Jonathan Bryant

Can't you do that with viewfinder closed though? Were viewfinders designed to be used open in certain circumstances?

What is the point of having it flipped open?

"On some cameras, doesn't it come off instead of hinge anyway?" Yeah I thought about that too. The viewfinder in question is a Sony DXF-501 "it's been a few years since I used a betacam" That must be sweet having to only choose between HD or 35mm Hmmmmmm....

I recently sold a Sony betacam to a guy, and now he is complaining that when you open the viewfinder it comes off (the hinge doesn't hold it on when you open it up but it stays on when it is closed) So do any of you guys film with the viewfinder open on a camera and think this is a valid complaint? I never opened it so this all seems like nit picking to me. He says he considers the viewfinder broken but I don't feel that way. This is his only complaint since the camera is in good condition, white balances fine, and has no dead pixels. So what should I do try to replace the viewfinder, or is this guy trying to scam me?

Do a search I posted a link to some gyros in the past. I think you can rent one for your camera for less than maybe $300 a day. I don't know what you mean by mount though, because you don't want to mount it to the helicopter which is what is causing the vibrations. If you have budget restrants I would just suggest just going handheld with a wide angle adaptor and flying low as you can get. The eye in the sky is a good idea if they would be willing to help you out. Most tv stations are used to low budget productions and would probably do a quick fly over for around $300 too. At least it seemed that way when I worked for a tv station, we almost gave away the production of the commercial to most importantly sell the airtime.

I maybe looking to buy a camera jib. Have any of you have had experience with the EZFX jib or Glidecams Jib? What are some good jibs for around $1000? What are the pluses and minuses? I will be using either a JVC DV500 or Sony DSR500 camera. I already have a bogen tripod with 100mm head that I plan to use with this. Any help would be appreciated.

I have both a Sony DSR-500 and a JVC dv500 which need new polarizer filters. Since these are both manual focus do you still have to use a circular polarizer or can you use the cheaper linear polarizers?

DO you have to use a circular polarizer for a betacam with manual focus? Or can you use just a regular polarizer?

What kind of lens options do you have with the K3? Will any bayonet mount lens work or does it have to be m42?

Yeah I can relate to the batteries. One time I left an Anton Bauer brick battery out in the rain by accident. A three hundred dollar battery mind you but since it was over 5 years old it didn't last more than 20 minutes but I still had to buy a brand new battery.

They used a Arri 235 which looks like a fun camera due to its size. What is the going rate on one of those? Any limitations compared to other Arri cameras? Also I am just curious as to how much a 235 would cost? And no I don't plan on buying one so nobody has to inform me of the cost savings of renting. Though a 235 would make a great bday present or xmas stocking stuffer.

I have used polarizers some to help cut down glare and help get more detail in skys but I still have a few questions. What is the difference between circular polarizers and regular polarizers? Also what are the most common conditions to use a polarizer? What are some conditions where you wouldn't want to use a polarizer?

NOW, this being said, were the above mentioned characteristics the reasons why Million Dollar Baby won so many awards? In my opinion, NO, absolutely not. I'd say campaigning from the studio, the participation of cinema legends, and the controversial subject matter is what garnered this thing awards. Awards are so subjective - think of the dozens of films every year that are so special and yet get overlooked because they don't have the pull that Clint Eastwood has. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isn't that a sad fact of this industry? Its all in who ya know. I think people should study the dialog in this movie. To me it didn't sound real, the actors and actresses sounded rehearsed, unatural, and forced. With that the storyline, poor sound, and the countless scenes that weren't based on real life facts. This has to be the worst movie of all time for me.

Well I think they could make an economical scanner. And yes I think it would bring more people to the film side, keep some people using film who were leaning to digital on a cost basis, and without the high costs of a telecine it would allow people to buy more film. This is all very good for Fuji's and Kodak's bottom line. Will it be as fast or as good of quality as the Spirit? Probably not , but it could be done. The economy is all about supply and demand. Right now we only have a select number of places to do a telecine and you better believe you are paying premium because of that. Having something like this would democratize this industry just like photoshop did with graphic design and the DV format did with tv. Sure there will always be better but with more movies going digital and more digital projection there needs to be a cheaper way of bridging the gap.

I have always worried about that. How could you prove you didn't get your item. What were their feedbacks like? Did you use paypal or escrow?

Also check this out. You can rent these or buy. All I ask is if you buy one just let me borrow it from time to time. http://www.ken-lab.com/html/applications.html

Here is one of those pictures, its link doesn't work

If you have the cash check these out http://www.gyromatic.net/stabil.htm http://www.heloflights.com/Gallery/Aerial%20 That will help stabilize your camera. Other thatn that shoot wide at an angle to reduce vibration and watch to keep your horizon steady.

I have met numerous people that feel like me. Did anyone notice the inconsistant lighting, dry dialog,slow pacing, poor acting performances by Eastwood and others, unbelieveable story line ( In real life Blue would have been disqualified early on, and as a doctor pointed out Maggie could have told her doc early on to just pull life support instead of forcing Frankie to kill her, also the doctor said "Adrenaline (ie. epinephrine) would not work the way it did here. A large enough dose would eventually kill you by causing you to have a heart attack or stroke but definately would not peacefully and instantaneously stop your heart." The two hours of boxing in which we only things we learn about Maggie is that she works in a dinner, she is tight on money so she steals food, and has a greedy family. I think her family was the only compelling part of the movie. Those actors were great especially the mother. I would have liked to have maybe experienced Maggies childhood, found out some of her beliefs,hobbies, friends etc... The first two hours could have been cut down to 15 minutes, it was draging by the time of the twist which as many people have pointed out after the twist and everything after that could never happen in real life. To add to all that Maggie choose to box for herself, she got hurt, and then she wants to die. I couldn't emotionaly connect with her character for all the above reasons and more. It seems to me that this movie has only gotten its great success due to the highly emotionaly charged subject. Not on the actually script, performance, or movie making. Does anyone feel like I feel? For the life of me I can't understand how this won so many awards and is ranked like in the top 100 on IMDB.com.

I saw this post from a guy in another forum and it seems nobody has delt with this tape problem before. I just thought I would post to let everyone know when switching tape stock in a camera you may want to clean the heads to avoid problems. Read his post and my response. (i'll try to be as vague as possible so as to protect the innocent) we rented a professional high end video package to shoot a small commercial project this past weekend. somewhere in the middle of a two day shoot the camera just freaked out and we basically lost two scenes. we didn't realize it untill it was too late. the footage was all blocky digital f'd up like it was a bad head or whatever. we just don't now what happened. we luckily knew of another project out over the same weekend with the same package who only was shooting for one day so we used their camera for the remainder of our production. we successfully completed the job. when we returned the camera i talked to the rental manager and told him what happened and of course he sounded shocked and he claimed it was the fault of "putting new tape stock in a camera. sometimes this gunks up the heads". This is a known issue with dv formats. For instance Sony uses certain tape lubricant Maxell and Panasonic use another. If you swap tape brands without cleaning the lube off of the heads then you are bound to have problems. One time I was shooting Burt Reynolds house for a tv show we had switched tape brands and when I got back with the tapes I found out one whole tape was blank with a few glitches here and there where the picture would pop up. Can you say nightmare! We had to go back and shoot again. I had learned this lesson before with tape glitches but never a blank tape. So I hope you were nice to the rental house. In the future use the same tape stock they have been using. Or clean the heads before sticking in a different brand of tape. Hope That Helps

This is a known issue with dv formats. For instance Sony uses certain tape lubricant Maxell and Panasonic use another. If you swap tape brands without cleaning the lube off of the heads then you are bound to have problems. One time I was shooting Burt Reynolds house for a tv show we had switched tape brands and when I got back with the tapes I found out one whole tape was blank with a few glitches here and there where the picture would pop up. Can you say nightmare! We had to go back and shoot again. I had learned this lesson before with tape glitches but never a blank tape. So I hope you were nice to the rental house. In the future use the same tape stock they have been using. Or clean the heads before sticking in a different brand of tape. Hope That Helps

Sounds to me like he needs a light. I use a DSR500 and even with it rated f11 at 2000 lux you still need a light in dark places like a club. Try 6db gain with a light , that is just at the point where you get a little grain. If this is a doc and you can't use a light you may try renting a DSR390 though not widescreen does have a rating of f13 at 2000 lux which would give you a brighter pic before having to add a light just to get exposure. Maybe though you should hire an experienced shooter to help you out. I bet there is someone from that area registered on this site.

Granted you get better dynamic range,it seems to me that by using a video camera to take stills from the film that you would lose alot of resolution. Ok for home movies not if you are producing a movie or commercial.

Come on how much would it cost to develop some type of feeder to feed the film frame by frame and then software to capture each frame and turn it into avi movie? Maybe the guy for the job would be the guy who made the 16mm projector telecine. I think there could be a huge market if you get people who are looking to spend 10k on a video camera,to instead get them instead get say a 3k 16mm camera and 2k 16mm film scanner. Of course film is expensive and if Kodak and Fuji want to keep people buying motion picture film then this would be an advantage to them. Its like this, in retail you have what they call Loss Leaders, that is where you lure in customers by offfering a product at or below cost to make money on them in another area of the store. Right now Kodak doesn't make money by telecining peoples films. So like Microsoft does with XBOX, Sony does with Playstation, and the cell phone companys, Kodak or Fuji could sell these scanners at cost and make tons more money on the back end because more people could produce on film and have more control of their final product. And even people already shooting film could afford to buy more film and have a higher shooting ratio. Believe me if producers could shoot 3 minutes s16mm film for $40 and not have to pay $200 to $800 dollars for a quality transfer then they would shoot on film. Most people that are shooting on digital claim they are because of cost, and this would give film a very competitive advantage. I think people would feel like they have more control over their production also which would increase film sales. The moral of the story is Kodak and/or Fuji should do this. As all good businesses you need to be ahead of times and not wait till you have slow business to relize you need changes. Just as many other industries make more money selling you lots of little stuff rather than one big item, Kodak and Fuji can make alot more money selling you lots of film over your lifetime, and they could get people hooked on film by offering a low cost telecine. Hope they are listening!

Thanks for your input