Daniel Sheehy
-
Posts
404 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Daniel Sheehy
-
-
Lost the opportunity to edit previous post..
You know you've got doubtful credentials when the major accrediting organisation, in this case the National Private Schools Accreditation Alliance (NPSAA), is offering to sell you their database!
"..Our database will return the exact information for your mailing, telemarketing campaign, facsimile campaign or demographic research project). Why pay a base "low-ball" base price from the competition, then a have them charge you a fortune for add-on's. We at NPSAA Private School Database Managers offer our complete data file that at includes all available fields for one low price, period. That's right, No add-on's! NPSAA data is just 15 cents for all available fields for each unique record, not 50 to 60 cents each record for pricey add-on's from the competition!.."
-
The truth is in this industry it's who you know as much as what you know. By mentoring with a recognized professional not only are you gaining valuable information and know how, this mentor can also introduce you to other professionals within the industry. Or he can get you working within a studio that will later take you on themselves. No running around trying to gt your foot in the door. Just go into this with an open mind, thats all A ask and don't merely dismiss it as a con. film connection did not scam, con or hoodwink me.
Yawn...
-
My first reaction is that clip 2 looks better.
Based on how the light filters through the clouds and the fact that the lightning is reflected in the water in clip 2, but not in clip 1.. I'd say clip 2 was the 'real' clip.
-
I'm very sorry to hear that.
Paul was himself very well regarded by the community here.
He will be missed.
Our thoughts and prayers are with you.
-
Happy Birthday!
-
A proper safety harness has a quick release.
-
...and hope an audience will connect with the material as they did.
And to that end, they make a point of trying to keep the audience engaged. You will agree that audience perception of the events and characters in a film is an important consideration..? 'We want people to sympathise with so-and-so. We want the audience to sense the fear..'
It is my personal opinion that the audience, knowing that film maker wants to keep them engaged in the story, has every reason to put their hand up and say 'I can't engage with your story when you shake the camera so much I can't see a damn thing.'
-
I just don’t understand why anyone would get so angry about the way another director or DP chose to execute their own movie.
This is where we get into the impossible debate about to what degree art is made for the artist vs. the degree to which it is made for the audience. :) And film making is most definitely an art which is intended for an audience, so in a way, it ceases to be their own movie. Once they release a work into the public sphere, they are opening it up to interpretation, criticism or acclaim from anyone and everyone.
-
Even today most news camera people don't do shaky cam unless people are bumping into them, I suspect it's a point of pride as to how steady you can hand hold the camera with a long lens.
It is.
I took great pride in being known as a steady pair of hands.
The news cameraman who breaks into a run with a rolling camera is not trying to make the experience more authentic, he/she is trading off image quality to guarantee 'getting something' as opposed to not having an important shot. The really great guys (IMHO) are the ones who can guess what will happen next and are ready, eliminating (as much as possible) the need for compromised footage.
So you can understand why I disagree with the idea that the shaky cam is somehow better at making you feel like you were there. If it's shaky enough to make me stop and think 'Hey, that'd be pretty poor hand-held technique if this was a news clip', then I think technique has compromised content. I don't believe technique should ever be allowed to compromise content in narrative work. It happens, but when directors have the budget, skills etc to avoid it, I think they should!
-
It is about conveying an emotion as is most cinematography, and a lot of the time shaky cam is used effectively to create a feeling of insecurity, unrest or urgency...
It can be a useful tool. But when it becomes disruptive to the viewing experience, it has obviously been abused.
I personally feel that the current trend of trying to replicate the visual experience of actually being there, is counter-productive to the story telling.
-
I once got given the third degree for trying to carry on some hard disks...
I curious, what did that person perceive the problem to be?
-
Very sorry to hear. My thoughts go to his family and friends dealing with with his untimely passing.
-
One of the challenges with faking rain, is to get depth to it.
You could try using a hose to add some rain further back in the shot as well.
Edit: David beat me to it. :)
-
...The last and most important issue for me is FOCUS. The problem with focus and 3D movies is this: when I look at objects in real life, nothing is "in focus". It's all in focus (don't get all quantum physics on me with this) or better, its its all ABLE to be focused perfectly on. My eyes select a subject and automatically focus on that particular subject I'm looking at, and depending on the distances, objects nearer or further away from my eyes in the 3D plane will go out of focus...
I enjoyed the movie, but found the 3D a bit distracting.
Giving depth to the image generally didn't make it more life like.
Generally, my eyes wanted to flit over the scene for a brief second, establishing and supporting the depth that I'm being told is there in the picture. But I couldn't. This constantly reminded me that I was viewing an illusion.
However, the effect was awesome in some of the wide, scenery shots though, especially the scenes involving the trip up to the nesting grounds. (Maybe the limited conflicting depth cues in such a wide scene helped..?)
-
...small portable gas generators (Hondas & such)......a Honda EX5500 (a conventional generator)......our modified Honda EU6500is Inverter Generator......our modified Honda EU6500is......our modified Honda EU6500is Inverter Generator......modified Honda EU6500is inverter generator...
I know you make some reference to 'our website' but it might be appropriate to mention what company you are affiliated with at the top of your post.
Just for the sake of clarity. :)
-
...However, I find it interesting that for 50% of the USA professing Christianity that there is so much content being delivered to market that could potentially alienate 50% of your target potential. This doesn't sound economically savvy to me...
Studios make movies that will sell. If there is a mismatch between what the audience says it believes, and what the numbers show they are actually buying into... they obviously are buying into content that contradicts what they say they believe.
-
...I'm being a bit sarcastic to make a point - seriously, quantifying carbon as a pollutant is total and utter nonsense...
That's a bit broad Matt.
A pollutant is any substance that causes harm, disorder or damage in an ecosystem, whether by its chemical composition, or through excessive concentrations. (eg, hot water from power stations is lethal to aquatic life and is considered a pollutant. Oxygen in excessive concentrations is lethal, as are excessive concentrations of CO2.)
So it is absolutely possible for any substance, natural or man made, to become a pollutant.
I don't think anyone is debating the measured increase in atmospheric CO2, and I don't think anyone is denying the link between human industrial activity and the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
There has always been much debate among scientists about linking the CO2 record, with the temperature records. The long time scale trends match quite well, but there are anomalies in the short time scale trends. It over the interpretation of these anomalies that the recent furore has has erupted.
Regardless of that, we just cannot continue to release gases (even the 'staff of life' - CO2) into the air at levels well above their natural concentrations.
-
I still don't get it - why 'cant' you manage or direct them ? Why is the tense of your discussion as if its all been sorted out already ? Have you tried ?
Odd things fascinate odd people - some of them are genius ...
You've got me searching for a subtext :huh:
:)
There is no subtext Chris. As far as I know, it's not a topic of current research, so I was using past tense. But if you can point me to current research I'll be happy to admit I got it wrong.
-
Why not ?
Once you understand something well enough you can control it. What definition of 'controlled flight' are you drawing your conclusions from ?
If you called being fired from a canon, controlled flight, then I will concede, riding an explosive shock wave meets that definition of 'controlled'.
If you take control to mean 'having the ability to manage or direct' then no, it's not controlled.
-
LoL
Riding an explosive shock wave on a pusher plate does not constitute controlled flight.
-
Uncontrolled as in once the bang starts, it can't be stopped. :)
And the reactor line should have read: "A disposable nuclear reactor is just that, a nuclear reactor designed to harness a contained nuclear reaction in a controlled manner, not intended for multiple or re-use."
-
...However a disposable nuclear reactor is in fact an atomic bomb...
Ahh no.
A disposable nuclear reactor is just that, a nuclear reactor designed to harness a contained nuclear reaction in a controlled manner, for a single time event.
A nuclear bomb is a nuclear device designed to trigger a single uncontained, uncontrolled nuclear reaction.
...Dr Strangelove anyone? :D
-
...This is because with nuclear propulsion which is a million times more powerfull than chemical propulsion...
The 'million times more powerful' refers to energy density of the fuels, not the resultant propellant efficiency. That is much lower.
The reason why humans never went to Saturn in 1970 was not because of technological limitations nor was it economic considerations because it could have been done affordably. Nor was it a lack of belief because the United States Air Force which sponsored the proposed manned Saturn mission became a firm believer in atomic energy after witnessing atomic explosions.The reason why humans never went to Saturn was political in nature. To go to Saturn would have violated our nuclear test ban treaties....
And the fact that the technology wasn't ready for flight testing by the time the program was cancelled in 1972 had nothing to do with it? ;)
For anyone who is actually interested, here's NASA's final report into the Rover Nuclear Rocket Engine Program. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1992005899.pdf
-
Words fail me:
Obviously the coppers didn't do their homework:
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
It's frustrating, because even if the Police are mistaken, you are rather foolish to argue with them.
"Career Connection"
in Business Practices & Producing
Posted
Yes, I had a good look through the website. That's how come I know who the accrediting body is.
If it's working out for you, congratulations, you're one of a select few for whom it actually has.
Please read the Forum Guidelines, full names required of members here.