Jay Young

No need to apologize, I was just saying the argument can get long and detailed; Tyler did a great job of summing it up.

That is a topic in and of itself and should be really a new thread.

I grew up with TNG of course, and it was fantastic. I have since wanted to watch the original series but I can't abide by the "update" they did for Netflix. I love the fact that it got a decent treatment, but can I just get the original rotoscope work? I want to see what they did back then, to see the hard work that was put in, not see what could have been if computers.... I find myself constantly returning to the whole Star Trek franchise, but if I had to pick a favorite based on storyline alone, it would be Babylon 5. Still I love the moody style of lighting in the original series.

Nah, just get one and shoot. The 814 is a fine camera. So are the Nizo's, and Nikons, Beaulieus, Kodaks, and all those other brands are ok too. If you want to spend the money, you'll likely get a decent one. If you want to not spend money, then buy them for cheap ($10) and see if they work, if not... toss and get another cheap one.

Cool. I think its a neat film, and enjoyed the story - regardless of circumstance.

Well I'm glad I have generated some interest on the forum. I would love to do a photochemical finish. However, it may be that I just need to composite the whole thing in the computer. I whacked up a quick cardboard/Styrofoam model about 12" high, put it on a table and took a picture of it with me standing down the hallway - It needs to be larger, and I think the camera will need to be a good distance away also. Somewhere in the world (Universal Studios Florida? Kings Island?) there is a fun park that has scaffolding, with the space shuttle mounted on top. Then there is a "camera rest" where you put a camera, and marked on the ground is the place to stand - this has the effect of making the shuttle look like its in the background, far away. If I could find the ONE print I have of this, taken when I was 10 or so, I could show you. There doesn't need to be a road. In fact, you don't need to see much of the launch tower, just - rocket off in the distance. The actors will be standing on a... parking lot? or something. Location still to be determined. Anyhow, I still like the hard dividing line horizontal across the frame. Although I guess it actually needs to be closer to the camera to go all the way across the frame.

Great, thanks David! A cokin graduated fog is $30 so I'll pick one of those up just because.

I agree. I'll split the frame horizontally, above the actors heads. Time to make a trip to the railroad store for miniature trees! I assume I'll make a table model and place that above the actors with the support arm off frame right. Then its just a after of making the transition area blend.

As Fritz Lang is one of my top 5 favorites, I favor a nod in this direction. Old school works for me.

Thanks for all the suggestions. That article is very interesting read, however I need to do the opposite. I need a foreground model to look like its in the background, behind the actors. I guess shooting a tabletop model on green is likely the best option at this point. I was just wanting to do as much in camera as I could. I know it can be done, but I also know I don't have the funds for it to be done correctly. Also, the rocket is suppose to be a bit far away, so I don't know if shadow will be an issue: If this rocket were on the right side of the frame, this would be more close to what is suppose to be represented by the storyboard. I think the storyboard (this is the third iteration) gives the sense that the actors are suppose to be much close than they are.

I will likely end up doing a hybrid. I'll shoot a clean background plate. I'll shoot the scene with talent. <-- Maybe with a holdout matte on glass? I'll shoot a model against green. Comp in later. I hate the fix it in post routine, but doing this stuff for real takes talent that is going by the wayside.

I totally agree. I was thinking, a 1:4 scale 300' rocket is... large. A 1:16 scale 300' rocket is not as big, but still that's a 20' tall structure. Which would be awesome if I had unlimited funds... or more funds than I have. I like the idea of mini-led's that's easy to control with electronics. I also like the idea of mounting a half built model on glass - like a 3-d matte. There is not suppose to be a wall there, but the storyboard artist became a bit... artistic, in places. The first draft drawing was very interesting. I wonder how big I would have to build the model to mount it on glass, have it in the foreground AND look like it was in the distance a mile away.

No, although smoke would be nice, I think rotoing in some blinkenlights would be just as sell-able. And, it takes place in the afternoon of a nice May day, so clear or clouds - no weather or atmosphere to worry about. Now the question is, who/where do I find a matte painter?! I can build models all day... matte painting is - an art! HA!

I have a scene coming up in which two people need to stand center frame, with a rocket/launchpad in the distance. I have been researching and thinking about how to do this not in a computer, but using miniatures. I can't figure out if I need to build a model to shoot with maybe a matte painting matching the tree line of the location but close to the camera, OR if a large flat painting set far enough away is the best effect. The camera doesn't move, and will be locked off during this particular scene. The problem I foresee is if I make a model and set it close to the camera for a sort of forced perspective, then I'll have to roto out the support structure as the whole thing will likely be in the middle of the frame. See the storyboard below. The model will not look exactly like the storyboard of course. Any thoughts on the best way to pull this off without resorting to digital CG? I'd much rather build the model.

Its not, city ordnance - Might be state law now? Anyhow I was more bothered by the fact that the people didn't seem to care - it's just a big television to them. It was not outdoors. Carkmike cinema - decent oldschool cinema with decent projection, low staff, high dollar popcorn.

I just saw this last night. And between the lady who insisted on smoking through the whole film, and the teenager who kept checking his phone (I guess he was bored?) I thought it was an interesting film. As David pointed out, there are a lot of... swirly camera movement.. After about 10 minutes of that, I can say I don't care for that type of camera operation at all. Now I agree I would love to know how they achieved some of those 'handheld to gimble on truck to handheld' shots, and at this point I'll assume it was a master steadycam operater who literally jumped on the back of a speeding vehicle while wearing a technocrane. Furthermore this digital stitching together of long takes I do not like at all. There are some very beautiful shots in this film. The filmmaking side of this picture for me is just in your face the whole time, which makes me think that the story is not important, its the technical achievement. I always understood the technical achievements should never translate to the screen, leave people wondering - it takes away from the magic. As for the film, personally I enjoyed the story and feel as if it could have better been served by a more traditional approach to visual storytelling, but the unlimited technical abilities simply got in the way. It really wants to be a Gaspar Noe film.

For Sale: http://www.ebay.com/itm/-/111868638592? Cinema Products Crystal Sync 16mm motion picture camera package CP-16R camera body 10-150mm zoom in CP-mount Fully orient-able viewfinder - rare! Regular viewfinder - prisms needs re-silvered. 3x 400' magazines with core adapters 3-pin XLR Dummy Battery Adapter Custom AC adapter TWO Anvil Flight cases This camera and lens were completely serviced by Visual Products, back focus was checked on the zoom lens, and belts were replaced. This camera runs very well. This camera is NOT Super16, it has never been modified. The camera features a built in light meter which appears to register about 1/2 stop different from my hand held meter. Camera sync light, and mirror return work great. This camera does not include the sound head as found on some models. Please contact to see actual 2K scanned 16mm footage from this camera. Flat shipping of $55, it will likely cost more to ship, but I hate charging people too much for shipping. I make every effort to package items I sell as best possible. This camera will be packaged in bubble rap, placed in its padded flight case, and then shipped. The Lens will be wrapped, placed in its separate flight case and shipped. This item is listed on Ebay, feel free to message me about this item - if it sells here, I will pull the auction. For anyone on this forum, I'll throw in the Arri S/B to CP mount adapter from Visual Products ($475 I think is the current price) which lets you use any Arri standard or bayonet mount lenses on this camera. Some of the older lenses will interface with the spinning mirror, but the later serial numbers do not. http://imgur.com/a/jnnpv Please feel free to ask questions!

I'd be interested in knowing if there is a 35mm projector available... I'll be in Asheboro next week! If that helps.

Magic? In reality - Do you know the fc of the light hitting the bounce material? Do you know the fc of the light at any distance? Do you have another lamp that is close to the same?

Perry, Thanks for the insight. You've given me some things to think about.

I totally agree Tyler, I even went so far as to call film scanner manufacturers and inquire about pricing. I wanted to understand why it cost me $500 per real time hour to get 20 minutes of footage back. I understand that "computer render time" is a thing, but we're not making CG here - I actually don't understand the whole computer render thing as I assumed it just simply did 3-pass scan of single frame to a single file... there shouldn't be any render time. Now if some customers want a non-single-file-based format (Like ProRes) then there will be render time. But, if any smart lab would simply buy more than one computer, render time wouldn't be a thing. Have the machines not payed for themselves already? Even the million dollar machines? I would never believe that a business like FotoKem has not paid off all its physical equipment yet.

You need to know what your final aspect ratio is. If you're shooting in 1.78, then multiply that by 2 and you'll get the final aspect ratio = 3.56 which is WAY WIDE What you're actually looking for is something like a 1.25x squeeze for a more traditional aspect, but perhaps you want the really wide format. Anyhow, that lens is a projection lens and will work for you, assuming you have some way to mount it in front of your taking lens, several people make mounting kits for just this sort of thing.

I'm super excited to see this. Shut up and take my money. Also, why would a software engineer need to be hired for 35mm camera project unless digital? Maybe I'm not understanding.

Inter-generation stock (Inter Positive/ Inter Negative) is different from the print stock. From the Kodak:

Happy new year, all. Hope all your projects work out as well as planned.