Tim J Durham

Is your website the forum itself? Because it's like wading through mud and the sound doesn't synch.

I don't think you can call 1000:0 a ratio. You'll have to give the dark side a value of 1.

I saw it with my boy. You might like it but you might not wanna let your friends SEE you liking it lest you want them to treat you to a blanket party. I checked out your new website: http://newvisionent.bravehost.com/index.html This was my favourite part: http://newvisionent.bravehost.com/jobs.html Quote: Q: Do I need to live in Bloomington Indiana to work for your corporate office?: A: Not usually, most jobs can and are outsourced to all parts of the world. End quote. Thanks, I needed that. But don't forget to do a spell check before you commit words to ether. I can tell many of us will be knocking on your door in the future, you've got spunk. I wish I'd had half of the drive you have when I was your age, unfortunately I owned a bong.

Hi, Not sure where the best place for this sort of inquiry would be, but here goes: I'm currently shooting a documentary with the Pana SDX-900 in 16:9 and at 24p (not 24pA). A discussion arose about the show "Everyday Italian" on the Food Network and this is the look I was envisioning (motion-wise, it has nothing to do with food) but I am not what you'd call an "editor". None-the-less that function has been thrust upon me soooooo.... I was hoping someone could describe the settings I should be capturing in, editing in and outputting to, with the understanding that we want to be able to broadcast (so 60i), make a DVD (30p) and maybe at some point do a film-out (24p). First thing first, we need to make a master to show to PBS-types, so 60i, while retaining the 24p motion. We will be attaching an SD-930 deck via firewire to my iMac G-5 with Final Cut 4.5HD and I took two FCP classes more than a year ago, but have done nothing since, so if anyone could give me some indication what my first move should be, (and subsequent moves) I would be most appreciative. Humbly, I thank you. I'm not good at this.

How many dogs will be playing? The standard 5 like the painting (I love that painting)? More? Less?

Do they teach the Ansel Adams zone system in film school? It seems like that would be directly relevent to cinematography. I had to learn it in college, but I was a fine art major (photography) at the time and it was one of the few things I remember actually having to WRITE about in art school, 'cept for my art history classes.

I'd ask for my money back.

I shoot quite a bit with the SDX-900 and I bought a copy of the Goodman Guide from Abel Cine-tech in NY: http://www.abelcine.com/Sales/abelsalesframeset.html Call them and they'll send you one pronto. It's $99.00 as I recall. It will answer ALL your questions about the camera and it's actually a pretty good read. You won't believe how it ends!

I shot all over Austria and Switzerland in 1997 doing a travel show and one thing I can recommend highly (although it IS counterintuitive) and that is to get yourself a guide from the local tourist bureau. Unlike the college kids employed in that capacity in US cities, these people are trained professionals and they can REALLY speed the plow for you. It is also likely that you can get them gratis (might want to tip them if so). We had one in each of the 8 cities/towns/hamlets we went and each was delightful company, extremely knowledgeable, great at greasing the wheels, knew the best way to get from pt. A to pt. B, knew where to eat, where to drink. In short, they were invaluable. That's my best tip although it might sound like BS.

Hi Rick, I did the same search you are now doing and I ended up buying this one: http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/4x5_65.htm I own an XL-2 but in my day job I shoot with other peoples cameras and lenses so I needed it to be as versatile as possible. I also bought a Sony, a Panasonic, and a Canon system plate (which holds the support rods) and their entire selection of step-down rings so I can theoretically use it on front element diameters of 72mm all the way up to 120mm. Call them and ask to speak with Jason Connors. He knows what you'll need and the price was right, about half the cost of similar Chrosziel system. The only problem I have with their system is the step-down rings are not the greatest and the top and side flags, unlike the Chrosziel, are solid and do not have extenders. You'll see what I mean if you compare the two. But they had to cut back somewhere to make it 50% of the cost of the Chroziel. They also sell a follow-focus unit but I don't have that yet. The other system I seriously considered buying was from TLS in the UK: http://www.truelens.co.uk/matte/index.htm If you call them, they are very engaging lads however they did not have any of the model I wanted built at the time (right before NAB no less!). The one to get is called the "Raven" which is a new model for them and not on their website. But if you call or e-mail them, they will tell you everything you need and are very patient. I feel bad for not waiting for them to build me one but I needed it sooner. Nice guys all around. I suspect TLS is of a higher build-quality than Cavision but it is also more expensive. In between Cavision and Chrosziel, but they were keen to throw things into the package at a discount. Cheers

Says here the budget was $8 million (that's USD not British pounds), so I don't know where you got your $15 million figure: http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/boxoffice And the take was $45 million. Perhaps they budgeted originally for $15 mil and were only able to raise $8 mil. That would make the choice of miniDV understandable. I'm sure he would liked to have shot in 35mm, as evidenced by having shot his next movie, "Millions" that way (which I saw the opening weekend and liked immensely, what a great kid). To Rik Andino who said: That's losing over 300mil ten times! Where's your business sense? I say: read my post again! The part where I said, " I'd gladly trade 10 "Independence Days" for one "Dancer in the Dark". As a viewer mind you, not as a studio exec." The last sentence was crucial. I like making money as much as the next guy. However, if I could trade places with any producer or director, it would not be Jerry Bruckheimer or Joel Silver, it would more likely be someone like John Sayles or Jim Jarmusch. They don't make a huge amount of money, but enough to keep going and they get to do what they want thanks to a small, dedicated audience. I like money, but I like to think I could refrain from being greedy given the opportunity.

I think I read that they wanted to shoot in another format but ran out of $$ so were forced to go with Mini-DV. I saw it in the theater not knowing it was shot in that way and enjoyed it quite a bit. Finding out later it was shot with an XL-1 impressed me greatly. Maybe your standards are too high or mine are too low? It wouldn't be the first time someone's accused me of that. I can forgive alot if the story is involving. I've seen many, many films with amazing cinematic feats of technical and visual virtuousity, but if the story sucks... I'd gladly trade 10 "Independence Days" for one "Dancer in the Dark". As a viewer mind you, not as a studio exec.

Well, for examples of the good, it would take a deck which I don't currently have access to, but there is a current thread discussing films shot on DV, some of which I thought looked great like "28 Days Later" and "Tadpole". For bad looking films on Panavision (well, 35mm atleast, don't know if they used a Panavision) I can name one and I'd only do that because the guy's been dead for 30 years, but "Plan 9 from Outer Space" would be one. Although the terribleness is integral to my enjoyment of it. Unless you buy into the theory that Ed Wood was some sort of misunderstood genius? Are you saying you've never seen anything shot on a Panavision camera that you though was sub-par and therefore believe that the format is the only determining factor of quality?

I think that's the best looking show on the Food Network. As for the original post, <i> At this point, our church is getting ready to purchase our first HD camera for our overflow room delivery, and other churches have said they wished they had bought 720P cameras because the 1080i camera they have causes interlaced artifacts. As we get ready to put in multiple HD cameras in our church for broadcast, it forces us to think about investing in a format that will have staying power.</i> Am I the only one who has a problem with CHURCHES, living off the tax-free largess of the government trough, funded by tax-payers like me (who have no say in said use of tax dollars) purchasing multiple $200K camera packages when thousands (if not millions) of people in this country are eating out of dumpsters? Seems feeding some of those people would be a more Christian use of that money. You can spread the good news with a PD-150 for Gods sake. Sorry for the rant but that's a damn disgrace.

New Balance 991 I've probably been through 10-12 pairs in the past 10 years.

Of the fabulous or the Godawful?

Since there's about 20,000 stock houses out there, you'll have to make some phone calls to get your answers. Most of the good (big) ones were formed to represent particular people and are very discriminating. Atleast that's true of big photo agencies like Gamma-Liaison, Black Star, Woodfin Camp, etc. Shooting stuff on spec and trying to get someone to buy it from you is a tough row to hoe. HOWEVER, if you happen to be the only camera on hand when the President falls off his bike (or some similarly momentous occurence) you can make some short-term cash. But with them it's always, "what have you done for me lately?". They're not later likely to call you up and say, "hey Wolf, we loved what you did with the President! Now get to the airport, we want to fly you to Tahiti..."

Yeah, but they weigh the camera guys (not the cameras) before each show and pay accordingly. More like boxing than produce shopping. I watched the film, "Tadpole" about a week ago (and on my set the DirecTV signal is looped through the Tivo) it never occured to me that the movie was shot on a PD-150. Same with "28 Days Later". So if the guy who shot that film (or I had, for instance) also shot that Food Network show, it's likely that you'd have no trouble believing it was shot on DVCam (which is what I shoot on when I work for the Food Network) or digibeta or DVCPro or $200,000 studio cameras. By the time it gets to your set at home, the signal has been molested by some (or many) pretty incompetent hands. From PA's making dubs, to editors not equiped with waveforms or vector scopes (like the way we had it at CNN), to tape feed kids fresh out of college to satellite techs reading porn while your tape is being uplinked, and all that's happening BEFORE it gets to the guys at your local cable operation. Who knows what THEY do to it. So I guess my point is: knowing what can happen to your footage after you shoot it, if somebody at home notices that the back wall is in focus and not the talent, the problem lies with the shooter not the gun.

I would suspect that the shooters are more to blame. I didn't see the show but a good cameraman can make just about any set-up look decent in the same way that Isaac Stern can make a $100 violin sound great. Don't blame the equipment. I've seen stuff shot on DVX-100a and XL-2 that looked fabulous on a home TV screen. By the same token, I've seen stuff shot on Panavision cameras that looked godawful. That Sony HDV-cam is a brand new camera so people are still at the left side of the learning curve on it. Capturing unscripted action is a particularly tough subject to get right, that's why people like me still get payed. It's actually good to have a show like this air occasionally, lest producers think they can just pull in any Joe Blow off the street to shoot their show and pay them in food stamps. Unfortunately, not many viewers at home are so discriminating, they only know when it sucks, may not know why.

Either light them from a direction that the shadow fall is not in the shot or you could bounce the light off one of the walls not in the shot. Were you married to lighting them from the doorway for a pan-around or something? Dumping more light onto the cast shadows won't eliminate them, it'll only make the background hotter with the shadows still there. I can't think of a scenario where that would not look even worse. I would take an ambient reading from the practicals and then just use minimal light to pop the actors out of the backgrounds (with peppers or small kinos), 'course your post didn't give much to go on, not knowing the time of day, window location, desired effect, movement, etc.

I would start off shooting in filter 1 (3200K) and stick with it. At 7pm, the suns already pretty low so will just ad a little blue and gradually fade. Take a monitor.

These are fairly inexpensive: http://cavision.com/Finder/FinderPage.htm Tough to beat $195, though.

Deadwood on HBO is great looking. Every scene looks like it was shot au naturel. They make every practical feel like it's the key source and the sets are always perfectly realistic. Great show.

I'm afraid I disagree with this. Not only Woods, but Nick Nolte AND Darryl Hannah turned in their best performances in many years. If you listen to the directors commentary, the story was working on many levels and Michael Polish (the director) not only wrote a memorable screenplay, but knew when to step aside and let the actors act. There were many small details woven into the story which you might miss unless you were paying close attention. And the kid was fantastic. Don't get me wrong, there was lots of eye-candy, but the cinematography served a very good, idiosynchratic script and showcased some fine acting. It's a movie you can watch again and again and find something new with each viewing. Rare.

And now Governor Terminator is considering cutting tax breaks in an attempt to keep production from leaving the state: http://www.arnoldwatch.org/articles/articles_000630.php3 http://tinyurl.com/cm589 Is it pandering (trying to get film moguls to vote repub) or does it have any meat to it? Stay tuned...