Dan Dorland

I love my K-3, and I think it’s a great option for shooting 16mm on a small budget. I got mine from Adorama's Used department for $250, so it was a good deal for a K-3 that I knew would be in good condition. The biggest con however is that the stock lens widest focal length of 17mm isn’t as wide as I’d like for a lot of situations, and wider lenses for the m42 mount don’t really exist, except for the 8mm Peleng fisheye, which I use when I need to. Everything in this reel was shot with the standard 17-69mm, the Peleng 8mm, and rarely my Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (using adapter ring).

Not sure about Gilmore Girls, Psych, and Burn Notice, but That 70's Show was 35mm.

The Hobbit movies in general were graded to be very dim and kind of dreary, with so little contrast. The scenes inside the Lonely Mountain with Smaug were especially dark. I'm sure 3D didn't help that at all.

In a stroke of lucky timing, looks like they just announced 50D for pre-order as well. http://www.freestylephoto.biz/800235-CineStill-50-ISO-Daylight-Xpro-C-41

You can actually shoot Vision 3 500T nowadays, thanks to Cinestill. They took 500T and removed the remjet, so it can be processed like any C-41 color negative. The package says 800T, but it's the same film, it's just comparable to an 800-speed film. http://www.freestylephoto.biz/800135-Cinestill-800-ISO-Tungsten-Xpro-C-41-Film

I've made a few shorts that got into festivals, but I'm not professional (maybe some day), so take this with a grain of salt, but to put it simply, f&@k modern sensibilities. Make the movie you feel the need to make. You're not the only one who adores the atmosphere that film exudes, so make your movie for them as well. If you're analyzing 2 movies a day, that's already evidence that you have the mindset and drive to make one. Without a doubt, it will help A LOT if you have a basic understanding of all the aspects of production, but when it comes down to it, if you can show your DP examples of lighting/looks you like, and what each scene needs to accomplish with the story and the characters, they should be able to come up with something you both love. So yes, of course a writer can direct! It should give you an edge, because now the story belongs to you that much more, instead of a director taking your screenplay and imprinting his vision on it. Some of the best directors are also writers/co-writers. Just don't put all the emphasis on atmosphere. Story is always the #1 priority. If the atmosphere serves the story, you're gold.

IMO How to Train Your Dragon is so far the only movie where the 3D was an asset. 99% of the time it's just a distraction.

I've experienced this exact thing! So many times I've focused just a tad too close. All you can really do is eyeball AND use the scale whenever possible, and tape measure for closer subjects/wider apertures.

A quick look through screenshots from this late Technicolor movie should answer that question. Simply beyond breathtaking. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Niagara-Blu-ray/72429/#Screenshots

Not sure what the problem is. The information is accessible by anyone with a dial-up connection or better. They also have a scholarship program. Are you expecting something like a Kodak University? Not defending Kodak here, just saying, what else should they be doing education-wise?

To be fair, Kodak has some very useful and in-depth information on film technology for newcomers. http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Education/Publications/index.htm

There is something to be said for digital projectors that are setup correctly, but there's no need to disparage 35mm projection either. If the majority of your viewing experiences with 35mm were as bad as you say, I'm sorry you spent money at such a subpar theater. I remember seeing Tree of Life and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy on 35mm at a good theater, and the dimensionality of those images still sticks in my mind.

Another good example of Lumet using focal lengths as a storytelling device is 12 Angry Men. Initially the jury room is shot with all wide lenses for a casual atmosphere, but as the tension and prejudices come to the surface the focal lengths get slowly and steadily longer. Close-ups become very personal and characters become very vulnerable, helped by fantastic acting.

So is your point that it's too expensive to reproduce movies from archived negatives? Again, we're talking about archiving, as in long-term storage for the future, not the cost of making a bunch of new prints. Archiving isn't nearly as hard as you make it sound. Stick the negs in a fireproof safe, and tuck that in a remote corner of your mother's basement, which will more or less stay the same temperature. 50 years from now, they'll still be there, even if you aren't. OK, not everybody has a convenient mother's basement, but still, it's fairly simple.

No one would disagree because yes, that happened. However, it's completely irrelevant to what we've been talking about, which is archiving current projects. The whims of foolish studios many decades ago have little or nothing to do with filmmakers now who are very conscious of preservation.