threads here on how to do it yourself. In addition to fogging the film you could also introduce dust or other foreign particles into the film (and camera) or you could wind the film too tight (which would cause kinks in the film that end up looking like lightning flashes across the frame). It would be worth the small investment to have a lab do it considering the margin for error.

(from the discussion right below the video) "I shot 156 pics at a 4 sec. exposure and edited them at 12 fps."

I like this short interview with Tarkovsky about the film. It probably won't help with analysis, but it's an interesting read. http://zakka.dk/euroscreenwriters/intervie...rkovsky_527.htm Are you also studying Ivan's Childhood? It's a beautiful film.

You must have skimmed my posts. I never championed any art as fine art. In fact, I went on to say there's no such thing as fine art. My whole point was that the term is a bogus construction used by elitists to discredit artistic works. As far as tone is concerned, you called me a woman's name, 'exitable' (a term reserved mostly for small children), and 'fella' (another term used primarily for young people). If you interpret aggressiveness in my response to that, perhaps it's just your gut reminding you that aggressive responses are often the natural response to patronization.

What's your justification for purchasing the DSLR? Would you be shooting video to submit with your application? If so, consider the rolling shutter issue (if it hasn't been fixed by December) and how it would greatly affect your shot design. I think you have a good plan for pre-college studies, but you should find out as much as you can about your school's preferences when it comes to admissions. What kind of content do they prefer, and in what medium? Do they expect video from prospective film students expressing a goal to become cinematographers, do they want to see narrative work or beauty shots, and is photography acceptable?

Yes, all manual is what I meant to say. I was probably thinking of a machine gun when I wrote full auto... The AE-1 can go all manual or semi-auto depending on the lens. For learning purposes, one should stay away from anything that does the thinking for you. Sorry for any confusion.

Full-auto SLR is the way to go, Nikon or Canon. You can pick up a Canon AE-1 for a couple hundred bucks and there are plenty of good secondhand lenses available. It's a durable, reliable camera. A great book for learning the technical aspects of photography is: http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Handbo...d/dp/0679742042

Not only am I not excitable, but I'm also not Lara (which is a girl's name). How could this possibly be a response to anything I've said in this thread? Maybe you have me mixed up with the OP.

Andrzej, I never attacked you personally. I only attacked the dogmatic rhetoric that you've been fed. If you take that personally, you should try cutting the umbilical cord that your school attached to you on day one. Part of being a good student is questioning everything you're told and forming your own opinions.

Are you assuming that filmmakers are less educated in the history of their own medium than art students who chose other majors? This isn't the first suggestion you've made that makes it sound like you think most of the readers in this forum haven't made it through an entry level film history class. You clearly haven't seen many of Brakhage's films. Why don't you write your thesis on Brakhage and then tell the world what it was 'all about'. Are you comparing art films that are appreciated by a tiny segment of the population to the paintings of one of the most revered painters in history? Do you think you can back that up? Monet didn't hold up a blank canvas and tell everyone that his painting was actually a deconstruction of painting that was meant to challenge the viewer's perception of paint. To clarify what I said before, there is no such thing as 'fine art'. There is no such thing as 'fine art cinema'. And to bring it a step further, art that intentionally strips itself of the aesthetics and mechanics that make it art, choosing instead to confront the viewer with an intellectual challenge, is no longer art.

That's not true. The definition of the word 'fine' means of exceptional quality. A fine wine, a fine cheese, and a fine painting are of a higher quality than the majority. In common usage, 'fine art' means 'of higher artistic merit' or 'art for arts sake'. Historically it's been used as a way to exclude other art forms from being exhibited in galleries and influencing the masses. Now it's being used to invalidate large volumes of work within a medium. That's because the contemporary definition is rigid and short sighted, as it needs to be because it's used to validate dead art forms. An older definition of 'fine art' is roughly "art that is created for the purpose of showing the artist's creativity or to lead the viewer's mind and imagination toward the finer things". Suspension of disbelief fits in there quite nicely, as does all the craftsmanship and ingenuity required to make it happen. That's the power that cinema has over other art forms. Film that is stripped down to a non-immersive, two dimensional experience that aims to confront the viewer intellectually might be an 'art film', but it's by no means fine. If there is any subset of an art that is to be considered fine, it must be the one that utilizes the full potential of the medium.

If the filters were churned out under the same quality controls standards as the cameras and stock Meteor lenses, it could be the luck of the draw. You'll want to burn a roll of film to test the camera and lens, so why not shoot a filter test on the same roll?

What is your definition of art cinema, and are you saying that all of his work fits into that category?

Does the fact that a film is incomprehensible on the first viewing make it art? If so, you've just uncovered the secret to becoming an artist. The clip that you showed is an obvious manipulation meant to create a sudden, meaningless sensation. High art evokes meaningful emotion with a transparent brush. [edit] I find it disturbing that most film school students know that clip, but they haven't watched 'The Battleship Potempkin'.

There's no such thing as 'fine art film'. The term 'fine art' is an antiquated nonsense term. Tacking it in front of photography or cinematography or any other art form only makes one sound pompous and exclusionary.

Pegasus Theatrical and DPL (Detroit Power and Light).

Sorry to hear it's going away. That site was a great resource. Thanks for keeping it there as long as you did.

For precut gels you can cut cardboard mailing tubes to different lengths and stand them up in a milk crate, then roll the gels and stick them in the tubes. You can easily separate different types of gels from others this way and even separate different grades of gels within the same tube (one tube for ND3, 6, and 9, for example) for faster retrieval. If you want something more heavy duty, you can use pvc pipe instead of mailing tubes. Crates are easy to carry and fit neatly on a four wheeler.

Wow, I wouldn't have responded to his post if I'd seen that title. There must be a gumball machine somewhere giving out d.o.p. certificates along with the plastic sheriff badges.

They shot for coverage (the entire scene from each angle). You can tell because they bounce back and forth between the same basic camera angles dozens of times.

But people do live in harmony with nature. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/...a/finkel-text/1 The cliche is perpetuating the notion that indigenous peoples who live without exploiting their resources are less civilized, even savage, brutal, and devoid of morality. Malick shows an evolved understanding of humanity. Tom, I liked many of the films in your list, but for me 'The New World' has had such a lasting impact on me that I don't think it should be put in a list with any other films of the decade. I believe Malick is making an evolutionary step in filmmaking. As far as 'Avatar' is concerned, I agree with David that it's too soon to judge in the context of film history.

That looks interesting. Does it record a tone at camera startup to help with syncing?