John E Clark

When I was young, ca. 1970, I was looking at Bolexes and wanting to 'make movies'... At the time a windup watchworks Bolex was $300 (that may have even been a used price... I can't recall), and while I can't recall the specific prices for motion picture Film+processing, it just seemed 'too much'... so I went in the stills direction... When I compare that $300 Bolex to current digital cameras, the $300 1970 dollars seems to be about $1800 in 2014 dollars... so, even on the point of The Camera, for $1800 one can buy not only an image capture device, one need not worry about 'winding it up'... and one can have 'sync sound' (albeit somewhat crappy sound...), for less than just a 1970 Bolex. Add in the comparison between getting memory cards for 'film' (reusable if need be...), a computer for 'processing', and the Internet for 'projection', the 'modern' entry level filmmaker is in a far better position than days of yore. One can argue about the influx of 'many', the 'democratizing' of Filmmaking, but I am definitely in the "Let everyone go for it" camp... whether I personally like the resulting films or not.

What software did you use to create the 3d Model, and then create the interactive HTML?

I don't know about the actual spectrum... one of these days I'll setup one of that $15 hobby kit spectrum deals and take shots of various lights... but just from my own evaluation I've avoided anything with the designation of 'warm', because it always has struck me as more 'greenish/yellow/warm' than redish. Of course I'm usually looking at Home Depot offerings... and not 'expensive' photo lighting... As a note, I have take a number of those Internet color match 'games' and I don't think I suffer from any form of color perception dysfunction, as while the Wife is better, she's not that much better... ok... she can name the colors much better...

I actually did have to have a chat with Canadian immigration for answering on the form that I was presenting at a professional photo convention... and taking in the sights of Vancouver and surrounding area... Although I must say, the canadians were much more pleasant than their US counterparts, when being asked where/what/why questions. Some people think that US citizens get some sort of free pass on entry to the US... other than the visa question... I think they are pretty egalitarian in their inquisitioning of people coming through the gate.

I have recent version of Kris Malkiewicz's "Film lighting", but I'm not home to see if it has any seapage of 'things digital'...

Oh, yeah, on the topic of 'marrying a US citizen'... I'm going to make the assumption of 'heterosexual' marriage... don't know what the homosexual marriage figures into current INS considerations... But it is a long process as well, and may not have 'happy' results. These days the review process takes about a year, and includes such things as tax returns, interviews, endless waiting, and who knows, if the finances aren't there, the couple will have to find a sponsor anyway. That said, marrying a US citizen is a frequently used path to a 'green' card. There is a 'funny' movie that may be dated these days... "Green Card"(1990)...

One could get a student visa, and attend some institution of learning. But that would not permit one to 'work', and so, one would have to have some other means to pay for living expenses. Perhaps there is some 'grant/studentloan' type deal in Canada, Quebec, or the like which could sponsor such study. And... should you actually get into the US by some hook or crook without a work visa... don't answer up for ads for actors who have an 'authentic canadian accent'... A few years back the Immigration service did a sting to find canadians working without permits and used just such an ad... There is a classification called "NAFTA Professional", which allows citizens of Canada and Mexico to work in the US, provided they are providing 'professional' services. I would presume a Director of Photography would be a 'professional', and that one has an employer offering employment at the time of entry into the US. So, rather than being a 'rental house specialist'... if you could find a production company willing to employ you as DoP or perhaps Camera Operator (there may be union issues on either point... but that's not part of the US immigration status regulations...), you may be able to work in the US. In any case this would all have to be done via an immigration lawyer to confirm all the regulations are satisfied.. As for 'Coming to Hollywood'... I know there are a number of people here who have made a succesful career in Hollywood, or in So. California in general in the 'movie business'... but from someone who has lived about 100 miles from Downtown Hollywood, it is an awful place to attempt to be successful. If those competing for the various limited work opportunities don't smack you down... the studio/production companies will do the deed. Perhaps 1000s come to 'Hollywood' each year, perhaps mostly actors... but other skill sets as well, and many end up either doing something else while they wait for their 'call', or end up going somewhere else because the call never came. From my point of view... I'll paraphrase Julius Caesar... "It is better to be a head DoP in a small town in Quebec, than be a Second Cameraman in Hollywood"... I of course may hold a rather pessimistic view of things... perhaps others are more Pollyanna like than I... As it is thought there was a film 'industry' in Montreal... now as noted in the previous post, there is the 'superior/artist' type visa that allows major people outside the US in to perform work. So, if one became a significant Montreal DoP... well, then Hollywood may be a real possibility.

Yes, but it would be used to find a better product to develop and sell than Film film... That or pay off debt... that or be taken over by some corporate raider just for that $1B in the bank.

To me there is nothing 'magical' about a Full Frame 35mm Still format. Then again, I don't personally like extremely shallow Depth of Field, and these days, requiring Full Frame 35mm Still sensor sized does add somewhat to the cost of the camera. The Wife has a Nikon D600, but I'm not allowed to use it much, so I've not tested it in various regards. I have however had a GH-1 since it first came out, and have 'upgraded' to a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, BMPCC for short, which has an even smaller sensor than the GH-1, namely a sensor that closely matchs Super 16mm Film film. For either camera all I have for lenses is the Panasonic 14-140mm zoom, and with a 'cheap' adaptor I use a 45 year old 28mm Nikon lens (it's the Wife's, but she doesn't know that I'm using it...). Over the last 6 months, I've participated in a couple of shoots where the cameraman has had a Canon C100, and while I think that camera is 'good' for low light, at least the situations we shot in... I'm not able to pay $5K for such a camera... I'll figure out how to effectively use the BMPCC at ISO 1600 and pay $995... ok I did get it during a 1/2 price sale of $495... but even at $995 I think it is a 'steal', and would fit nicely in to a 'student/learner' category. Then if your budget is around $2600, you could spend $1600 on 'good' lenses, like the Wife's 16-35mm for her Nikons... again... a lens I can't use... My philosophy is thus... spend some bux for a 'adequate' low end package, and try to shoot daily, along with testing for various parameters, then if ever the day comes where one needs high performance... rent it... Hence I would probably think about renting an Alexa and hiring an operator, should I ever come into enough money to make a 'real' film. But for understanding Motion Picture filming, digital capture parameters such as 'proper exposure', and 'motion in the camera frame'... because we are talking about Moving Pictures, not stills... get enough of a camera to avoid embarrasment, and have sufficient technical capability, such as exposure and lens control... and so I think the GH series, or the BMPCC are fine for that.

I personally didn't mind going with the MFT Lumix GH-1. Having a FullFrame 35mm still format did not enter into either my mind nor my evaulation. What did factor in most was 'price'... at the time a GH-1 + 14-140 zoom 'Kit' was $1395 USD, whereas most everything else was more than that just for the camera body alone. In addition, one factor was that for the MFT I could buy a 'dumb' adapter to use my Nikon 'manual' lenses (or if automatic, at least had manual control of the f-stop as an option). The GH series can with an adatper support Nikon, Canon and PL mount lenses. The Blackmagic Pocket camera that I recently bought has the MFT mount, so my GH-1 lens and my Nikon adapter works with that as well.

The GH series 'normal' lense is about 25mm. That yields a 40 deg Angle of View. A 50mm lens will be about 2x that, so will have a mild telephoto effect. A 12mm is about half that, and will give a 'wide angle' effect. I use the Lumix 14-140mm zoom which was part of my GH1 kit, and for most situations, as a 'zoom' goes it works... however it is slow-ish... I also use the 14-140mm on my Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, aka BMPCC, and at 14mm it is slightly larger than the 40 deg Angle of View, whereas a 17mm is closer to that. I would suggest the following iPhone app that will allow you to find the various lens parameters for a variety of cameras and sensor sizes/aspect ratios. http://www.davideubank.com/Good_Focus/pCAM_FILM_+_DIGITAL_PRO.html

Since I use SLR/DSLR lenses, the markings on the barrel may or may not be accurate, simliar to the f-stop vs. t-stop issue. When I select '25mm' mark on the zoom, is it the same as last time, does any small error 'cause a problem'... I've never developed a verification chart for the witness marks vs 'real angle of view' of my zoom lenses... The zoom lenses were almost required for the Wedding work the Wife did, which is why we have about 4 or 5 of them... I would imagine most 'event' photographers had the same problem and solution. I do have one 28mm prime, about a 45 year old f/2 Nikon lens... but that's it. I've looked at buying some c-mount Super 16mm for my BMPocket camera and anything 'I would like to buy' is $500+... well more like $1000+... so I'm using my 14-140 zoom that I got as part of my GH-1 kit. (The Wife doesn't allow me to use her superior 16-35mm zoom, but still it's a f/4 lens... which is pretty 'slow' in any case...). So, with prime lenses one knows one has a consistent focal length, usally 'better' optics for a given price, and 'lighter' if that was important...

I thought about getting a 16mm camera and lens setup some time ago, just for the sake of 'shooting some film'... now that I could actually afford to feed it film... well... maybe... But even then I seemed to be wanting to get into the $1500-2000 with a reasonable camera and set of lenses. Even for the Pocket, a 'good' c-mount lens with Super 16mm coverage is in the $6-700+ price range...

I seem to have had a different 'theater experience'... while I have noted 'some' phone action in a theater since the rise of cell phones... it has never been to the levels of some types of obnoxious behavior that I experienced in theaters in the dim past... for example... smoking... time was there was a smoking section if not the whole theater... whether it was permitted or not, in some of the theaters where I watched films it was never policed. On the other hand, in many theaters one could watch the same film 3-4 times as that was the only one running and the attendants didn't kick you out after the current show ended... In some of the 25-50 cent theaters, any manner of 'misbehavior' could be ongoing while watching yetanothermotorcyclegang film. Driveins specialized in films that were mostly unwatchable by any standard, but allowed teens to learn the meaning of life in the back seat of the old jalopy (for some reason I always ended up in the front seat with the prude... and then would be quized by the back seat occupants as to what the movie was about so they could tell parents how wonderful the film was... The biggest impediment to pirating was the fact that one had to make a film print, and then project it, which meant the cost was prohibititve for most people no matter what. With the advent of 'cheap' electronic recording, 'pirating' films became feasable. There was 'pirating' but it was mostly recording of live band performances, or transfering records to tape of some sort, with the advent of 'cheap' audio tape play back systems. And of course there was not the easy connection world wide for such recordings to be distributed...

IMDB lists "Woman in Black"(1989) as shot on 16mm film, with no indication of what film stock. The Blackmagic Desgn Pocket Cinema Camera is with in the $1000 budget ($995...) body only, and has a sensor nearly the same size as Super 16mm film. The camera can capture 1080p, in 'Raw' with 12 bits of level resolution, and ProRes 10 bit resolution. You would have to buy a micro 4/3 lens, or a 4/3 adapter for a number of DSLR lenses from such manufacturers as Canon or Nikon. I have an old 28mm Nikon lens and a $60 4/3 adapter, which requires manual focus, but would be 'cheap' to buy these days. I also have a 14-140mm 4/3 zoom lens. The normal lens for that sized sensor is about 17mm. However 'exact' looks aren't 'bought' with a camera, these days that is 'bought' by using a computer based editing system, and using various 'effects' to obtain the look, in addition to whatever may be captured 'in camera'.

I don't think piracy has much to do with the 'theater experience'. It has to do with having media available 'when you want it', and probably for some people, getting past the 'gate', just like getting fake id for drinking... which once one is over the drinking age... becomes absurd.

While it was true that some pirated versions found online were 'captured' by an intheater camera... many were scanned by someone somewhere from the projection print. And while not as 'good' as a scan for intheater projection, they were better quality than than the intheater pirates. Of couse one may have to put up with Thai or Chinese subtitles... These days with cheap, relatively speaking, scanners, it would be much better quality in any case. The point being these sorts of 'high quality' pirates were always due to some sort of insider theft, whether it is finding an 'FTP' site with poor protection, ripping a 'screener' or whatever.

For a near, or exactly, one man band Premiere has pretty much satisfied most of my requirements. I actually started using After Effects first for... well... effects... then I started shooting live digital footage, I got Final Cut Express to basically be a 'cutting tool'. I thought I'd graduate to FCP... but by the time I really needed better features, it was clear that FCP had stopped 'improving'... moved to Premiere... Since I don't usually have share in a major way with others, using the Adobe Creative has pretty much 'solved' my digital film editing and audio needs. (with Audition...). At some ancient time I did supply networking cards used in Avid systems, FDDI cards if anyone can recall that 'wonder' of 150 Mb/s at the time... but as Gigabit Ethernet took hold, I moved on to other things...

I sold mine and bought a Luna Pilot... which I sold and bought a Honeywell/Pentax spot... which the Wife lost... I eventually bought the Minolta Spotmeter F, which I still have. When I started taking moving pictures I eventually bought a Sekonic L-308dc because it had a direct footcandle read out, and that assisted in understanding lighting given in FC vs eventual exposure settings. The Wife preferred the Luna Pro, but after loosing one, running over another with the car, she let me be the 'meter reader' with my Minolta...

I prefer irish redheads... unfortunately I'm stuck with Home Depot brunettes. I do recommend a pair of gloves that are rated for 'hot'...

Yeah, probably I should buy gaffer's tape, paint tape, and then test on surfaces to see what the holding 'power' is and the resulting potential for damage... of both.

Is 'painters' tape as non-stick, yet secure enough when stuck... sort of a conflicting requirement... as 'gaffer's tape'? And if so, which brand/type would work...

John William Herschel is purported to have experimented with 'enlargements' for photographs, ca 1840's. He is also the one who is attributed to coining the term "Photography"... However, at the time photographic processes were so slow, and a powerful light source required, that perhaps only the sun would have worked to any reasonable level. There were others during the latter half of the 19th century who also attempted enlarging processes. However, it was only until electric light, 'fast'(for the era...) emulsions, that enlargements superceded contact prints. If you are refering to 'moving pictures', I'd suspect that when 'optical' printing came into existence, 'enlarging', or 'reduction' was possible, and would be in the 20's/30's.

Speaking of 'mirrors' is highly reflective silver mylar used to eliminate the danger/weight of actual an actual glass mirror?

Wyrd double thread...