Matt Frank

What was your motivation to shoot 7279 instead of 7218? Did you want more grain?

I am not a huge fan of the blown out hot spot in the kitchen shot, but other than that I think they are great.

I especially love the shots with the flashlight what type light were you using?

I also really like the first shot.

Last month I ordered a new subscription online and my first issue arrived today, I paid less than that. Really, though, what's $10 in the scheme of things?

I just renewed 3 years and got a 4th year for free. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

I don't think Gerry had any music in it until the very end.

Thomas Newman has been my favorite for a while. I love the American Beauty score. I used to collect a lot of scores but have gotten out of the habit recently.

Castaway has no music while he is on the island. Only the nature SFX if I remember correctly.

Thanks again David. Well...I think I instinctively feel that it's almost pointless to get the PD100A - to put money into something is older -- I def. want it to look great, but my fear was that it would make the majority of the footage (which is mostly shot with the 100A) look bad.

 

There is also the learning curve. I know Sony. I wasn't a filmmaker - I was an actress, but an extraordinary event occurred, and now I'm almost 3 years into it.

 

Do you think the 170 will look better than the 100A, but still match more than the DVX100?

Is the learning curve high with the Panasonic?

 

Thanks so much,

Jamie

The learning curve is not very high on the DVX-100 at all. You just have different scenefiles which are similar to the Custom Presets on a Sony where you set Sharpness, Chroma, FPS things like that.

I know this isnt the right board but if you are looking to get a PD-150 I have been thinking about selling mine. I have the Sony Wide Angle Lens (Zoom Through) a 10 hour battery, the stock battery and memory stick, an Azden SGM-30 Shotgun Mic (was dropped leaving a dent but still sounds great) with mount, 2 XLR Cables, and all the manuals and I was hoping to get around 1800 for all of it.

Thanks for the updates David. I really look forward to seeing this.

That is from a commercial shoot I did a couple weeks ago. The lab was Video Post & Transfer out of Dallas

It is not the best shot but we needed the 2K scans for a print ad so we didn't scan the whole thing at 2K only the frames we needed for print.

Hi,

 

I really don't think there's a lot of point in going for 35 on this unless you have a very specific need for a 35mm print. If it's to hawk around looking for money, most people will be watching it off a DVD. Shoot it on 16, nobody's going to notice.

Phil

You would definately save lot of money by shooting 16 on both the film stock and the equipment rental costs. It would look pretty close to 35 when transfered to DVD. If someone is going to invest in you they are going to do it based on your talent, not the equipment you happened to be able to afford at the time.

First of all, I gotta say, this forum rocks!!!

 

I want to make a trailer in hopes of securing funding to make the feature and I would most welcome your generous insight (as I always do). (Note: I am totally aware that securing funds with use of a trailer is rare, but possible)

 

From a Director?s standpoint (although I also have the heart of a cinematographer), I?m under the belief of focusing and immersing yourself on one really good project as opposed to five projects that people will never hear about.

 

Okay, here we go, I want to make a two minute trailer on Super 35 film as it will not need to be projected, but shown to producers (via video/DVD) of the style and quality of how the movie will look.

 

As far as costs are concerned for making a Super 35mm trailer, I estimated the costs anywhere from 2,500.00 to 4,000.00 for the cost of film, processing, hiring a dp, sound, camera rental. Maybe for one long weekend, two tops. Is this right? (Note: This does not include the costs of the sets and food etc.)

 

Pluses:

1. I won?t need anamorphic lenses as this will not need to be projected, but just stay on ?video,? and it could be cropped to 2.35. (The actual feature will have to be anamorphic)

 

2. I?ll be able to give investors a really good taste of the movie and perhaps wow them.

 

3. They can see that I?m capable of giving them a great movie with a great story, or at least convince them more.

 

4. It won't be video (SD/HD) looking.

 

I originally thought of making this movie on HD for costs sake, but it?s intended release is theatrical (not video). So then that?s when I started to see this movie needs to be done on film as well as have the look and texture of film. I think this way it will be much easier to get theatre distribution as opposed to an HD/SD conversion to film (which is rare).

 

I have also thought of making a digital trailer as well, and hope that they (investors) will see through the video to the incredible story but if your springing for all the video equipment already, why not spend that money, add a little more and put it on film.

 

I think if the seed is better, the harvest will yield much greater.

You?re thoughts to my dilemma is sincerly appreciated, as I will read every word of your post.

 

All the best, :D

Rick

I think your production costs are low. Say you were able to get away with shooting 800ft (which is very unlikely since that will only get you about 8 minutes of shooting with slating) you would be looking at about 500 for film stock (with shipping or tax) then probably another 800 or more for processings and a single light telecine to whatever you are going to edit on. Plus camera/lens/light/follow focus/ dolly/sound recorder/cables/ anything else needed to get cool looking shots rental and I think you would be looking at about 1200 a day minimum for equipment rental. So you would probably be looking at 2500 just to rent the equipment for one day and shoot 8 minutes of footage. Plus paying whoever you hire as your DP and any assistants.

Do you own your edit equipment or are you going to rent that? If you are renting that is going to be another cost.

I am not trying to rain on your parade, but i just don't want you get half way through it and realize you dont have enough to finish. Since you would be renting the equipment for such a short period of time you are not going to be able to get much of a discount on that. I think it would be very tough to get something good enough to impress investors on a 4,000 budget. I hope I am wrong about that though and good luck.

He means combined with a one-stop push so you end up with a slightly denser negative than if you rated 500T at 1000 ASA for the one-stop push.

Ahh I understand. Thanks for the help.

Wouldn't rating it at 800 under expose a asa 500 stock?

The light coming through the church window in War of the Worlds. All of Brokeback Mountain. The planes doing their strafing runs in King Kong. The lighting changes in Good Night and Good Luck.

All of those stuck with me.

I would think that Brokeback Mountain is the clear favorite to win this.

Glad to see another Terrance Malick film get a cinematography nod. I think John Toll should have won for The Thin Red Line (not to take anything away from Kaminski's work)

Congrats.

This is a cool thread. I was just noticing during the post game last night that there was a 16mm camera huddled around Holmgreen and I figured it was the NFL films guys. It looked like an XTR to me but it was only on for a second. It would make since to use those since the magazines are so easy to load. I use an LTR and can change a mag in around 2 minutes.

I agree. I read his diary of the Astronaut Farmer yesterday and it was more informative and interesting that almost all of the cinematography books I have read. Thanks David.

Thanks for all the info in this post. David you, as always, have been extremely helpful. This is stuff I have been curious about for a while.

Those nominations seem decent, but I would definately put The Constant Gardner or Jarhead (and probably The New World though I have not seen it) on there before Kong.

I am really glad to see Elswit get a nomination since between Syriana and Goodnight and Good Luck he is my cinematographer of the year.

Hey guys,

I am looking to sell my PD-150 DVCAM/MINIDV 3CCD CAMERA and I thought I would list it here before it goes on EBAY. It is an NTSC model which I bought new from B&H and has been used for 1 feature and a few shorts. The camera is in great condition. I have most of the stuff which originally came with the camera including the manuals, stock mic, stock battery, and memory stick. I also have quite a few extras:

Sony Zoom Through Wide Angle Lens Adapter w/ carrying pouch

Azden SGM-2 Shotgun Mic (was dropped causing a dent on the front, but still works great)

Mount for Azden SGM-2

Extra 10 hour battery

2 XLR Cables (2ft for shotgun mic, 15ft)

I want to sell this as a bundle for 1799 plus shipping. The camera by itself list for 2300 used on B&H.

If you have any questions please reply here.

This is certainly not a first for Malick's films. Days of Heaven (Nestor Almendros) and The Thin Red Line (John Toll) are, in my opinion, two of the most beautiful films of all time. I have very high hopes for the New World, but I am going to wait until after I see it to read the AC article on it.

Congrats guys.

I have a glidecam v-8 rig that I am looking to sell. It is in good shape, but has been used a decent ammount. I have a lot of add ons such as the low mount and car mount. The system works great for cameras under 10 lbs. Here is a page with more info about it http://www.glidecam.com/product-v-8.php

I am hoping to get $2,200 for the whole package.

Let me know if you are interested either by responding here or e-mailing at mcfrank@gmail.com

Thanks

One thing you can do for proper aspect ratios is to actually create a 720x480 image in photoshop with black bars in the proper aspect ratio and then a chromakey color in the middle. You can then use the chroma key function on the PD-150 with that jpg saved to a memory stick and it will put the matte on there for you. This of course with cost you resolution and will give you a non-anamorphic image. Also you will be unable to adjust the framing in post, but you will be able to see the framing you are getting in the viewfinder. One thing you can do is pull up the jpg on the viewfinder and mark the proper framing, but then not use the chromakey effect so then you can still adjust your framing in post. Or you could just shoot with the PD-150s anamorphic setting on, but that will cost you some resolution since it is not a 16x9 ccd.