Jump to content

Robert Edge

Premium Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert Edge

  1. Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a political debate. I just thought that the relaxation of the rules in New York might be of interest to people who are planning to film there, and might also be of interest to people in other cities that have similar rules. I guess that I thought that it might also be interesting to see how these new rules affect photography in quasi-public spaces, such as the Union Square Market, which I know has insisted, at least formally, on a permit and insurance if one plans to use a motion picture camera or if one wants to use a still camera with a tripod. As the NY Greenmarket office once told me, they are used to the major networks filming in their spaces, and their rules are constructed accordingly. Anyway, I do apologize if this thread is considered a waste of bandwidth. Cheers.
  2. My apologies if this has already been posted: http://www.nyclu.org/sharma_pr_052307.html Click on the links at the end of the the news release for details. The expected rules, which also cover tripod use, start on page 7 of the second link.
  3. I haven't posted anything on this site in many months, but I watched a seminar recently that is now on the web and well worth recommending. Last month, Gotham Sound hosted a seminar, live in New York and internationally over the internet, about the latest trends in sound from pre-production to post-production. Much of what was discussed is of direct interest to cinematographers. I thought that I would point out that the seminar is now on Gotham's website, at http://www.gothamsound.com/vlog/. I gather that there are some omissions, having to do with restrictions on some of the material that Postworks and a producer form the television programme 30 Rock showed at the seminar, but even without that material, this is well worth watching. The seminar was geared to a sound crowd, but I believe that it is of equal interest to cinematographers. Cheers, R. Edge
  4. I saw The History Boys last week. I'd say what I think of it, but I can't think of a way of doing that that wouldn't amount to saying that I consistently find current theatre more intelligent, and in this case also a lot more amusing, than current film. So I just have a question and an observation. The question: Does anyone know when the film version, apparently nearing completion, will be released? I'm interested in seeing how it translates. The observation, perhaps of interest to people involved in film: The video segments, by a fellow named Ben Taylor, are wonderful, especially the send-up of the BBC. Together with the staging, they help a 3 hour play zip along like a high speed passenger train.
  5. Alejandro, I am most obliged for your comments. It is very cool that you have shot everything from Omptimist to Volvo. I have used a still camera, unprotected, while crewing on an Etchells. It worked fine, but we had light winds and I only felt comfortable about it running downwind under spinnaker. I want to do it this summer with a motion picture camera, but in a three man boat my primary obligation is to race, and running a camera, other than under spinnaker, won't really work. I may be able to do it if I go out one day in a RIB. From a camera point of view, that has its own risks. Your comments about photographing from the vicinity of a racing buoy, where the RIBS with photographers tend to hang out, reminds me of something. A few years ago, I was crewing on a Dragon when one of guys called things a bit tight and we collided with the lead boat at the first mark. The photographer on the RIB at the mark got some great photos of the collision. That was fine, given that we were sailing 30 footers. I imagine that being on a RIB in an IMS race, at a buoy, is a much trickier proposition, requiring a really good driver. You probably already know Beken, but if not check out www.beken.co.uk. Until 1975, they did all of their photos on glass plate. I've spent a bit of time in their archive, and I own a print, made from a plate shot in 1935, of the sloop known as the Bluenose. I have seen the camera that Mr. Beken used to take glass plate photographs from the deck of a boat (it is in the store, and shown on the website) and it raises interesting questions about technology. After 1975, Beken moved to Hasselblad, and it is my understanding that the firm is now shooting digital. The other thing that I would suggest, if you haven't already seen it, is the film Wind. There was recently an article in American Cinematographer Magazine on the DVD that says that much of the sailing footage was shot onboard and handheld. Thanks again for your response to my question, and good luck.
  6. David, I am talking about how people speak with one-another on this site. You can say that it is an issue and that something needs to be done about it. Or You can say that it is not an issue. You can also say that I have a lot of nerve raising the question because you think that I am uncivil, or am humourless, toward other participants on this site. Or you can say that I have a lot of nerve raising the question because you don't like what I have to say generally. If you are going to do that, you have two choices. One is to do what Jason did, and make a specfic complaint. Even if this is a fairly basic rhetorical device, also known as an ad hominem attack, it does have the honour of being specific. The other choice is to make an ad hominem attack that is non-specific. Sometimes, people do this in a way that is designed to make it possible to say that it is a general observation rather than directed at an individual. I know that you don't like what I said about American Cinematographer Magazine, and especially the digital version. Neither you nor anyone else from the ASC has challenged the facts stated in that thread. For my part, I am pretty pleased that a lot of people have read the thread, and as a result know that there are issues with the product. I am not going to apologize, as a consumer, for telling other consumers that there is a big gap, for a product, between what is being sold and the reality. I hope, as someone who has just renewed his subscription to the ASC magazine for another four years, that the ASC is going to do something about this gap. I also know that I made some comments about the film Goodnight, and Good Luck, that you don't like. My opinion of this film, which is not high, was expressed in a way that is pretty obviously intended to be irreverent, indeed amusing. I actually do think that the film is a didactic exercise, and it does remind me of Charlie Chaplin's speech at the end of The Great Dictator, and Schwartzenneger's films and part of Forster's analysis of the novel. Some people might think that that kind of analysis is off the wall. Others may think that it is close to the truth. What surprised me is that some people didn't see the humour in it. What surprises me even more is that someone who thinks that Good Night, and Good Luck is one of the best films of the year, might think that it is ok to make an oblique, non-specific attack on someone that can't be defended. Ultimately, that is what the film is about. Beyond those two examples, all of the posts that I have made lately have had two characteristics. The first is that they have been entirely technical. The second is that they have been written in a way that is expressly designed to avoid an argument. A good example are my posts on the the thread about the FR-2 sound recorder. The fact is, those posts contain some helpful information about what is currently out there, and what is coming, in terms of time code recorders, and also explicitly sidesteps a debate about bit rate via a link to another site. In other words, I don't agree with what was said about bit rate, but I'm so gun shy about this site at this point that I'd rather provide a link to another site than say so. The one exception to these characteristics is my post on the Arri 416, in which I ventured the observation that 416 equates to "for 16", which is about as far as I am prepared to go anymore when it comes to humour on this site. This very long post is the result of being told, however obliquely, that the issue is my credentials for raising the issue of civility and humour, not the issue of civility and humour itself. To be honest, I expected more than that. It is important to understand something. Being on the receiving end of a personal attack, especially when it gathers steam and starts to resemble an attack by a pack of wolves, is not fun. The prospect is intimidating, and almost certainly inhibits people from participating. In my case, I believe that I am capable of defending myself, but I don't want to spend my time doing that. It is one thing to participate, as a game, in a high school debating society. It is another thing to revisit that experience as an adult, especially when the first thing that one learns, as a 16 year old debater, is that ad hominem arguments don't cut it.
  7. Jason, I am talking about how people on this forum speak to one-another, which in my view is too often uncivil and humourless. It frequently makes participation in this site an unpleasant experience. I suspect that there are people who won't post, or rarely post, because of this. In my own case, it is the principal reason why I am spending less and less time following cinematography.com. I use my full name on closed internet sites (e.g. D-word) and in e-mail or personal message exchanges. As a matter of personal choice, I use my initial and last name on public sites. I have not noticed any correlation between how people sign their posts and civility on this forum. In fact, the thing that surprises me is that people who sign their full names apparently have no compunction about saying things that they would never say face to face, and that they must surely regret later. My post is about how people on this site talk to one-another, not about what they say about a film or other product. My posts about American Cinematographer Magazine and Zinio, which were critical, well-documented and of interest in particular to non-US subscribers, were about a product, lack of transparency about the product and lack of customer service. As for my general views on the ASC, I have a four year subscription to its magazine. Have a good day.
  8. I have learned more from reading Stephen Williams's posts on this site than from anyone else. He is knowledgeable (including on the lenses that are the topic of this thread), he is civil and he has a very good sense of humour. He is one of the classiest participants in this forum. This is the first, and I hope only time, that I have read a thread in which he is treated like a schoolboy. Mr. Mullen needs to know that using CAPITAL LETTERS to tell someone that he is "seriously misinformed" is not his finest moment. Mr. DG Goulder needs to know that his posts read like someone conducting a jihad about cinematography, which in my case, at least, makes me remember that perspective is a good thing. This site doesn't need an on-going thread called "sign your posts". It needs an on-going thread called "don't leave your civility and sense of humour at the door". Mr. Williams is a big boy and more than capable of defending himself. That isn't why I'm writing this. I'm writing this because, for what it is worth, I'm really tired of this kind of thing. And judging from some personal exchanges, I'm not alone. This is really discouraging.
  9. Robert Edge


    No doubt you guys have noticed that 416 = for 16.
  10. The plot thickens. This afternoon Zaxcom, which makes the Deva, announced that it will show at NAB a portable time code recorder, with RF capability, starting at US$1000: http://www.zaxcom.com/hotnews/nab2006_preview.htm.
  11. Ther is a recent discussion about 16 bit and 24 bit recording, from the point of view of current practice, at www.jwsound.net: http://jwsound.net/SMF/index.php?topic=131.0
  12. Alejandro, What is your setup when you are shooting during competitions? Are you shooting from a rib or from a sailboat in competition and, if the latter, what size boats? What are you doing when the camera is in actual use about protecting it from spray? I'm thinking of shooting some 16mm footage in the English Channel (Solent, just off Southampton) this summer from an Etchells (a 30 foot open keelboat). Sorry for this question in the midst of a discussion about motorcycles. It isn't often that one runs into a person who has experience filming sailboat races and I couldn't resist.
  13. My earlier reference to Jay Rose was actually to his review, together with John Garrett, of the Tascam HD-P2. I don't think that it has been published yet on dv.com and it is not on his own site (www.dplay.com). In a recent r.a.m.p.s. post, Rose implied that the review, while favourable, will express reservations about recording with the Tascam at 24 bit: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.mo...f75ba324067c8ed There is another cost-effective option if one owns, or wants to buy, an Apple portable computer: a programme called Boom Recorder (http://www.vosgames.nl/products/BoomRecorder/) plus an audio interface.
  14. Hi. Were you recording 16 bit or 24 bit? If 24, what do you think of the sound and what mics were you using?
  15. You guys aren't the first to have trouble finding it. Click on Forums and then scroll down to the very bottom. There has also been discussion about the Tascam and new Sound Devices recorder, some of which applies to the FR-2, on Jeff Wexler's new site about production sound: www.jwsound.net. Mr. Wexler has been the mixer on a lot of major feature films, and it may be of interest to people on this site that his father is the cinematographer Haskell Wexler. On the relative merits of these recorders, in my case it came down to a choice between the Tascam and waiting a bit to see whether Sound Devices might announce a 2-track recorder with time code. I decided to wait. Despite the cost, and for various reasons, some of them quite specific to my own needs, I'll be buying the SD 702T unless something much more attractive gets announced four weeks from now at NAB.
  16. If you don't need time code, there are a number of options. I'll assume that you want time code. The Fostex FR-2 is worth considering if you need both time code in and time code out. If you only need time code in, the Tascam HD-P2, which came out in December, is significantly less expensive (in the US, $900). Jay Rose (www.dplay.com) says that his review of the Tascam will appear shortly at www.dv.com. You will also find discussion about the FR-2 and HD-P2 in the Production Sound Forum on this site, which is at the bottom of the Forum list. Late last week, Sound Devices (www.sounddevices.com) announced a new 2-Track recorder that is available either without time code (SD 702) or with time code in/out (US 702T). The time code version of this recorder, which dealers are offering at US$2375, is about US$700 more than the FR-2. Because it is essentially a modified version of a proven Sound Devices product, I think that it is safe to say that it is worth the premium. Note that the NAB show, for which there are likely to be a number of new product announcements, is the last week of April. Hope that helps.
  17. Sound Devices has just announced two new 2-track recorders that use flash card storage, the 702 and the 702T, the latter being time code capable. The electronics are apparently the same as SD's other recorders. The 702T is an alternative to the FR-2 and the Tasam HD-P2. It can be used to jam time code, which can't be done with the Tascam. Apparently the price is about two and a half times the Tascam street price. I'm told that the Sound Devices web site will have information on these products tomorrow: www.sounddevices.com
  18. This is also good: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fairuse.htm
  19. Every post that I made in this thread, starting with comments about the Academy Awards and Karl Lagerfeld, was intended to elicit a smile. That is true of many of the posts that I make on this site. The smile may be, he's joking, or it may be, he's serious but at least he doesn't take the world, or himself, too seriously.
  20. This is both amusing and very useful for people making films in the US: http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/zoomcomic.html
  21. What I said is that Good Night and Good Luck is a didactic exercise, which you say is inherent in the story and, therefore, the reason why someone like Kubrick wouldn't touch it. To be honest, if I believe that a film is inherently that black and white, and that someone like Kubrick wouldn't touch, it is hard for me to understand how I could attack someone for having reservations about it. I am aware of the fact that some Americans like this film. As someone who is not American, but spends a lot of time in the US, I can only say that I found the film a bore, and that the person with whom I went to see it walked out half-way through. It seemed to be about Americans trashing themselves for what you call a lynching. Well, I guess that it is hard to be I favour of lynchings. Whatever, I can't stress enough how much this is a local film, of very little interest outside the US, and within the US, of interest to people who are prepared to believe that there is some kind of connection between Dalton Trumbo and Iraq. I think that they are different issues. I think that Good Night does an injustice both to Dalton Trumbo and Iraq, and I do not apologize for thinking that Good Night, as a study of McCarthyism, is inferior to what one might expect from PBS. I started this thread in the hope that it might be a little light-hearted. Apparently I've touched a raw nerve, and I regret that. If this thread dies quickly, I won't be dissappointed.
  22. Thanks. As we know, it took 50 years for George Clooney to make a feature film about it. I figure that if they had the money, John Sayles would have made a film about HUAC, and probably Altman. I agree that Kubrick wouldn't have done so in 1965, but I'm curious to know why you think that he wouldn't have made a film about HUAC in the 70s or 80s. I realize that Rik thinks that I'm a stupid geek and that you take pity on bursting my dumb bubble. Sorry to both of you for wasting your time.
  23. Rik, Could I ask that you have a look at what I said about Good Night and Good Luck in a thread called Best Cinematography and then re-read the post that initiated this thread? Personally, I think that this thread raises an interesting set of questions, which can be addressed as seriously or unseriously as one desires. Besides, after seeing Good Night and Good Luck, I just wanted an excuse to call out the names Dalton Trumbo, Ring Lardner Jr. and, in particular I.F. Stone. I actually think that it might be interesting to talk about alternative approaches to Good Night and Good Luck, and to talk about the people who paid for that era, and maybe to do so with a bit of humour, maybe the kind of humour that Kubrick demonstrated in Dr. Strangelove. Indeed, the idea of Kubrick making a film about HUAC might make an interesting film in itself. Cheers
  24. Here's the scenario... Stanley Kubrick has just finished Dr. Strangelove. He is approached by Dalton Trumbo and Ring Lardner Jr. to make a film about HUAC/McCarthy. Kubrick decides to make the film. He can use whomever he wants as a writer, actors, cinematographer, editor, composer, consultant (Robert Altman/Roy Cohn/I.F. Stone?). Also, he has been studying H.G.Wells and can kidnap people from the future for his project. Now the fantasy baseball/hockey/basketball/European or American football part... You are Kubrick, with his personality, and you have seen Good Night and Good Luck.
  25. I know women who think that Mel Gibson looks a lot like Michelangelo's David, or would if he would just take his clothes off, so you could be right. I'm not sure, though, if they would use the word masterpiece to describe Leonardo diCaprio. I forgot to mention in my post that Citizen Kane also won the Oscar for Original Screenplay. However, that award is kind of suspicious, seeing as how a lot of the writers in Hollywood in those days were communists. I learned that from watching Mr. George Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck. Seeing as how someone questioned anearlier comment I made in this thread about Good Night, I feel that I should clarify things. Good Night, and Good Luck is one of the best lectures that I have ever seen. For one thing, Mr. Clooney does a lot of explaining right at the beginning so you don't get confused. Then, he does an amazing trick. He takes all these people who were three-dimensional characters in real life and makes them all two-dimensional. I think that Mr. Clooney probably got this idea from watching Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, although I suppose he might have gotten it from a really original reading of a book called Aspects of the Novel, in which Mr. E.M. Forster talks about flat characters and round characters. Anyway, Mr. Clooney really likes flat characters, to the exclusion of any round ones, which makes things really clear for the audience, and then he does something really important. He divides all of his characters into two camps, the good guys and the bad guys. Well, all I can say is that he is so good at this that even though all his characters dress pretty much the same - not a white hat or a black hat in sight - you can always tell them apart. There isn't a second in the whole lecture where you get confused about who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. He orchestrates this masterfully, but the important thing is that Mr. Clooney doesn't waste his talent on frivolous entertainment. He is a teacher, a man who imparts knowledge and understanding. Here is what Mr. Clooney teaches: there are good guys, and there are bad guys, and the good guys will eventually win even though the good guys are really, really outnumbered. Now, some people will say that Arnold has already taught us this, so what do we need Mr. Clooney for? Well, the problem with Arnold is that he makes silly movies. Mr. Clooney, on the other hand, is an intellectual who knows how to harness the power of the movies to make us see good from evil and right from wrong so that we may all become better citizens. I, for one, am grateful. Indeed, I'll go so far as to say that Mr. Clooney's next film should be a re-make of Dr. Strangelove, a film about a serious and important part of history that is irredeemiably flawed by mindless frivolity. Thank God no-one allowed Stanley Kubrick to unleash his twisted mind on a film about McCarthyism.
  • Create New...