Rob Belics

Wash U. in St. Louis?

Just thought I'd pass this along from the Missouri Film Commission in case anyone can use it. On Tuesday, film commission staffers Jerry Jones and Traci Albertson headed to Kansas City?s nearly-vacant Blue Ridge Mall to get location photos on file. The location is set for demolition in February. If you know of a production looking for a large vacant mall, or a building to blow up, we know the perfect place! Contact our office at 573-751-9050.

Having a good script is everything. Like it was said, almost all the scripts I've seen are bad, derivitive, etc. But who decides what you have is worth reading? Not you. If I had a good script, I personally know people who could (probably) get Kevin Bacon, Bill Murray or one of the leads of "Lord of the Rings" to read it. Maybe even Tom Cruise or Spielberg. But I'm a nobody who knows some people whos opinions might help that along. Otherwise you are one of a million who claim to have the next great idea.

Go to Kodak's site and search for our own John Pytlak to find articles about this.

PAR is an acronym for Parabolic Aluminized Reflector, actually.

Yeah, their site sucketh. Their phone number is listed. I've called them several times. Nice people. Easy to deal with. They can set up an account for you which is convenient if you want to use a credit card.

Naaah, Sam. You can't do anything without light(s). And you can't always count on the sun to be in the right position or around at all. Most of your time is lighting anyway.

Think of it this way. The first line of the second field, that is, the second line of the interlaced frame, occurs a whole frame later than the first line of the first field. With non-interlaced, the second line of the frame occurs immediately after the first. It is just as if you have two seperate frames, one after the other. A lot of movement can occur during that time. 1080i, I don't believe, is equivalent to 720p. I think it would be the same as 540p, or half, because each half of the 1080 frame is displayed one at a time.

I think a lot about this buying a camera thing and I may have changed my thoughts recently. If he owns this camera and needs to shoot an interior scene he can't do it. If the sun goes down he can't shoot. Why? He needs lights! In fact, you can't shoot most scenes without lights, reflectors, flags, etc. Maybe he should collect light gear and get good at that. Then you can take stills for practice. Rent ANY camera for practice or for real. It's all cheaper that way. If you can't light well then the camera won't do you much good anyway.

No. It's a movie. You would be using the term "film" incorrectly. For that matter, when I am generating a totally computer based scene including actors can I say I am filming? No. I am not using film. I may output to film for projection but in no way am I filming. Neither is a videographer "filming" while recording to tape. Another problem we have here is how do you differentiate between one medium and the other if we use the same word to describe both? Why should you have to be unsure when someone says they are filming as to whether it's on film or video tape?

First, neither HDV or DV use film. Second, your most flexible medium is film not dv or hdv.

I'm not talking to you anyway you bloody #&$@..... :P

I think we're getting a little confused, too, about what the general public calls a film and what the people who produce movies would call film/video. In this discussion, I thought we were talking from the view of production people. David is correct about the GP not knowing or caring what it is shot on though there are many knowledgeable folks who appreciate the difference.

That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is just that I get the feeling "videos" hide behind this mask and don't stand on their own merits.

There has to be some differentiation because there is confusion. I've started reading articles where I thought I was learning something new about film only to find I wasted my time when I found it only related to video. They aren't the same thing technically. When working on a computer most people say "I've got to look it up on the computer" and you won't question whether it's a Mac or a PC but it makes a big difference if you drive to a location only to find you can't use your software on that machine. If you're a game player and someone invites you over for a computer game and you find out his "computer" is an old Atari box, you'd feel cheated. No one would call an Atari a computer. There are names for all these things and video is video. Film has always been known as "motion picture film". It is video that has encroached upon the name and wrongly so. So what do we call video transferred to film? I think it should be "movie" with an asterisk. You need to let me know what I'm getting in for when I plunk down my dollars. You tell me a movie was shot on dv and transferred to film then I (everyone?) questions how good that movie will be and wait for the reviews. Why should video hide behind the mask of film?

I agree with David but don't agree with the cause. Saying film is just an error and I find that error created by amateurs and the public in general. It has ony been a relatively short time since video projects have come into the mainstream of production. We've always called them "film" until now and that usage is in the common language. However, I believe Alex is correct that some, especially amateurs, do try to elevate their status by calling it a 'film'. Just like some use the phrase, "I have just made a feature....", meaning feature length and little else. You've seen the bumper sticker: "My other car is a BMW". <_<

This could be a really fun thing if cities all over the world would produce something similar to show activity like this. "A Tale of 100 Cities" Good job!

My son is a 16-year old professional actor who has some aspirations to be a director though acting is his big thing. He has all the acting books and some on directing. He owns his own slate :rolleyes: Does anyone have any good ideas for Christmas gifts that are film related?

Thought you guys would get a kick out of THIS

This might be useful...and fun!

That's a very good point and well worth remembering. Especially for me because I, too, had a big gripe against unions for a long time but that was due to a bad experience with my local ibew when I was in television. They didn't protect me in three separate cases but I was the one that got in trouble for it and eventually got the boot. In one case I hadn't gotten paid in three months for example. When I refused to work for that station, that was what got me the boot (believe it or not). Other fellow members were on my side but were powerless to do anything. That was in the day when a director I know got called on the carpet for moving a monitor off a table so he could sit down.

I had a good friend a number of years ago who was blind. That was when blind people, in order to get to know a person better, might touch your face to get an idea of what you look like. There was a new fella that got in the car with us once and Jim reached out and ran his hand over his face. There was a pause before Jim said, "Man, you are uuuuuuggggllly!"

There's got to be a joke in there somewhere. :)

Hey, George. Paid work? With all that you've learned on your own and all the work, are you getting any offers? You deserve them.

On large shoots there are so many people I'm surprised the hours aren't tracked well, though, someone should notice. My son was only 13 or 14 and a featured extra on a set. One day he had 16 hours but nobody said anything. As the parent, I could have said something but he's a professional and was needed so, although exhausted, he's a trooper and wouldn't leave. To tell the truth, we were counting the dollars not the hours. BTW, if anyone can use a real pro 16-year old actor, let me know.