Daniel Sheehy

Sure, if it's the only film they ever watch on the issue. I enjoyed the movie.

The guys on that site also noted that they particularly notice flicker in sequences with large expanses of blue sky... Phil: If the issue is the lens iris servo, it would make sense then that some lenses perform better than others.

Firefly rocked! Bring back Firefly!

I just spoke to another friend who watched it on the big screen. He enjoyed the plot, but again, he was put off by the camera work. It 'irritated' him. (His description.)

The crane comment was tongue-in-cheek. No, as I said in my first post, I have not watched the movie yet, I intend to wait for the DVD release. I watched the trailer on the big screen and based on that, (which was supposed to 'sell' the movie to me) I decided that I would not watch it on the big screen, because of the camera work. I have friends who have watched it and they came out with differing opinions. One who works in production with me enjoyed it because she could appreciate the technical challenges. However, she had to look away from the screen occasionally, because of the overpoweringly shaky camera. The other friend, who is not as technically savvy, simply disliked the movie, again because of the camera work Well I guess that brings us right round the block to the old argument over whether art is merely for the enjoyment of the creator, or for an audience. I think it's beyond argument that a Hollywood film is for the audience. Thus it would seem pretty self-defeating to insist on authenticity in a feature film to the extent where it deters viewers. But that is just my 2c. This discussion has been had before...

It's probably a result of minor variations when the lens stops down to the shooting aperture which result in variations in brightness and flicker in the finished sequence. Try using a couple of different lenses. Another option is to use a manual lens. The other option is your lighting source might have been flickering..? These guys seem to have made an exhaustive investigation of the issue. http://www.gbtimelapse.com/TipTimeLapseFlicker.aspx

I can't comment on the other lenses, but I have to say I haven't noticed that as an issue with Canon DSLR's and their lenses. I'd think you might want to look at the other elements in the chain before you attribute it to the lens. Are you sure it wasn't her RAW processing?

We're asked to suspend disbelief for the sake of the plot, yet we can't live without exaggerated hand held shaky cam? If the audience can accept a 300 foot tall monster, I think they can accept a level horizon. If the producer wants to know where the crane comes from, tell him it comes from the same place the music does. :)

Unless the story specifically calls for it, the default should be a solid, steady camera. Our heads move around a fair bit, but the image our brain interprets for us is pretty smooth and steady... even when walking or running.

Having seen the trailers, I'm not sure I want to watch that movie. This seems to me it might be one of those instance where the pursuit of 'authenticity' in the look gets in the way of the story. Just my 2c.

I was not referring to film to video. I was referring to film projects shot 25fps, intended for theatrical distribution. Does it remain 25fps, or does it get converted to a more standard 24fps?

Interesting... Are they shot and distributed 25fps, or just shot @ 25fps and then mastered at 24fps?

In 3-D? :P

I can only assume the original poster is refering to video, as the film standard is 24fps anywhere. Assuming he's talking about video, as a PAL country, 25fps is standard for any work to go to DVD, or broadcast. You're correct, we always shoot 25fps unless we're shooting specifically for film out, or for an NTSC market. We've had clients from the US ask us to source NTSC cameras to shoot their footage on, rather than go through a standards conversion. :rolleyes: Refers to sequential line read/writes, as opposed to the odd field/even field pattern that is standard for interlaced video. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html

This forum requires the use of a full first and last name. Stephan Williams, a member of this forum might be able to give you some pointers.

How sad. I feel that war sometimes needs to shown in all its gory detail, simply to knock off the shine that politicians like to put on it with their 'death or glory speeches'. But on the other hand, filling our entertainment with violence, real or stylized has the effect of desensitising viewers to the real horror.

For the benefit of those here who are not following the same discussion over on DVXUser. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1...mp;postcount=27 Apparently the 'native' resolution for the camera is 1080. Note, not the actual chip size, rather the resolution at which the dsp works. Yes/No anyone?

To me, its the difference between entertainment and news. I think it is sometimes necessary for the news to show some of the gory details, simply because there is sometimes no other way to really convey the true horror of what's happening. I do take issue with it being made an item of entertainment, staged at will to satisfy personal taste, because it can have the effect of desensitising the public to such horrible events when they occur for real. I suppose the question should be; 'What am I hoping to accomplish by showing this?'

I'd suggest looking at the Pentax K10D over the 100D. The built in shake reduction is a brilliant idea!

The bad rap VHS has been given isn't completely fair. There has been a HD version developed.

How compressed is that, and how long can it sustain that rate?

A lot depends on how you're going to shoot the interview. If you're just going to keep it wide, showing the group at all times, then you just treat the group as 1 subject and light as normal. If you are going to shoot both group shots and individual closeups, then you have more on your plate. It's not as difficult as you are worried it'll be. This site has some diagrams that you might find useful: http://www.cybercollege.com/tvp034.htm You won't need to use individual key and back lights, place you key lights such that each light acts as the key for a couple of people. Similarly with the other lights.

No. Come on, what isn't there to love about cricket? Its one of those sports that can cause diplomatic outrage, and cause country relationships to go from friendly to icy. The New Zealanders have yet to forgive the Australians for that infamous delivery in 1981. To be honest, I've never understood how you can call it a 'World Series' when no one else in the world takes part. ;)

I don't think so. Cricket traces it roots back to the 13th century. Both baseball and rounders trace themselves back to the 18th centuries. Cricket was cricket before America was even American ;)

Please, be more specific, for the benefit of the rest of us. While I think Phil is being a little scarcastic, by and large I agree with his perspective, and would like to hear yours. :)