Jay Young

No problem! Glad I could send you in some kind of direction. I will say this tho. Of all the most beautiful movies from before the dawn of computers (say before 1984), lighting was the most important thing. I read once where someone said "If you can light it, you can shoot it". I want to encourage you to remember that photography literally is "Writing with Light". Remember that when you are researching all that computer jazz. Get the lighting right, and everything else should fall into place.

My thoughts may not mean much, and I'll just give a technical review, but here goes: It seems to be that all the shots are flat. They all contain the same contrast. The Colors are all the same. By that I mean nothing really pops. The interesting thing is that visually, it gets darker as the film runs. I assume it was rather bright, or just enough bright to get a decent picture on your DLSR. I also assume that you shot throughout the day, and into the evening with less light, not changing the settings on your camera. The first 20 seconds look rather good. After the 40' mark, everything looks muted. Not sure if that is what you were going for, but there is basically no difference between the trees, and the people. At 1:39 the girls hair starts to stand out, my first thought was COLOR! I think at 1:56, when you move your focus to the big tree; that could have been the best shot in the entire thing, but you cut away, leaving me wanting some more tree. That may have been on purpose ("Where does the time go") because of the song. At 2:35, the boys face is a little dark for me. Again, I don't know if this was what you were going for, but it seems he is blending into the background. 2:52 is where the neutral color pallet REALLY stands out. Everything in the forest is the same color. Even when you move to the leaves, they are still muted. Something to point this out a little more would be at 3:10. Notice how the wood and the forest background are basically the same color? I did however like the edit. And some of the macro work was nice, if overdone. I hope that helps.

Simply Amazing. Even more amazing are the comments on vimeo: Anyhow, I am almost able to suspend belief, until the night scene, in which I wonder where all the light is coming from.

I LOVE Narrative Drama. I like the TRON story, world, feel and emotion it brings. I have always liked the Narnian stories. I recently saw both of these films in 3D, only because I had no choice. Mind you, I HATE 3D, and feel it should be dis-invented. Now TRON takes place in the real world, and inside a computer. At the beginning of the film, they even TELL you that some scenes are going to be in 2D because that's the way they were shot. I don't know what the primary acquisition format was, but apparently 40 minutes of the film were shot in IMAX. It looked like film, it felt like film, even tho I watched it in a Digital projection. The 2D scenes look good, of course. I feel that 3D makes them far darker than they would be sans 3D. Also, for this film only, 3D actually seems to make sense. It's not like they took a film, made a poor 3D conversion, slapped a 3D label on it and called it a day. I was actually OK with the 3D inside the computer scenes, but only just. It works for TRON. Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a completely different story. Sources say it was shot digitally, which shows at times, bringing my mind out of focus and loosing my complete immersion in the story. The 3D conversion was horrible. It is sadly the WORST 3D FILM I have ever watched. The Story was great, and I feel this film has merit, but I simply can not, ever, watch another 3D film, if this is the the direction the industry is headed. Slap a 3D label on it, do a quick conversion, and make MORE MONEY! I paid $25 for us two to see this film. I normally pay $14 for two people. I feel this is just the industry's way of getting more money for shitty work. Shame on you.

This was one of the better Harry Potter films I had seen. Were it but for two things, it would have made my list for this year: I can not abide shaky cam. It has become the bane of my existence. People are starting to use shaky cam for anything and everything. It seemed to me that they gave the camera operator a Mitchell BFC and told him to hold it on his shoulder. Action scenes could be a little less intense, one really can't SEE what's going on. If some force like an explosion would actually move the camera in real life, shake it... when two people are sitting still in a room, do not shake the damn camera. Also, some of the choice shots selected by the editor it seems make certain scenes look planed. To me it looked as if they only used coverage footage and no A-reel. Over all, I would watch it again.

Hey Paul, The last still camera I got was a Bronica ETRS. I use that every chance I get. My motion picture camera I picked up was a Kinor 16CX-2M. It was the one lots of people recommended. After that, I have my eye on the CP-16 OR a Mitchell. I want to stick with 16mm for a while, see what I can do with that. Besides, I need to bankroll a bit before I plunge in to 35mm. How do you feel about 16mm Anamorphic? J.

Love the website, and LOVE the video! I have been planing to use your services, and a new camera should be in the mail. Here's hoping for a good working relationship.

What is the price range? I have looked over Olex's site, and can't find any prices. I'm getting ready to buy a 16CX but I want 24fps. This new motor would be excellent.

So I have a Canon HV20 that I use sometimes. I like the camera. It produces a nice image. There have been many nice images produced by this camera. I was reading some threads about cameras/equipment and how the talent felt about the production, specifically how talent didn't think to highly when faced with unprofessional looking equipment. I wonder if anyone ever cares about the independent film maker, who owns his own equipment, but doesn't own a complete Panavision setup. Does the talent really care what kind of equipment is used? I mean, I have been seriously questioned on some of my lighting setups. Using PAR's... using DIY soft boxes when I needed something fast (Like plastic frames and some light weight material attached). Anyhow, can using equipment that doesn't "look" professional effect the end result?

Well I watched it again in 2D this time, and I have decided that the entire thing needs to be reprinted and overexposed +1.5 stops. I believe that would be the best. I'll have to watch the Blue-Ray version to see if it looks better. The 2D version was still too dark for my taste. However, I do like the film very much, and hope that he does make the other 3 books.

So I have one more question. What about titles? I have been reading about EDL's and they say that Fades and simple things work well on an EDL. I was reading that titles and color grading doesn't work with an EDL, and that totally makes sense (cuase there not on the orignal negative). But how would I get the titles I create digitally onto the final print? Would I make a high res version to give to the film out house? THANKS!

I thought the Sherry and Edward was fantastic. Tho I couldn't figure out why the frame started jumping there at the end. I LOVED the big pull back at the end, very classic. I liked the intercut scenes during the vows. I did think that the vow scene was a bit long, and could not figure out why only the wife got subtitles. Good work.

David, you are amazing. If I ever get millions of dollars, your hired. Thanks a lot. I guess I need to learn about the EDL now. ...off to research. Thanks again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks very professional to me. I wanted to watch the whole thing... which doesn't happen often.

First, Please change your username to your Real Full name as per the Forum rules. Second, I liked it. The dressing is especially beautiful. Some of the scenes I thought were a little dark for my taste. Overall I think this is pretty good work.

Well, I'll give my opinion, for what it's worth: I did not care for it. It was well choreographed. I did like some of the post effects. It's a little "Blare Witch" for me. Somebody will give you millions of dollars for this. I did like the dance scene. The light could be brighter (the solo spot attached to the camera). The gore could be more 'on purpose' and less 'just stick your hand in it'. That's about all I know.

So I'm a bit lost; let me see if I can put my thoughts into questions. Does it work like this?: Acquire principal photography on actual physical film > Scan into computer = DI > Edit (NLE) > Digital out or Optical print? Is that correct? And, if that is correct... umm... so when I give the lab my original, they develop it, and one light it for tests/dailies, what ever, right? No? You know, I have many books on the subject of editing, but none of them go into the actual process... more on HOW to edit. So if I get my neg scanned in, can I edit that? What happens when I am finished editing and I want an optical print/film out? If I have a contact print done (interpositive?), do I edit the actual physical film on like a Moviola? I remember something about negative conformation, but who does that, the lab? And where do they get the information to do that? I'm real confused. This may not even be the correct forum, and I apologize if it is not.

I went and watched it again in 2D, and it was much more enjoyable, especially with the two boys that would kiss when it was REALLY dark, and the woman behind me that would OOooh and AAHhhh every time something excited happened. It was however still darker than I cared but the colors were MUCH better. And the sequence at the end with the ocean (reminds me of The Abyss) is just about the coolest thing I have seen since. When I went to see it in 3D, no one Ooooed at anything. This time, it was shown on Film, which is good, and the theatre lights were REALLY low, which also helped. Does anyone have any technical details about what film stocks were used? I know they used Arri cameras, or at least thats what I read in the credits. I'm a little curious as to why the forground was so dark and the background very much brighter.

Well I like it. I think the interior lighting is particular fantastic. As a very technical person, I think I would have maybe use 250 or 500T on the inside (if you could find some in Super8mm). But the look of this is very nice. I would like to see the full film.

I took one of those apart one time, and I STILL haven't found all the pieces. There's little gizmos and gears, springs and chirps and all whatnot. I think it all has to do with the fact that the cartridge actually pulls the film through by turning the sprockets inside. I for one, would not do it.

Hello! First, if you would, please change your name to you Real Full name, as stated in the Forum Rules. After that, some companies will sell you Super8 film including processing for one price. But, if you want to get it into a computer, you will have to have it scanned in. http://www.cinelicious.tv/ looks really good, and I have seen some great results. There is always Pro8mm, who some like and some don't. There are ways to process your film at home, and there are even companies that sell machines that will allow you to scan in your own 8mm film into your own computer. Since I'm lazy, I would just send it to a lab, but you may want to look into that. There are many Super8 communities around, give us a little more detail on what kind of camera you have and we may be able to provide better information.

So, I need to vent. I have been an Ebay user since it's inception. Now, there are many rules you must follow. That's fine, and I follow them and have never had a problem. I am just about sick and tired to the point of quitting Ebay all together over these damned titles people come up with. Examples: (I simply searched for RED in Cameras) 35MM MITCHELL MK II 110 SYNC MOTOR RED Arri Arriflex Red One Camera PL Mount Rubber Back Cover LOMO 250mm f2.8 lens in ARRI PL mount RED Arriflex Arri None of the above will work with or are in fact a RED camera. These idiots are just throwing buzzwords around to get hits on their search. This makes me report the auction because it's suppose to be a big no-no. However, there are SO MANY people doing it, it gets really frustrating when your trying to find that 2-perf techniscope ground glass for your 16mm eyemo, only to find out that when you type all that into the search, you get some collector barbie doll. Quit with the extra buzzwords in your auction titles!

M. K. Shamalan’s Avatar: The Last Airbender: Book 1. Going in, I thought I hated 3D. Now, I really do. Things I learned: I must be ok with Digital Cinema, because I didn’t know I was watching a digital picture until after I crawled up to the projector (something I always do). The XPanD 3D system sucks. Yes, it makes things look 3D, but it also washes out all the color and moves the contrast from 1 - 10 to something like 4-6, and maybe even 2-4 (it’s rather dark). Every time I took the glasses off the colors just exploded and everything was amazing! Put the glasses back on, and it looked as tho I was watching a low budget film with dark sunglasses on. Things with intricate lighting didn't even show up until I took the glasses off. I'll have to go watch it normal, and see if it comes to life for me. The effects are seamless and outstanding. But, given that ILM did them, and the fact that they have been around a while, it was expected. I also learned that if you are going to make a 3D picture, you SHOULD NOT do fast pans. That makes my head hurt, as my eyes try to follow one set of motion blurs. Having 2 sets in that sudo 2D into 3D After Effects style makes it really hard. My personal preference is: just don’t make pictures in 3D in the first place. These are just my thoughts of the film. How do you feel?

Well I think it's absolutely fantastic and I want one.

Oh I never meant I found a BNCR for $3k. That would be wonderful. I also agree with Bruce in that a Russian setup would be much easier to travel with. Techniscope would be great, as would true anamorphic. Either way, I'll buy a Mitchell one of these days, but something soon in the next month.