Tim J Durham

I know it's fun to act like a big shot and post on a professionals forum. And it's easy enough to (when someone else posts asking for opinions) go out and scour the internet looking for information- find some information- and post it here as if it were your own experience. If you're a student, you should check with your professors about re-printing someone elses writings without attribution. Particularly when what you've pinched is largely wrong or it is obvious that, at your age, you could not possibly have direct experience on the topic you've picked to expound upon. For instance: An 18-year-old kid is most unlikely to have sat in on enough 4K D.I.'s to be able to offer his "expert" opinion on the quality of any D.I. in particular. You may have read several posts on the topic, scoured a few websites, feel like you've attained a reasonable understanding of what a D.I. is and how it's done and think you are offering sound advice when you pinch someone elses writings and reprint them as your own. But what you've REALLY done is called, "plagiarism". IF IT'S NOT YOUR OWN DIRECT EXPERIENCE- YOU NEED TO POST A LINK TO WHERE YOU GOT THE INFORMATION! It is NOT OK to just regurgitate it as your own. For Tim- if you think this is out of line, remove it. But something needed to be said.

It sounds like you copied this off of somebodies website. What "you" said about the 24mm and the 50mm runs counter to my ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the lenses (that means I actually owned and used them- the 24f2.0, 105f2.5 and 50f1.2 for MANY years).

This argument holds no water. If the guy is 6' from the camera but the focus is set to something 10' from the camera, the guy will be out of focus and whatever is 10' from the camera will be in focus unless you're zoomed pretty wide. The camera in this video, however, is much more than 6' from the subject. I'd say he's atleast 12' judging from the camera movement so that rules out being zoomed wide and focus inclusive. Also, I'd say the branches behind him (that ARE in focus) are 50% further from the camera, so 18'. The lens was on the telephoto side of normal, not the wide side. In either case, I'd still call it a f*** up. To me, it looks like it was done by a beginner operator on cheap equipment but I know lots of guys who make expensive equipment perform like cheap equipment.

I can think of four companies that fit this bill off the top of my head: 1) G-Tech, they make firewire hard drives, one of which I bought for my FCP system. Very prompt customer service response and very knowledgeable people. http://www.g-raid.com/ 2) Cavision, Chinese-made matte boxes which are much cheaper than Chrosziel for instance, as well as follow-focus, filters, etc. http://www.cavision.com/main.html 3) 16x9, Inc., who distribute all sorts of stuff and are extremely helpful. http://www.16x9inc.com/cgibin/eDatCat/169store.cgi 4) True Lens Services, British-made matte boxes. http://www.truelens.co.uk/matte/ The opposite side of the coin would be Sony, Panasonic, Canon. In other words, most of the companies from whom you really NEED the support when you try to contact them. They generally pipe you into a swirling vortex of despair known as the "call center" from which you may or may not ever return.

I used a pair of Nikon FM-2's for many years. The last set of lenses I had were a 24 f2.0, 50 f1.2, 105 f2.5 and a 180 f2.8ED. I probably sorted through a dozen others over the years and kept the best ones which were these. Unfortunately, I sold the whole set and trying to be stylish, bought a bunch of Leica gear. Hated it- sold it. Then went to Contax G-2 system which I quite liked. I don't know if I'd point to anything about the Nikon lenses in particular, but most of my best photos were taken with my Nikon ( and Hasselblad) gear. If you want to get into bokeh and esoteric stuff like that, skip this but in printing, I always knew that I could print negs shot with the Nikon gear straight. No burning, dodging, etc. And the contrast settings (I had a polycontrast color enlarger head) were always in the same ballpark. You need to get used to the backward focus direction, though. For the money, I can't imagine how you could go wrong with the Nikons. You could probably buy my old set for under $1200 now and they were the sharpest, smoothest lenses I ever owned.

Was that pointed at me, Junior? Go back and read what I wrote.

Ah yes. Not my bailiwick. Not saying I wouldn't want to do it, mind you. And merry Christmas to you, Stephen. Switzerland would be one of my top choices if I got to pick where I wanted to spend the holidays. There's a little town in the mountains called Leukerbad, and in it a hotel called Le Sources des Alpes that's gotta be about as good as it gets. Got to spend a week there once in a former life. Sweeet.

You can set the viewfinder to "ring" on portions that are in-focus. Also, if your back focus is out (or more often the case) your macro ring is dislodged from its' detente, zooming in to focus will not help you. I suspect this was shot with a prosumer camera with the auto-focus engaged. Not a good thing if you don't plan to have the subject in the middle of the frame. One more reason why prosumer cameras are not quite ready-for-primetime in many instances. Those things can really make you look incompetent. As this guy does.

Umm, I've done quite a few gigs for the BBC and I both lit and operated and was called "lighting cameraman" when anyone felt the need to comment on what I was doing. Ofcourse that was here in the U.S. not in the U.K and were news and/or documentary shoots. I your scenario, I find it hard to believe the "lightting cameraman" gets paid over 1000 quid per day. They sure weren't paying ME that rate but I was hired indirectly. Guess I won't let THAT happen again.

Just knowing such things could condemn us all to the flames of eternal damnation.

Can somebody take this thread out back and shoot it?

What's to hate? Do you mean when you're shoooting film-stream or all the time? If you don't have the money for extensive post prod color grading, and you have a list of different looks within the same production, A DIT can save valuable time for the DP. I know when I'm doing the settings from scratch, even if I'm working from a pre-established list, it can take a sh!tload of valuable time. Time that often needs to be spent lighting, for instance. Now, if you DON'T have a list but only a still photo of the look you're going for, a good DIT can get you there on an unfamiliar camera much faster than many DP's or Op's could themselves. Or do you not accept that anyone could possibly know more about something than you? Why hate? 'tis the season to be jolly.

I just saw "Syriana" there a week ago. Reserved seating, booze, compared to the way the high school kids project the films in my local megaplex, I never thought I'd say paying $14 to see a movie would be money well spent. But there you have it. Then drinks at the British pub a block away afterward. "The Cat and... something". Nice courtyard and a surprisingly happening scene.

Danny boy, The pipes, the pipes are callin... People will take you seriously if you present yourself professionally. If one were to encounter both Daniel J. Yadayada and Steven Spielberg on a film set- one would assume that he, rather than Daniel, would be the director. Yes? Taking offense at the situation you desribe is ridiculous and having that attitude won't get you in many doors.

Hi Rolfe, I'd use a bounce board.

I can't imagine your producer would go for it but you could get a Pro35 with a Nikon mount and use the Nikkor 8mm. You'd really have to want it. Not great for hand-held. The widest 2/3" lens I've ever shot with (or seen) is the Fuji A13x4.5 which is pretty wide at 88º. Fuji also makes a 0.55x fisheye attachment that will fit on that lens that's gotta vignette pretty seriously but that get's you around 160º. Good luck.

If you're saying that the camera has died and will no longer power up you've probably disconnected the firewire cable with the camera turned on. That is a definite NO-NO with the XL-2 as it can kill the main fuse. You also CANNOT remove the lens or the MA-300 while the camera is powered up. If that's the case, you will need to send it in and have it replaced. Read all about the saga of the blown master fuse here: http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=38...anon+blown+fuse

Hi Gordon, Do you have any suggestions for getting a decent quality DVD out of FCP 5.03? I also have DVD Studio Pro but I think I've been doing something wrong as the DVD's I've burned are prettty shoddy quality. I've tried just saving QT movies to my desktop and importing them into DVD StuPro and also compressing them first with FCP and/or compressor all with similar results. Source material is both DV25 and DV50. Thanks in advance.

Michael, What do you mean by this statement? Why CAN'T you get halation with the "H" Varicams?

Phil's very lovable ever since he quit the last "Sex Pistols" reunion tour. As for Landon, and speaking only for myself, the problem is his pontifications on topics of which he has no experience and attempting to pass himself off as expert having only read press releases and such. Now that's all good fun but people who don't know any better engage him in threads-with-no-end and wind up being stymied in finding whatever it was they might have been looking for. He DOES have gumption though. No denying that. How many of us were CEO of major entertainment conglomerates at 18? http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...p?showuser=1531 I don't worry too much about Landon and wouldn't be surprised if a few of the posters here end up working for him one day.

Because they have to make money and unfortunately, that's the sort of thing people actually buy. Look at the stuff they show on AMC (American Movie Classics) on any given day. Stretching the term "Classics" nearly to the breaking point.

Landon is the new head of Paramount.

The site says they are all Kodachrome: http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/ov...ollOverview.jsp There is also an archive of the guys notebooks on that site where he lists details about each roll he shot. It starts in 1938 and continues until he died. Interesting reading. I also have a suitcase full of old (mostly) Kodachrome slides my Mom's twin sister took over the years. They go back to the early 1950's. One of these days I'll catalogue and scan them all but that's a major project. Don't worry, I won't make you guys look at all my old vacation pictures...

Mike, Check your e-mail.

Old Kodachrome slides are one of my favorite photographic "looks". Like any good wine, they really take on a character with age: http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/re...8&action=browse The way the reds still pop while the rest fades is very evocative and the demise of the Kodachrome line is not unlike the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn.