Tim J Durham

You CAN attach photos to your posts. If I can do it, anybody can. As far as movie clips, you can post links to your host site. I wouldn't know about Tims (Tyler) plans for hosting. It wouldn't be a bad idea, though... Website hosting for DP's, Cam Ops, Directors, demo reels, etc. "www.cinematography.com/Timjbd" has a nice ring to it. I guess since you have to pay SOMEBODY to host your site, this would be as good a place as any. Better, infact.

Hi John, Just wanted to point out that I think it's great that you come around here to discuss issues related to Kodak products. You set an example for the rest of the industry who remain conspicuous in their abscense. Short of Panasonic (occasionally) and Zeiss, I can't think of any other companies with representation around here. I don't shoot film (wish I did) but I certainly appreciate that you've recognized the value to your customers by making yourself available here. Sony? Is anybody out there??

That could be right. I haven't had a chance to use one of those cams yet. I suppose that since your shutter speed menu, in 30p, starts at 1/40, that must mean the default is 1/30. That would be different than most of their other cams, though. Does that camera have "digital super-gain"? I'm shooting (again) with an SDX900 for a week and it has DSG which is VERY cool. It's basically a digital representation of a 1/6 second shutter so the motion is veeeery blurred. Really cool. And you can see in near darkness with little noise. The downside is that it only works in 60i. Not sure why.

For a high-contrast look, check out the Spike Lee film, "Clockers". It had a really cool, primary colors look with very high contrast. Shot by Malik Sayeed. Looked alot like Kodachrome slides.

It's the default when the shutter is in the "off" position, as well. (It's 4:30am and I gotta go to Baltimoooooore! And it has nothing to do with John Waters.)

Why don't you run some comparative tests and post the results? Then people can have something to work with. I had never heard of the DVC200 (retail: $3900 w/o lens) so have no personal basis to make a comparison. If you just want to know about the DVX100A, there are 29 trillion threads here and elsewhere to read and learn from. For that reason alone, if it were me, I'd probably pick the DVX100A. There's a much wider body of users and info. Plus, I've seen the results.

It's well known that the ratio of bad cameramen to good cameramen is roughly 10:1 while the ratio of bad cameramen who think they're good to good cameramen is also 10:1. What that knowledge does for you? I don't know. Most production people would realize that you didn't do the shooting, only the editing.

Well, it IS summer. They probably are not reading their e-mail while on holiday. Have you called them or visited? Sounds like a tough school to get into: http://www.answers.com/topic/krzysztof-kieslowski-1 THREE attempts and he was...you know...Krzysztof Kieslowski.

Even if you COULD directly attach a cine lens to it, you'd have to multiply the focal length by something like 7.9x so the guys 5.9mm becomes a 46mm and his 10-100mm becomes a 79-790mm. Not quite what he had in mind, I bet. I might've found this stuff out BEFORE parting with my $5K for the XL-2.

That would seem alot more trouble than just shooting it with an anamorphic lense in the first place. Is it? Or are those lenses so expensive as to warrant that sort of work-around?

Instead of laying track, why don't you use a self-contained dolly with big, pneumatic tires? It'll be plenty smooth enough in a carpeted hallway and then you don't have to worry about getting track in your shot. You could pulse a kino on/off as he passes under the overheads. Or you could rent a body-mount instead of using a dolly. That is very distinct and cool looking: http://www.doggicam.com/bodymount.php And not done to death yet. AND you could rig a ringlight to the cam on the body-mount. These are very lightweight: http://litepanels.com/RL.html I remember a Deion Ferris video from quite a few years back where she was walking down a hallway and the camera had a ringlight around it. It was sweet looking. And have the doors slightly ajar with lights inside the rooms on stands so they hit him as edgelights when he walks past and also give the hallway some depth. Anyway, That's what I'd do with a hallway.

"Breaking the Waves" was shot in 35mm anamorphic. "Dancer in the Dark" was shot in DVCam/miniDV with a variety of cameras incl. PD-150's sporting custom anamorphic lenses! "Dogville" was shot in 1080/24p HD with a Sony F900. Well...according to MY sources.

This point was made painfully apparent while watching the Bravo show, "Project Greenlight" which is a great show, btw. The DP, (*name deleted*) brow-beat the (first time) director like a rented mule. I suspect some/most of that was at the behest of the show producers for dramatic tension. Still... very passive-aggressive with a strong leaning toward the aggressive. Even I was having anxiety attacks and I was just watching. Furthermore, the DP knew all the crew so the director was feeling like EVERYBODY was against him. But to his credit, he kept going and I'm looking forward to seeing the film.

If anyone can produce an 800lb 2.5K HMI, it's Phil. Not sure why you need it to be so heavy but the customer's always right, as they used to say, and Phil's very resourceful as I understand it... ...what do the loo rolls do in this application? I happen to have a clear, textured shower curtain that-when you have a fan on it- the light through it looks like reflections off a swimming pool. It's of limited utility for me but I'll ship it to you for $900.00. Let me know soon as I have one other interested party. Or you COULD get one (or two) of these: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...283137?v=glance

I'd just cover the cost of the repair to the hinge. Not likely to need an entire viewfinder.

AND has the worlds best skiing (Alta, Snowbird, Solitude, Park City, Deer Valley) with lift ticket prices (at Alta and Solitude) even a student can afford.

Allright..all-RIGHT! I'll do it. Just give me a little time to find somebody to cover me for the Kornbladt wedding and then I gotta tell Gus...: ...that I won't be available for a few weeks.

BINGO! Man I was wrackin' my brain trying to figure out where I'd read that article!

Umm, you don't want to "bonk" the rear element of your lenses NOR the internal organs of your camera. Canon makes an EF mount for using Canon still photo lenses. No PL mount that attaches to the cam body that I've heard. You CAN rent/buy a P&S Technik Mini 35 (Or a Micro35 or a Guerilla35) adapter for a Canon XL-1/2 but that attaches to the FRONT of your lens, not the camera body. Then you attach the PL-mount lens to it. Like this: http://redrockmicro.com/products.html

No, because the eyecup is round and magnifies the image slightly, so you wouldn't be able to see the whole frame unless it was pressed up to your eye. Viewfinders flip open for that reason. When I shoot stuff on a tripod but for some reason I can't see the monitor (producer hogging it for instance) I will flip up the viewfinder so I can stand (or sit) normally and not lurch forward all the time. Now, If I got to fully inspect the camera and missed it, I'd probably suspect you knew it was broken and hoped I wouldn't catch it. From your perspective, I guess you'll have to let your conscience be your guide. By the way, the older viewfinders came straight out and could be removed completely. They were held in place by a collar sort of like a lens mount. Camera manufacturers changed to the hinged viewfinder due to customer complaints, no doubt.

I was calling it 60p but it's not actually, it's de-interlaced 60i: http://www.joesfilters.com/joesdeinterlacer.php But I was planning to do what you proposed a couple of posts back, I was just adding the extra step of de-interlacing it first, then laying it into the 24p (actually 29.97) timeline and stretching it just as you described only 50% instead of 40%. I'm not shooting 24pA, Infact I'm leaning toward 30p due to other problems I'm having currently. AND I'm not an editor, so I'm still a little foggy on how it's all gonna work out. I guess I'd say I'm on the front side of the learning curve on 24p. I shoot it semi-frequently, but I don't have to deal with it after that. Until now. So thanks for the comments. Every little bit helps. The worst part is- there is stuff I happen upon, after having reached a point where I thought I had a grip, only to be reminded of stuff I didn't even know that I didn't know. But nobody ever learned anything by succeeding all the time. It's 11:39pm and I'm drinking coffee.

That's a weekend getaway here in the States. Leamington Spa? Could that be anything like Palm Desert?

Yes, domestic TV Land only, output to DVC-Pro50 or Digi-Beta. It's a taster tape fo a show proposal so it will likely never see the light of day. Only pitch meetings and they happen in dark caves in the bowels of Hollywood, or so I've been told.

Call your local TV station and see if you can get ahold of their "eye-in-the-sky" pilot and ask him/her. They have robotic rigs and would know where to hire them, might even be for hire themselves. They would be specific to the cameras (lenses) they have, though. So rigging your DVX might pose a problem.

Yes, that's right David. I've not yet abandoned shooting in 30p as it is for TV delivery so that may be how it works should the 60p slo-mo work better with the 30p. As it is, my b-cam is my XL-2 which does NOT have free-run TC in 24p, but DOES in 30p. Not having it will create a problem for times when we need the two cams (nearly as possible) synched to time of day TC. It's not dialogue that needs to be synched, only action so precise synching is not crucial. Just ballpark. What do you think about 30p? I don't think I've ever seen it on the tube and I can't test because I don't get the SDX900 until two days before the shoot. Whatever I decide will have to be done before I can pick up the camera.. It IS football practice so alot of panning and fast-moving action, that's why I was still leaning toward 30p. I've got til Saturday to decide.