Tim J Durham

Check out the photos and maybe buy one of the books: http://cinemasupplies.stores.yahoo.net/carmounts.html there is also a rigging video in there somewhere.

Tim, I use the 9050 every day. I think it's a great monitor with very accurate color.

Hi Mitch, Are you going to get any wide-angle 1/2" HD lenses to rent for the F350?

Frank, I think Abel-Cine has XDCam HD F350 which shoots both PAL and NTSC in DVCam as well as HDV. You could also try Bexel. They seem to have everything.

Soundtrack Pro has the ability to make an ambient noise print which you can then selectively reduce. Obviously it also affects the audio you want to keep but it does a surprisingly good job once you tweak it a little.

When you say pilot, is this commissioned or are you doing it on spec hoping someone will like the idea and pay you to produce it? Either way, sounds like you need to use available light as cleverly as possible. Have a big china ball on a grip arm that you can hang over the center of your group shots and keep your group gathered around it (but not directly under it) so you can move the camera and have everyone lit similarly. If you plan to move around a lot, it's pointless to try to do too much beyond the available light without a budget and/or serious expertise. You might spend the money replacing the overhead tubes (fluorescents, I assume?) with 5600k tubes and you can take the reflector off of a 200 or 400 watt joker bug HMI and drop that down into your china ball so it will match the daylight overheads. Just make sure the bulb doesn't touch the sides or you'll have a comet in the middle of your actors.. That way, you can use the same lighting for your daylight scenes. That's where I'd start.

Are you trying to get a job with Turner Classics colorizing old B&W movies? What's the purpose of this process? Not puttin it down, just curious. BTW, green is a secondary color...

I don't know what you find so "radical" about posting that video on informationclearinghouse.com or anywhere else. It pretty much speaks for itself just like the photos from Abu Ghraib.

You think people sufffered a "rude awakening" when they discovered their $3000 HDV camera wasn't as good as a Varicam? OH, the HUMANITY!

I have to say, if there is only one camera involved, it can't be too strenuous (I wouldn't think) but as you move the camera there are adjustments to the flares atleast that need to be made. I've only ever DIT'ed on multi-camera shoots like concerts, talk shows and sports with wildly inconsistent lighting and it can be a very strenuous job.

Why don't you just put this quote in your signature, that way you don't have to continually type it into every post you make.

Is this something that will still have a life beyond the time when this cable company goes Hi-def? If not, you're wasting your money shooting it in HD. As for the color and text problems, you are working from faulty information. Downconverting the HD to BetaSP in After Effects would look worse than originating the project in SP.

You don't greenscreen the person into the crack? Then you could light them perfectly. Hmm, I think I'm gonna go try that...

I don't think so. I'm sure I'd have read about that by now. The cameras been out over a year and people were raving about the HD-SDI out on the Canon XL-H1 before, during, after its' release. All the while the Z1 was already out and not a peep. If anyone had been able to do 4:4:4 or even 4:2:2 it'd be common knowledge by now, wouldn't it?

He's going to have to do more than read the manual if the DP or director hands him a photo and says "set the camera up like this. We need to start in 20 minutes". Make sure you know well in advance how they want it to look so you have time to find out how to make it look that way. The F900s have extremely complicated menus and on-set with actors looking at you is no place to make that discovery.

If you have a copy of the Goodman Guide, he walks you through the process in it. The rental house probably has a copy if you don't have access to one.

Try doing three or four black balances in a row and see if they come back. You should be doing this at the start of each shooting day as a matter of course.

Umm, Cibachrome is a printing process. It differs from other color printing in that you are printing onto polyester instead of paper. The prints themselves have a distinctive look (in my opinion, they are MORE contrasty, not less) but any scans there-of from the prints to the internet would likely lose the distinction of comparing them in person due to the variables of getting it from point A to B. I'd guess you can come up with a fairly close approximation of those particular photos (even the original Cibachrome prints) in motion picture film as I've seen plenty of films with similar looks. I'm with Stuart. They're beautiful photos but not all that out of the ordinary as far as color. Cravo Neto is a content-guy.

I have a set of Tram TR-50's (these are about 6-7 years old now). In all my gear, they are one thing I can always count on.

Yes, You can see the difference plus you get sound with HD-SDI.

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_oneman_pipeline/ Somebody posted about this a couple days ago. Sounds like a lot of tedious work if he's describing it accurately, which I suspect he's not. It's probably more like what Gavin said.

http://www.theworkshops.com/catalog/course...amp;SchoolID=21

This is what you want: http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?p=351

You could do it the same way they did "Toonces, the Driving Cat" on SNL. Maybe the low-tech would be seen as charming.

It's hard to tell exactly what you're after. You started with a series of wrong assumptions and Matt tried to dig you out from under them. Now perhaps you should change your tone and start over.