Jay Young

So, I understand the questions surrounding the use of wide or square shots... subjects are vertical or horizontal and what not. However, I am in love with scope. Call it nostalgia, call it a weird giddy excitement when the theatre curtains open and display the CinemaScope logo... My question is this: If you planed to shoot everything (as in independant film maker) in scope, would it be better to invest in a 16mm set up or some sort of 2-perf 35mm system? If I have my understanding correctly, super16 is basically the same as 16:9 (1.78:1) TV, and 2-perf 35mm IS 2.40:1 automagically without the need to crop the frame. As I am poor currently, I am looking to the Russians for a camera that I can use and learn on. I'm an analogue fan as well, and have done some testing on my HV20... with mixed results. Croping 8mm works well but I would like to move up in the world. So its a question of cost. Please feel free to correct me if I have said something wrong.

I would say "Sign me up" but I'm hesitant... What exactly does "gritty/realistic" mean? JRY

As far as I have seen, quick cuts and shaky camera seem to be the rage in modern films. You may want to take a look at Death Race 2000 and perhaps the new Bond flick Quantum of Solace. The X-Files movie did a chase scene (on foot), but did it in many takes (supposedly because Ducovany [sp?] is old), and then cut it together reusing the same footage shot in multiple angles to make it look longer. I could be wrong, as its been a while since I read the article; you can read said article in AC, but someone will have to recall which episode that was... JRY

This work came as a wallpaper on my Sony Vaio... weird.

You could always try the Pro8mm version if you did not want to buy from Ebay. Other than that, I don't know of anyone else selling them. Why does it have to be the 814? There are other good cameras out there. Not that I don't have a favorite either. Let me see if I can translate this... 你总是可以尝试pro8mm版本如果您不想从eBay购物。以外，我不知道的其他任何人出售。为什么它有没有成为814呢？还有其他好相机出来。不是我不有一个最喜爱的。 你總是可以嘗試pro8mm版本如果您不想從eBay購物。以外，我不知道別人出售。為什麼它有沒有成為814呢？還有其他好相機出來。不是我不有一個最喜愛的。 Hope that helps.

So I bought it. $40 didnt sound too bad. Here are pictures to help you out. If this is fixable, can someone point me in the right direction? http://picasaweb.google.com/DragoonBoy/Cam...key=aLP7q87FDBE Hope that helps!

So I did a search for "Kirk Light" and it only came up with 5 or 6 hits on this site, and NONE on any other search engine. However on reading those posts, I do believe that is the effect I am going for. The best example I could find though was Angelica Huston in the Adams Family (1991). This is so amazing and I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Seems like Harry Potter 2 did this as well, but that was not even close to the look I want. Thanks for the ideas, now its testing time.

So I was thinking about light the other day, and I have a scene in which the damsel heroin has a tight close up. I wanted to light her softly and difused but I also wanted to use the eye bar effect where it looks as tho a bar of light which is brighter than the rest goes across her face. Whats the best way to do this? Flag the secondary key off to just the position I want it? Maybe dim the first key and have the secondary key less dim or full power? Take a look at this attachment. This are the best examples I could find. http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j296/Brulin/miranda.jpg http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j296/Brulin/romulan.jpg http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j296/Brulin/amoktpau.jpg Anyone familier with Star Trek: TOS knows what I am talking about. Thoughts?

Just for the sake of argument, and because I have nothing useful to add to this thread; I thought I would tell you the truth about that formula you typed up there. ∏R^2... however every one knows that Pie are round. I have never seen a square pie. So the equation should look like this: ∏R^∅... that's better, Pie are round. Cobbler on the other hand IS square. Although as far as I know they have not made a math symbol for cobbler.

Now that I think about it I quite agree with the claustrophobic feel that the 1.78 would have given it. Perhaps i'll go back and explore that option. YAY NLE's....

What would you have done? I chose 2.35:1 because I like that aspect ratio. Some people don't like minimalistic music, however I felt it complemented the mood of this piece very nicely. Phillip Glass has scored lots of movies in the past with music just like this. I never clamed to be a minimalist composer, and even I don't think I am good at it. I'm no actor, but working by my self has its advantages and drawbacks... so your stuck with the "sanguine poetry". And what is wrong with ordinary camera shots?

Sorry, no picture. Ill go by and see if he will let me take one. I can say that all the silver is gone off that side. Say, whatever would look silver (metal wise) and everything underneeth that is gone.

http://vimeo.com/1494334 Please critique this short. It was rather spur of the moment. As I don't have any other crew than myself, I did all the work. I even wrote the score, which is suppose to mimick John Adams/Phillip Glass. I really havent delved into Minimalism much as a composer, and usually stick to sudo-neo-romanticesque. Any comments or criticizem welcome! P.S. I really can't spell, and as my spell checker is not working at the moment (and I don't feel like finding my dictionary), I hope you will not be destracted by my poor spelling. Thanks, JRY

So I ran across a Bolex H today. It's cheep. However it is missing some parts. When I say some, what I really mean is that everyhing on the crank side is missing. My first question is: Is there an extra plate that goes between the body proper and the spring winder? What I see when I look at the camera is a hole, and a stem where the "Hand Crank" forward advance thing goes. There is a place (more like a cut out) where the clutch switch would be and a cut out for the footage indicator and the other cool little dial meter (edit: internal frame counter) thing at the top right. There are some holes and thats about it. The inside looks good and clean but I can not test it. It comes with no lense, and as far as I can tell is a base model. It does have the metal shutter hole cap thing and the door seemed to lock good and solid. My second question, is: Is this camera body, missing all these parts, worth $40? JRY

That second picture, the one of the man walking down the hall; what process did you use to make the aqua color but still keep the black in the suit? Filter, CC in computer or camera? I mean, the lights don't quite look white white, but there close enough for me. That's some GREAT color work. My favorite shot is the one of the outside with the lockers. The sky is SO dark compared to the rest of the frame.

Lightwave 3D... You know, I think that space stuff is some of the most exciting looking space ever. However I have my reservations about computers. Is there a way to do something even close to that optically? Sort of like: Build the models Build the set Multiple passes for lighting Lots of rotoscope composite Is that about right? Would the cost of doing it "old-school" be that much different than getting a digital efx house to do it? And about the hologram, how was it done 30 years ago. Did ILM use computers? After Effects didn't exist back then did it? I would prefer not to use CGI.

So what your saying is that the 'scope' trailers were shone through an anamorphic lense (or something) and the flat trailers were actually squeezed, then unsqueezed to look 4:3? OR they were really masked like that in the camera and the 4:3 ones were full frame but not wide screen (hence the black bars?)

That is COOL! The music with the film going up. The abstract visual work at the end. Really nice work. That Vision200T looks glorious in the daylight. How did you do the effect at the beginning? If I may ask? JRY

1. What is the best way to re-create the hologram effect from Star Wars? - Projection on a semi-opaque piece of glass - Projection on a very clean piece of glass How was the effect created in the first place? 2. The space scenes in BattleStar Galactica: were they all done in the computer? Specifically the "zoom in close" camera movement. I thought those space scenes were some of the best I have ever seen. Could the effect be done without the computer? Could you build a scale model of everything and zoom pan/tilt? Thanks, JRY

I HATE wal-mart, I don't shop there, and I forbade all my roommates from shopping there. However, I do use there photo lab. I usually shoot black and white. I like to have my film digitized, and the Fuji machine they use is better than most places. All of the real photo labs around here have closed down. Something about all the people in the city being sheep and following the masses, thinking digital was better because that's what wal-mart sells and they don't make film anymore... So the only choice I have is to use a good film scanner (which I really want), or pay 3.65 at the wal-mart. I usually just post the images online so people can see them and if they want prints, then I make them by hand in flesh eating chemicals in my (not set up yet cause I just moved) darkroom. What I like about this particular photo lab is the fact that they really don't know anything about film. I say this was over developed about 1 stop, and they just look at me. I say print these to CD and pull them back one stop, and they just look at me. I have learned the terminology to use tho. "Make me a CD of these negatives, make them lighter 'cause there real dark for some reason" That seem to work just fine.

Super 35.... I'm ok with that, but what about the horizontal lens flairs? Can you get a flair like that with a spherical lens?

Since I have been busy reading other parts of the forum (just found it), I have not had a chance to read this yet. I too want to film an endless white room/void. I can't believe no one as mentioned one of the gratest white room sequences I have ever seen. THX 1138 Someone needs to call Mr. Lucas up and ask him how he did it. The question is tho; did the white room sequence change from the '76 non-CGI version to the new release with CGI? Back to the topic at hand, would it help if you had more space? Like a large room, very large hanger or something? It would take more light most likely but would you still see the corners? JRY

So last night I went to see Prince Caspian. And while I thought the picture show its self was good, there were some things that distracted me. First of, I had read somewhere recently that houses with only one projector would sometimes run scope and flat trailers at the head of the film. The theatre I went to last night (second run A-films for $1.50 yay) did this. However Caspian was an CinemaScope film. I could only tell when the sun shon in brightly enough to cause the classic anamorphic light artifact. The question I have is: Why did some trailers show flat (but not streeeeetched) in a 4:3 with black bars on the side AR, and the actual scope trailers filled the screen (which was curved oddly enough*) If you show a flat picture through an anamorphic lens, does it not get stretched out? I do know there was no one in the projection booth, because there was no lens change between spots. There was a brief adjustment of the gate, and that was it. I also know that whoever assembled this film did a horrid job. There was even a 1/2 frame splice, which made everyone jump when the loud POP from the accompanying sound track cut through the very solemn sequence. That's about enough ranting. Any thoughts? JRY *I think I recall that anamorphic pictures should be shown on a curved screen. I remark that this theatre had a curved screen at all because it is a second run house and was (as far as I know) never built to run first releases. It is only about 1/2 a mile from the 16 screen Regal (my [overpriced] favorite). Perhaps the builders had some sense...

My advice would be to use as stable a platform as possible. Since you do only get one shot, and using a long zoom, it would be beneficial to acquire the best tripod head you could get your hands on. Kodak $17 from the Wal-Mart ain't gonna do. I would not settle for less than a good solid fluid head. The reason the tripod is so important here is the image angle of movement on the frame while in telephoto mode. Even with stabilization computer gadgetry, if you bump the camera the image will move far grater then you intended it too.. not that you would. You also want to be able to move the camera freely. The Manfrotto 516 is a good lightweight head, since I assume you will be lugging this equipment out into the field, however its not cheep. Manfrotto 516 Next in line is the 503 Its about half the price of the 516. Lastly is the 701HDV Again, half the price of the previous. Mind you, fluid heads get very expensive very quick. The real question is do you need to move the camera? IF you are going to set up a stationary camera, then any tripod with a solid head that locks down will work. The other tip that I could think of would be to always attempt to keep the jumper in the frame. They will quickly fly out of the frame and if you want to film the shot all the way down, you will need to anticipate there movement (which should be in some arc like fashion depending on how high the are jumping). A long zoom is going to exaggerate that effect so you must keep a keen eye on the situation. As for the technical side of things: I believe the longer zoom you have, the more light that is cut from the camera. You can always open the iris, mindful of your DOF. Since you are shooting digital you could increase your gain. However digital gain was created by Satan. In fact, I have it, on good authority, that Satan parades around with his digital gain turned up high he out shines the sun... Anyhow, the Sony has lots of buttons and whatsits on it, so it must have either an iris control or a gain (read: db-control). That's about all I can think of. I don't know what your budget is so I can't recommend any more than that.

http://vimeo.com/1459826 http://vimeo.com/1460317 The first link seems not to be working, these should help... I hope. JRY