Justin Hayward

"Personally, I've got better things to think about than whether I am technically a..." Or more INTERESTING things to think about. This whole thread is funny. I?ve seen better drawings than paintings. What difference does it make? In ten years, we'll all think this was funny.

Hi, I guess you?ve never been to ?Steak and Shake?. They have exellent hamburgers that they call "steakburgers". Not sure why, but it doesn't change the fact that I LOVE their food! :D Unfortunately, like McDonald?s, my stomach can only handle small doses. Justin

"The Incredibles" hit $200 million in under three weeks, so I wouldn't say the cinema is dead. However, it's getting harder to get people out to the movies when their set up in the living room is better than some theaters.

Personally, I couldn?t care less what somebody call their...er...project. I figure, anybody that puts that much work into anything can call it whatever they want. If a mechanic rebuilds my engine and wants to call it his film. I don?t care, just as long as it runs. Now whether you film, video, movie, picture, sucks or not is a whole other matter. :D

Hi, I watch 35mm dailies every morning and there is no doubt it is the best format. NONETHELESS, HOWEVER, THAT SAID, To deny the fact that HD is the next logical format is absurd. HD will absolutely supersede film! Anybody born in this century should acknowledge this. The rise of technology in the past century is nothing like anybody has ever seen. It?s a joke to think digital film making will not take over the industry within the next 20 or 30 years (probably much earlier). HD looks good. 35mm film looks better. HD will absolutely look better than 35mm film eventually. Modern technology always gets better.

Hi, I work at a stage in Chicago as a ?video split operator?. I think this is the proper title, but I refer to it as ?the video play back guy?. My boss is the director/DP and he?s been really good when it comes to giving me advice about shooting. Otherwise, I would be asking questions on this forum much more often. He has an interesting way of lighting, which requires a lot of experience and knowledge of film. He lights everything from the video monitor. The light meter doesn?t even come out until we?re ready to pull the trigger. When he decides we?re ready to shoot, he just tells the AC what stop he wants to shoot at and the gaffer scrims the lights, or the A.C. puts whatever ND on the lens to get the stop he wants. What?s amazing to me is how he can tell if something is too dark or not dark enough, just by looking at the video monitor. He?s is an incredible DP and everything he shoots looks really good, but this doesn?t mean I think all DP?s should strive to light this way. Everyone has a different approach to lighting and none of them are better or worse than another, but I would like to be able to tell if something is going to be too dark without having to trust a light meter all the time. The only reason I care is because of the gazillion different stocks there are. What is black on one stock, could be too bright on another. All while your light meter is telling you the same stop no matter what, because the ASA is the same. I understand the only answer is experience and shooting lots of different stocks, but this brings me to my question. Have any of you decided that you don't want to rely 100% on you light meter? If so, how long did it take you to feel comfortable shooting this way? (Again, I don't mean not taking any light readings, just not reading every spot in the frame.) Justin

One more thing, If you go with the this approach, make sure you have detailed camera reports if there'll be an unsupervised transfer. Otherwise, the colorist might assume you made a mistake and bring his face up to proper exposure, letting the background go almost white and give so much grain it'll look like it's snowing in the office. If this happens, you're gonna have some splain'n to do to the director. Looking at the dates of these posts, you may have already shot this. If so, I hope it went well. If not, good luck.

Hi, I understand his back is to the window and the camera is pushing in on his front, but nonetheless, this seems to be the most logical approach. It wouldn't make much sense to start with the subject in silouette and end with him properly exposed, unless you turn on a practical. You suggested a bounce board earlier, but I agree a kino or some daylight balanced chimera (like a joker) mounted to the dolly would be nice. This way you might catch some reflection in his eyes. Some argue this looks artificial, but sometimes it helps bring the subject to life when their face is mostly in shadow. Good luck

"Out of curiosity, are you shooting film or miniDV ?" Hi, Super 16.

Before I write amything in this forum, I want everyone to know that I'm a director. I'll shoot something for no money, occasionally, because I love film. I really enjoy shooting. It helps me with what I do. That in mind, I'm curious to hear some stories about shooting is low sunlight. When I make my own films, I tend to be the most creative when I'm sitting in a bar/coffee shop by myself and coming up with every shot I plan to... well, shoot. However, when I D.P. other people's films (again, for no money. I don't wish to steal anybody's work. The people whose films I shoot, can't afford D. P.'s. If the could, I would honestly recomend them to sombody else.) I do my best to make it look interesting and try to visually express the story. I'm shooting a very, very low budget feature at the moment and there are a few exterior scenes. Naturally, I prefer to shoot in low sunlight, no matter what time of day the scene takes place in. It seems, if you do it right, it'll look like just about any time of the day... but just a little nicer. I'm interested in your stories about shooting in low sun and running out of light. And how you delt with it. The only way to sum up the buget on this film that I've been working on is this: we do not have a generator. Any stories? Justin

That's what I was hoping. Thanks.

What does this do? http://www.studiodepot.com/store/index.cgi...69&aid=timtyler

Hi, I just watched Citizen Kane for the first time the other day. I was aware of most of the tehcniques that made it so famous: deep focus, low angles, long takes, motivated blocking...ect. Actually seeing it was pretty incredible for me. Directing your eye to what Greg Toland and Orson Welles wanted you to look at with such deep depth of field, while maintaining very nice compositions and blocking, is impressive. It seems it would take many years of shooting to attempt, but Welles was only 25 and I read he had very much to do with the story boarding, blocking, production design...ect. No doubt he couldn't have done it without Toland, it's still pretty impresive. I tend to shoot fully open: not only because I like it, but most projects I work on don't provide me with the kind of light/power or lens choice to acheive that kind of interior depth of field. They usually have little or no money, otherwise they'd get a better dp. I heard Toland tested many different lenses, but does anyone know the stock or stocks he was working with? This was shot well before the 5218 and I'm curious what was the fastest film they had in 1941? They must have used an incredible amount of light. I was surprised the actors weren't squinting.