Jump to content

Justin Hayward

Sustaining Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Justin Hayward

  • Birthday 07/01/1978

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Chicago, IL.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

13364 profile views
  1. Yeah, it's not like he grabbed a prop cell phone and handed it to an actor just to keep things moving. It's mothertrucking gun. It's heavy, deadly, gun. You're right, it seems like common sense was tossed out the window.
  2. So I've heard! Sounds like they treat their members well. They sent me a package full of cool stuff to go thru... nice letters... magazines... all sorts of cool stuff. Like I said, my 12-year-old self is beaming. 😊
  3. It is. And that's Denzel Washington in the background which means this is a behind-the-scenes shot of "Philadelphia." I'm a little surprised it's not Howard Hawks or John Ford or whoever since they essentially founded the DGA, but of course Jonathan Demme is a great director in my opinion, so... 🤷‍♂️
  4. Thanks! I am excited about it. Don't think it will help me get my feature made, but it's cool to be a part of a somewhat exclusive club of people that do what I've wanted to do my whole life. Feels nice.
  5. It doesn't change my life all that much other than I get some cool screeners and a pension, but my 12-year-old self is super excited. 😊
  6. I think I’m safe. Google “Justin Hayward“ and see what you get. edit: and no, my parents did not do that on purpose.
  7. I stand corrected. The 4:3 with extra headroom looks better in my opinion. Ugh... 😒
  8. I want to see a movie shot in 2.40:1 aspect ratio with anamorphic lenses that’s cropped to 4:3 in post and the only camera moves in the whole movie are pan and scan. edit: for artistic purposes
  9. 😂😂😂. Yeah and I watched the original version before it. The filmmaker in me had to compare the directing choices. I couldn’t help myself.
  10. I’m watching this movie right now and I would be really impressed by anyone that could give me a good artistic purpose why this movie is pillar boxed to 4:3 for any other reason than being noticeably different. Edit: I feel like whole performances from actors were pillar boxed out of this movie.😊
  11. It wouldn't be so bad if they at least masked the letter-boxed area with something. They don't even bother doing that anymore. Just looks like a giant TV. For my projector room I cut strips of foam core, painted them dark brown to match the walls and stick them to the letter-boxed area with clear velcro for 2.39 movies. Much more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion.😊
  12. Ever notice the aspect ratios that were meant to provide a "bigger" experience are now providing a smaller one? 2:39 was meant to be a "wider" viewing experience in theaters. You swapped to the scope lens, the curtains would open, and the screen would get physically wider. Now they just letterbox it... even in a lot of chain theaters, but always on home viewing which is all we get now, so the 2:39 image is actually smaller than if you had just shot 16x9. Lately IMAX movies shoot 1:33 for a much taller/bigger image in the theater than 1:85 or 16x9, but this movie isn't going to IMAX, it's going to HBO Max where it will be pillar-boxed to literally be the smallest aspect ratio we could possibly watch it in. If I ever get to make a movie I think I'll shoot 4:3, then letterbox it to 2:39 so there'll be a small rectangle in the middle of your TV. Then I'll recommend you watch it with binoculars for the full viewing experience. 🤓😁
  13. Does anyone have any idea why this might be 1:33 aspect ratio other than a way to differentiate it from the other version?
  14. Totally agree. It's very difficult to make anything look good in my opinion, but I don't believe a lot of people in this business have an honest subjective opinion if something looks good or doesn't. Now that digital has democratized the process (as Tyler put it) now you only have to eyeball a decent exposure and tell everybody it looks good and they'll believe you. With film, you had to have some experience in the technique just to get a decent exposure. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not a crazy film nut. I don't think I've shot on film for ten years. I'm just saying in the days of film, 24 year olds weren't getting $3500 a day to DP anything.
  15. I said in the eyes of the layman, not other filmmakers or support crew. I'm always thinking in terms of commercials these days, because that's pretty much all I do and the "layman" in the commercial world are agency people. Trust me when I tell you, they don't know what a focus puller is. I spoke to a gaffer not to long ago that was on a multi-million dollar commercial with a 24 year old DP that didn't understand ratios between dimming lights and adjusting the stop. That would never have happened in the days of film.
  • Create New...