Shawn Murphy

I don't think they're related (at least not directly), if you go to the Wexler Video website you can see the founder is Bob Wexler and if I'm not mistaken their primary emphasis is in video, not film. Plus in the film, which if you haven't seen it I highly recommend, Haskell is shown discussing the eventual sale of most of his gear.

If you ever get a chance to watch "Tell Them Who You Are", about Haskell Wexler's relationship with his son (shot by his son), there's two scenes that show a lot of the equipment he apparently acquired over a long career, but being the beginner that I am I can only guess that his amount of equipment was the exception.

nice, I loved the deep red in the clouds near the end. Any particular interval settings, and how long did it run for?

I get to see Akeelah next Monday here in Seattle!

According to IMDB it was the SONY PD150. I've seen several blowups from the Panasonic DVX and they were worth seeing on the big screen nonetheless: Lonesome Jim and November were shot with the DVX, and the doc Murderball was as well, though I haven't seen it yet so I guess it will have to be on the small screen for Murderball. I'm actually very curious to see how David approaches this visually, I think there's still so much that can be done with creative lighting and in the digital transfer stage that hasn't been done yet with DV (or hasn't been seen yet on the big screen that). Here's a Lynch comment on the PD150 from an article: "Lynch also spoke of his new film in production, Inland Empire, starring Laura Dern and Jeremy Irons, which is shooting with a Sony PD150. "I discovered DV making small experimental films for my Web site and fell in love with the medium because it's so lightweight. It gives you so much freedom with a much smaller crew [and] longer takes and you're able to do things you can't do with a film camera," Lynch explained, adding wryly, " It has this thing called "automatic focus" that is great. It makes film cameras seem very absurd. DV is not up to the quality of film right now but it's getting closer and closer. We've done tests for Inland Empire and it looks very good."

np ;-)

Actually I have seen a Fisher, and a Panther, and a number of the other larger 35mm rigs, what I haven't seen is one called a "Modern", which is what Bob said he had, hence the reason I said "I assume this is a rig that's not easily unmounted". Are you saying the 'modern' that Bob has is of the same weight/load capacity as a Fisher, etc?

I assume this is a rig that's not easily unmounted? With mine (not a 35mm or a seat), I never leave it standing/sitting on the wheels and track for very long, I always take it off the track and stand it on its side.

What is "sash", do you mean the wire mesh/screen for windows?

Thanks for the follow up, greatly appreciated info. I guess whenever you have a group of people making these kinds of decisions (festival entries, Oscars, etc), there are always elements of politics and "other factors" that come into play. For example, I'm watching the featurette on the making of Brazil that deals specifically with all the troubles Gilliam had getting his cut released in the states, and as many know, he showed eventually showed his cut to the LA Film Critics who then gave Brazil top honors, while the NY critics basically panned it. Regardless, it's always nice to hear opinions expressed intelligently and descriptively. Thanks again.

I don't mean to belabor this point, but I really want to encourage well articulated constructive criticism and commentary of films, cinematography, editing, etc., and as such I hope we all discourage generalizations like "I don't like this", "this film is bad", etc. ..most of the time what is deemed "good" or "bad" is subjective, and when someone critiques our work we might find it useful if they speak specifically about what they did or didn't like, and why. So, are you saying that you also felt that there were "Seemingly endless takes of nothing", and this is why you believe the committee should have passed on the film? I look forward to seeing the film and finding out for myself it it's a just case of stylistic aesthetics or perhaps I might find it altogether annoying or boring, but at what point can I honestly say it was so "bad" that it shouldn't have made it into a festival? (I ask sincerely)

http://www.putfile.com/ http://video.google.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.zippyvideos.com/ http://www.internetvideomag.com/ProductRev...oHosting102.htm

] Do you have a trailer? If so there are number of places I can recommend for posting/hosting the file, but the entire movie without significant compression is far too large for streaming, what's the running time?

...do you have a link to some footage from your entry?

I've never seen Brown Bunny, but I have read many of the reviews, critiques, and praise, so I have to ask, are you using Brown Bunny as your lowest common denominator because you honestly believe Gallo is a poor filmmaker/storyteller? Or is it because the subject matter and his approach to filmmaking/storytelling isn't to your liking? There's a big difference between poor filmmaking/storytelling/cinematography/editing/ etc and styles of filmmaking, indeed there are many films that I just don't find interesting, some of the classic European "masters" as a matter of fact, but I would never suggest that they are "bad" films or not worthy of Cannes or and festival, they're just not my 'cup of tea'. Good luck on your entry and do you have a link to some footage? ~Shawn

I'm studying the Hollywood Camera Work DVD set with some fellow aspiring filmmakers and we were wondering how often you see more than two cameras rolling on larger budgeted films? Understanding that each project/Director is different (some only use one, and some larger budget actions sequences use many), what are the extremes with the films you've either worked on, or heard of, as far as the number of cameras rolling, and what would you say is the "norm" for the projects you've worked on, mostly one and two? Greatly appreciated. ~Shawn

I guess that would explain why in some of the closeup shots of Milla and the rest of the actors you could literally see every single pore and blemish, though I would imagine makeup is partially responsible for some of that, no? Though oddly enough they obviously did post work on some of the footage because their skin in some shots is extremely softened/airbrushed to an almost cartoonish level, I seriously wonder if they ran out of time or money to do it across the board; and some of the FX as well completely miss the mark, particularly in the end.

...looks like the url for Long Valley is http://www.longvalleyequip.com/

I prefer an unlimited supply of cash. ;-)

fyi: I use a DIY 3/4" PVC dolly (and add sand bags to the tripod spreaders for extra weight). I set my PVC into shelf channel which rides along 2x4's so I can easily shim for leveling, and the shelf channel keeps the PVC extremely stable (no flex), and it is VERY smooth. I haven't experienced any squeaking (though that would be easy enough to treat with some silicon spray or maybe even baby powder). My next version will be larger to accommodate a seat and rider.

Kevin, Thank you for posting those setups, greatly appreciated, "a picture is worth a thousand words", but the words help too! ~Shawn

That's kind of what I thought, but I'm concerned that this isn't the case with this project, so I proposed two scenarios to one of the Co-Directors: This is the email I sent him: ..because I'm not familiar with what your approach is in preparing for lighting, there are two scenarios that I see given that this is a low budget (no grip/gaff, other than me) crew: 1. I could meet up with the two Co-Directors in conjunction with the DP to go over all the scenes/storyboards that have lighting requirements in advance so we can assess equipment needs as well as actual lighting setups based on the shot list and schedule. 2. If you guys have already assessed all the relevant scene/setup lighting questions, as well as necessary equipment preparations, then I'm also ok with just wrangling lights, cables, and stands, I just want to make sure I'm clear on roles and expectations to make sure we do the best possible job. The response I got was that they want to do option #1 So, I still need to find out to what extent the Director and DP know what they want in regards to the look/lighting, and if they have a good idea of how to achieve it. I'm also wondering who's responsibility it will be to make sure that they are planning (scheduling time) accordingly for all the lighting setups and possible lighting changes for any given scene/location? I'll continue to dialogue with them about these questions and see how it goes, I just really want to avoid any confusion or significant delays or "gotcha's" on the shooting days.

Your assumption regarding the DP is the same as mine (though I've definitely read a number of variations on that theme depending on the Director's previous camera/lighting involvement). My main point here is that in the realm of no/low budget filming I'm certain I'll experience all kinds of strange interpretations of who does what, when, and where (and for obvious reasons of budget and experience), so, although I'm not overly interested in Union style dogma regarding roles and responsibilities, I was hoping to get a better understanding of to what extent the DP, the Director, and the Grip/Gaff crew dialogue in pre-production for planning lighting.

I've been asked to "do lighting" for a low budget student project (my first formal lighting assignment). So, I was wondering what are the "typical" roles, responsibilities, and the relationship between the DP, the Director, and the grip/gaff/light crew (or in this case, the single lighting person) in regards to planning all the lighting requirements for each shot? For this project there is no grip or gaff crew, it's just me, and as such I was sort of expecting that the Director will have a good idea of how he'd like each scene to look (mood, feel, perhaps color and maybe even a general lighting approach); I'm also expecting that the Director and DP will dialogue about all of the scenes and the general lighting requirements sufficiently in advance of the shot dates. My plan is to try and schedule a meeting with both the Director and the DP to go over the storyboards and scenes to assess how to achieve each of the lighting setups: equipment requirements, physical setups in relation to the shot list, power requirements, corrective temp requirements, etc. **They know that I'm not a lighting expert by any stretch, I've been up front and honest about my limited experience, and to be honest if I had my druthers I'd only be setting up lamps, gels, and cables based on the direction of someone more seasoned and knowledgeable, but if the expertise doesn't exist on this set then I'll rely on my own eye and the technical knowledge I've gained on the boards, in the books, and in limited practice. Just wondering what is reasonable to expect from the DP and the Director in this type of very-low budget scenario and how it typically works out in larger productions. Thanks in advance for your feedback! ~Shawn

I highly doubt it. You know the saying, "If it's too good to be true, it is" Check this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=12271 I apparently bought mine from a NON-authorized dealer, however, the price was good and the service was good (whether or not that affects the warranty remains to be seen, but I have confidence that Panasonic will honor any warranty issues, and Profeel guaranteed it in writing). Also, read some online merchant review pages like this: http://www.resellerratings.com/