Jay Young

Interesting notion. I would be interested in seeing a horizontal pull 8mm cartridge camera, however at 2 perf they'll only last 80 seconds or so...

Fantastic! The grain on the underexposed night shots didn't feel overwhelming, and didn't bring me out of the picture. I would love to hear more about your lighting setup on the interior two up shot - single source?

Off topic, but still interesting - Mr. Trumbull recently stated that the shooting ratio on the whole film of 2001 was something like 900:1, Especially for the visual effects works.

I would love to do this same thing to my CP-16R but I can't for the life of me figure out how to get the top plate off which I suspect has just been painted on. The RasPi cameras are pretty small and should work in most situations. Also, I agree - I would not want to pull focus off the monitor with a RasPi camera.

Lets try again. I think what the above persons are saying is that it may be a difficult task to key out all of those green areas with any artwork. Secondly, the artwork that you DO create to fill in the green area could just as easily be printed out poster size, hung on a wall and actually photographed. This I also believe is the way to go, as it will save time. You don't have to worry about shadows or flat lighting the green screen, and you don't have to worry about all of the computer work in post production.

Interesting. I felt the Miniature work was pretty good, given that there hasn't been a lot of miniature work since producers discovered the computer was invented.

Maybe it would help to view some paintings. When I light a scene, I try to make it look like paintings I have seen before. For example, in an upcoming project, I have this in mind: Joseph Wright of Derby, A Philosopher Giving a Lecture at the Orrery (in which a lamp is put in place of the sun), c. 1763-65, oil on canvas Except I don't see many modern film makers utilizing lighting in these ways. It's not natural, soft or any other qualifiers. It's a single fresnel in the center of a table to light the whole scene. Maybe it's even an open face? "But that person in silhouette, we need to see there face" I hear the producers say... NO, its part of the mystery and magic. "Turn up the ISO" says the DIT man; NO, that'll make everything look like crap even if your histogram is a 7-10 split. Anyway, that may be a bit off topic. I'm gonna go watch some Fritz Lang and be in awe of two carbon arcs...

I was hesitant to write also such a harsh critique, but now that Tyler has opened the door I can say that I truly did not understand why one scene would look great, and then the next would look horrid. Now after reading about the mixed media usage on this production I understand what I was seeing; one scene would be fine, and the next was DIGITAL - like super in your face look at me I'm an Alexa turned up to 11 with images so beautiful they don't need to be matched! Do the Digital Information Technicians not watch films? It seems to me that a histogram might be less informative than one first imagines. I'm glad you mention Tyler that it is unfortunate for us 'film' guys that this picture isn't a good representation, because its not. I also agree that Interstellar is fantastic, it is becoming quickly my second favorite film of all time, and dare I say that my first is 2001: A Space Odyssey? Speaking of Hoyte, I read where he stated that he loves film, and loves digital too; perhaps he knows how to light for film and hasn't figured out the digital side of things yet? I know I'm in the same boat - it takes a whole lot more testing for me to get a good digital image - but I also like it to look decent coming out of the camera. Finally let me say that Octopussy was also not the best Bond film..... or was that Moonraker!

According to the ECN-2 guide, you need to replinish 900ml of developing solution per 100 feet of 35mm film. This PDF helps a bit: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_processing_h247_h2407.pdf

Having put off cinema viewing for a few weeks, I needed this weekend to catch up. I saw Spectre tonight. I haven't looked up the acquisition format, and I've read a little about the setup and filming. However I don't know if it is a mixture of the Barco projectors and digital cameras used, but it seems like there is a mixture of odd choices going on. Some of the scenes were great, and looked great; they gave me that "I didn't know Downton Abbey was shot digitally until the third season" feel. Then again, some of the static dialogue scenes looked exactly like they would have if I went to the local best buy to view the new 400" television and the workers had turned the oversampling all the way up to maximum. Scenes with dark backgrounds seemed to scream digital much more than the scenes that had a lot of grey, muted colors, or bright daylight setups. Those dialogue scenes always jarred me back to reality in a bad way. The particular chase scene, involving lighting the whole of the river was very good, followed by an overly sharp dialogue scene. I don't know that I can fault the cinematographer, as the lighting was generally very good - mostly soft, except for that one train scene where there were no lights in the desert but apparently a producer must have said " I need more motion here" or the like so they made it look like the train was moving past a whole city. The opening long take, with no cuts, was unsettling, and maybe it was intended that way. The miniature work was good, the story was not my favorite. Perhaps it is the trailer that screened previous for "London is Falling" which setup my whole mood of general dislike for the cinema presentation; I have never seen a more fake looking explosion, it screamed digital and visual effects and I was set on point from that moment. Tomorrow I will go to see "Bridge of Spies" and I hope that it does not have the same oversampled effect in dialogue scenes of over-sharpness, and total reduction of motion blur. If it does, perhaps its time to find a new cinema... again? I believe Spectre would benefit wholly from a celluloid print. Thoughts?

With the price of Steenbeck's eternally falling, I wish I could find someone to help me move one up the stairs to my flat!

David did it in... Big Sur? Deakens did it in The Big Lebowski, and I'm almost positive Semler did it in Dances with Wolves - Yes, you have to protect the wiring, and obviously not put it directly in the fire. Although, one could just run bare copper solid core unshielded - but I bet some safety person would frown about that. The bulbs and ceramic can take the heat, but you really don't need a fixture to make a bulb work. Finally, they make silicone impregnated shielded wire that is "fireproof" up to +350, which should be close enough for anyone.

I went on the DragonFrame website, and they have lists of cameras that will work, I actually own two of the cameras in their extensive list - I was surprised. That said, use whatever camera you own. If you don't own a camera, I would source one from the DragonFrame list. If you really want the software, and are a student then there is a student discount which makes the software $200 or something. So take your 600 quid, buy a $3-400 camera and spend the rest on the software you really want!

Yes, Sorry all, I thought from the description and the first picture that the camera had only the one piece swivel viewfinder with camera attached! You'll need something like http://www.amazon.com/Composite-HDMI-Converter-Scaler-720p/dp/B00284T0QG You need one with power, runs off battery or DC. The one I linked is just the first one I found, I don't know anything about that particular product, but it will work. You'll also need a BNC-rca adapter, OR just make a new cable. RCA/BNC are interchangeable, single shielded wire. With these analogue to digital converters, you can pay as much as you want - just like anything else in this business really! An alternate would be to get something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Small-Adjustable-Monitor-Security-Camera/dp/B0051156TS/ And forget converting the signal. Good luck!

Well I for one hope this frees up the film camera rental prices so us poor folk can afford more than a long weekend shoot!

This is great! I very much like short form documentaries like these, having grown up on them. If I might get really picky, the camera moves a lot, and maybe that's indicative of the modern time; I think cider and apples don't really warrant all that camera movement, even handheld footage. A monopod might even serve you in the future? Secondly, and this is really something that might be personally subjective, the B-roll audio might be a bit loud, as I found it a bit distracting to what he was saying - like "Why is he pouring apples in this bag so loud?!" Anyhow, I am looking forward to your next documentary!

You can also put bare quartz bulbs in the fireplace close to the fire as they have to take more heat than the fire gives out anyway, send them to switches and you can pulse the fire...

Looks like it might have been setup for stedycam use? But an expert on that sort of thing will have to confirm.

Pictures would help a bit. Are you speaking of the optical viewfinder and it has a small CCD camera attached? Or video tap in addition to the optical viewfinder? Video taps are usually composite (single wire) not component, unless there are three (RGB) separate cables coming out of the video tap, but why in the world it would be setup that way is beyond me... Anyhow, The short answer is that the signal is very likely analog and will need to be converted over to digital to work on you hd monitor. They make devices to do this.

I hate to do a lot of complaining this morning, but that MovieStuff company sounds... interesting. First I have to buy a $5000 machine, then for some crazy reason (that I assume they don't know what they are talking about) I can't use an AMD chip in my computer to run software that costs more money? If I'm paying $5000 for a machine it had better come with software to make it work, OR use standard available software. You are not IBM, nor is your machine millions of dollars. A quick search tells me I can get a diTTo for $2500 or so, and it comes with everything I need to make jucy 10-bit DPX files. Now I realise they are making a machine that would normally cost close to 1M in the commercial world, and I should be happy and not complain,

The Alexa regular is something like $1000/day + (with better weekly rates of course) so maybe the 65 is... more? I can't actually find any companies that list the 65 for rent - I suspect it is Arri only at this point. You could call?

I 100% agree with this sentiment. I'm working on a project now that is non-union, and the actors don't seem to care. In fact, most of them have said if the production company can cover travel/hotel/meal expenses, they will work without a day rate! This tells me either the talent truly wants to work with interesting original stories and characters, OR they are really hungry for work of any kind at all. The thing I hear most from actors in the audition process, usually the exact same statement, is that they "believe in this"; that is to say, they believe in the script, or the story, or the originality of the project and really want to see it succeed. I think some very interesting stories could be told with budgets under 5M. However once distribution and marketing are factored in, how much is left for the actual production process? Tyler I'm very interested in why you chose SAG schedule F instead of B, or can one not make flat-rate deals with other schedules? (Sorry for moving slightly off topic).

Hear, Hear!

I've been searching for a while and I have yet to see any list of theatres for Hateful 8. I'm hoping they'll show it in Atlanta, or somewhere equally close tho I don't think there's a 70mm projector in Cincy.

I see. I just looked up the serial and I read November 1968 for my lens. I guess I need to find a later model.