Dominik Muench

what about the villains ? like focus freak, flare boy, light leak lady ....?

that allready helps a lot, thank you :)

Hi i was wondering if anyone has seen the music video "is it any wonder" of a band called keane ? it seems like the camera is driving along a rail system during the whole time of the clip, has anyone more information on that ? the clip can be found here: http://www.intro.de/audiovideo/sehen/23035815 thanks

hi rob yes i do, might give you a call this afternoon :)

yup :) quite boring at times and bloody expensive.....but you get to see some nice places and my DSLR is always with me hehe

Hi everyone, im currently in asia, following up on some job offers and introducing myself to production companies and i was wondering if someone is in any of the following cities during the next few weeks and woul be interested to meet up for a coffe and chat :) i will be in: bangkok: 23.7-12.8 hongkong: 12.8-20.8 tokyo: 20.8-26.8 shanghai: 26.8-3.9 bejing: 3.9-10.9 singapore: 10.9-17.9 bali: 17.9-29.9 australia (brisbane, qld): 29.9- 15.12

ok, i think they graded a music video i shot. my producer n director flew down there and did the grade there cause it was cheaper than cutting edge brisbane. i was quite happy with the look. but thats always a 50:50 chance i guess, whenever i can i try to attend the grading.

may i ask where you did the grading ? at cutting edge ? pretty hard to say, did you have a contract with the production company/ producer that mentions somethign about your rights ? out of the blue i would say that the producer has the finaly word, but it really depends on the agreements you guys had. cheers, dom

i think thats what went wrong yes, i trusted the ambient light in the shadows too much and i kept the key light too low, so there wanst much to go into the shadows anyway.

sam & filip: thanks for the advice :)

emo ? thats gothic metal...trust me, theyve done music lon befoire the first emo kids came up;)

what im confused about, if i would have wanted more detail in the shadows....shouldnt i have exposed for the darker areas ? cause if i would have overexposed half a stop ontop of the highlights, then wouldnt be the blacks be crushed even more? or should i have taken the exposre reading of the shadow area and overexposed that ?

effects -> video filters -> image control -> desaturate :)

well, whatever the cause was, i screwed it up badly.

theres a quicktime version of the clip available now at: http://www.dark-love-poems.com/ the roses on the right are the navigation hit me, i deserve it :/

nice music, i really like the guitar backwards smashing scene.

true, i try my best :) thank you.

thats what im thinking. well to be honest i havent done mcuh phone calls like that before. im mainly concentrating on smaller production houses, hoping that the chances are better there than with the big ones.

Hi guys, i wanted to know what you think about approaching production companies by calling them up and asking if you could come around to show your reel. more in detail, im going to be in a few different countries in the next 3-7 weeks, and i was thinking of calling up some production houses there and telling them that im a young dop and that im currently in the country and see if they're interested in a personal meeting. do you think this is a too direct approach or would they appreciate it that i am interested in their company ? after sending out roughly 140 applications...and only getting 10 answers (there must be something seriously wrong with my reel) i thought maybe this might be a more sucessfull next step to finding a job.

*smartypants on* the correct spelling is "arschloch"...thats german...for...ehm i guess u know :) *smartypants off*

isnt that mainly because all the old films were shot on celluloid which is indeed not very long lasting ? the new filmstocks are much more durable i think, maybe john can help us out here :)

i wasnt so sure about the technical details either, but then...what do i know about all this technology stuff :/ but its good to know whats realistic and true in that article and what not. and im a film fanatic too :)

Hi guys, i got this article a few weeks ago in an ACS newsletter, i dont know if this has been posted here before, if so i apologize, however, i think it is a very interesting read: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 'FILM' AND 'DIGITAL' CINEMATOGRAPHY People are readily deceived by the term "Digital", and falsely assume that Digital is superior to Film in the same way that Digital Sound / Video is most definitely superior to Analogue Sound / Video. However, these are not comparable. Digital Sound / Video is an electronic recording method which is of higher quality than the Analogue electronic recording method. Digital Cinematography is simply a higher resolution electronic Video Recording. Film Cinematography however is NOT Analogue, but is a real Optical Record formed by the original Rays of Light. Film is an entirely unique recording medium that captures the very Light Rays which your Eyes can capture for only a brief 1/10 of a Second. In many ways Film is miraculous. Digital is promoted by manufacturers as being superior to Film, but this is false. Not only is Digital inferior to Film, but it is also monumentally more expensive than Film Cameras and Projectors. The following are some important facts about the differences between Digital Cinematography compared to Film Cinematography. RESOLUTION CAMERAS. The Resolution of Digital Movie Cameras varies, and it must be kept in mind that these Digital Movie Cameras are primarily intended for use in High Definition Television (HDTV) Productions -- not Theatrical Movies! Some Cameras have 1.5 Million (1440x1080) Pixels, and others 2 Million (1920x1080) Pixels which are an artificial electronic image. These Resolutions pale in comparison even to the Resolution of top Digital Still Cameras, and all of these Digital Cameras in turn pale pathetically compared to the Resolution of Film! Film has a minimum Resolution of 6.9 Billion Molecules of Dye per Square Millimetre (mm2). A 35mm Frame of Movie Film (24mm x 12mm) has a minimum Resolution of 1.988 Trillion Molecules of Dye formed by the original Rays of Light! [specifically, 35mm Movie Film has the following Resolutions -- 2.882633657184 Trillion Molecules of Cyan Dye (to Record Red Light); 1.988010001152 Trillion Molecules of Magenta Dye (to Record Green Light); and 2.627204157216 Trillion Molecules of Yellow Dye (to Record Blue Light).] 35mm Movie Film is 958 Thousand times more resolute than Digital's 2 Million Pixels! An 8mm Frame of Movie Film (6x4mm) has a minimum Resolution of 165 Billion Molecules. The Resolution of Film is simply astronomical, and by comparison the Resolution of Digital Cameras is utterly pathetic. [The High Resolution of Film also enables you to appreciate the Third Dimension of Depth. Monoscopic Cinematography is not entirely Two- Dimensional. The higher the Resolution of the Picture, the greater the ability to grasp the Third Dimension of Depth. The High Resolution of Film enables the eye's ability to grasp the Depth of the Picture. The Low Resolution of Digital undermines the ability to grasp Depth.] PROJECTORS. Current Digital Projectors have a linear Resolution of 2 Million Pixel Mirrors (2,211,840 to be exact) which is comparable to Digital Movie Cameras. A Film Projector of course maintains the 1.988 Trillion Resolution of the Frame of Film. As previously noted, a Digital Recording is an artificial Electronic Record of an image while Film is a real Optical Record formed by the original Light Rays. A Digital Projector has a complicated array of 6.6 Million Tiny Mirrors which mix and combine 3 Light sources (Red, Green & Blue) together for every single Pixel of the Picture in order to produce the proper colour -- this is very complicated which is why Digital Projectors are so expensive. A Film Projector, on the other hand, simply uses a pure White Light which is then converted into the appropriate colours by the Film itself -- this is a very simple and perfect process. It is the Film which holds the complex Image on a real Record which uses real Light, and this makes Film Projection very simple. There was simply no reason for Digital Projectors to have even been developed in the first place. Unlike Digital Movie Cameras which can be used for HDTV, Digital Projectors have no use outside of Movie Theatres. The companies who wasted their money on developing this product were simply foolish. This is just another example of 'technologization for the sake of technologization', and not for the sake of improvement. There's no point to complicating life with hi-technology if that complication does not provide improvement, and Digital Projection is not an improvement. EDITING. When you edit a Movie with a good old-fashioned Film Optical Printer, the 1.988 Trillion Resolution of Film is carried through to the copied Prints. However, if you use Computer Special Effects and a Digital Printer for editing, all you end up with on the copied Prints is 2 Million or so Pixels (whatever the resolution of the Printer) of artificial colour! The original 1.988 Trillion Resolution of the Film and the original colour is LOST in any "Digital Computer" process. This is the price to pay for any conveniences associated with Digital Editing! If you wish to provide the movie-going public with the highest of quality, you need to use the Optical Printer for editing and special effects. Computerized Special Effects should only be used as a last resort. If you need to use Computerized Special Effects, then Print the computer-generated part of the Frame onto its own Film Strip, and use the Optical Printer to combine that part with the rest of the Frame to produce the Final Frame. This way, only the computer- generated effects part of the Final Frame will be at the 2 Million Resolution -- the rest of the Final Frame will be maintained at the original Resolution of Film. COLOUR. While a Digital Movie Camera can only capture a Pre- Determined number of electronic Artificial Colours, as noted Film Dye captures the original Rays of Light in Every natural Living Colour. Some manufacturers of Digital Cameras have claimed that their cameras can capture millions of different shades of colour, but such a claim must be viewed with skepticism. There have been dubious claims that Digital Still Cameras can capture 16.7 million colours. It is highly improbable if not impossible for an electronic light sensor to detect such a high number of colours. The colour content of Digital Cinematography would be ultimately determined by the Digital Projector. The manufacturers of Digital Projectors have claimed that their Projectors can produce Trillions of colours, but there wouldn't even be trillions of colours in nature -- so this claim is ridiculous. LONG-TERM RETRIEVAL. This is the worst Achilles' Heel for Digital Cinematography / Photography. While Digital Cameras can only take a Picture of an Electronic Image converted into a non-real Computer File Record, Film captures the Actual Image on a Real Record which is there to be seen. A Digital Record is nothing more than a high-tech modern-day Computer Programme File on a modern-day Computer Hardware Disk, and both that Programme File and Hardware Disk will become obsolete in the future. Since Film is real, you have the image forever, and the Film Negative will last hundreds of years with proper care. Unlike a Computer Disk, you can look at a Film Negative and know what pictures it contains. Since Film is a low-technology medium, it can be easily retrieved in the future. An Electronic Record cannot be viewed without the modern-day hi-tech Electronic Equipment required to view it! A Digital Computer File is even more complicated to produce than an Analog Record. It will be a very serious problem in the future to view Digital Video Programmes recorded in modern-day formats when they are decades old and obsolete! Film can also be easily recorded onto any electronic formats. On the contrary, different electronic formats are not compatible with each other. To transfer old Analog Television onto new HDTV requires, among other things, the image to be horizontally stretched which distorts the image. There are no serious transfer problems with Film. Even though a Film image may be stretched to fully fit Analog TV, this is not the same as the problems with converting two electronic formats. The Movie-going public deserves the highest of quality in Movie Presentations at their local Theatres. The Film Presentation provides the highest of quality. This quality is far superior to any Digital Cinematography / Projection Presentation. An electronic Digital Presentation will never be able to even come close to the quality of natural Film -- not even in 100 years. I previously noted how Digital Computer Editing reduces the resolution of Film to that of Digital, but I also provided a very simple solution to correct this problem. I also previously noted how the holes in a Movie Screen deteriorate the quality of the picture, but this is also easy to rectify. Some Executives in the Studios are inclined to embrace Digital Projection in Theatres since it would be cheaper and less- expensive than to ship out many Film Prints to the Theatres. Those of you in Hollywood who value Movie-making as an Art, not a fast buck, must make sure that this does not occur. Whether you be Cinematographers, Producers or Directors, you must ensure that the movie-going public receives the highest of quality. A conversion to Digital Cinematography would ultimately lead to the end of the Movie Theatre business as people would prefer higher quality television. In closing, I welcome you to forward this Article on to other interested persons. Sincerely, Mr. Terry Mester Welland, Ontario, Canada

without having seen the movie, obviously this is NOT done continuously. often this is done with several different devices playing together, for example the camera starts of on a crane and moves from position A in the air to position B on the ground, then from position B, another camera on a steadycam or dolly moves on...and so on and so on. these days you can get pretty accurate positions for your camera and reproduce them (motion control). often shots like these are also a combination of realtime and 3D animation combined. cameras moving through 3D environments....

Ben Knot shot "Salems Lot" through the base. but ive never seen the series :/