Matt Serrins

In great condition. Please pm for pics or to make an offer. Thanks. Matt

Here's the Ebay auction link. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...E:L:LCA:US:1123 Feel free to ask questions. Thanks. Matt

Check out my Ebay auction http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...E:IT&ih=019 Thanks for looking. Matt

Thanks for the info.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a lab in Los Angeles? 16mm kodak, 8,000 ft, processing and telecine. I really like Postworks/The Lab at Moving Images or whatever they're called (they have been really helpful with my small projects), but I'll be in LA and would like to sit in on the telecine. Fotokem? Modern Film and Video? Any other opinions for my smallish film. Thanks. Matt

For starters, just go by directors. Michael Powell, Ken Loach, Terry Gilliam, David Lean. I don't really wanna get into what defines a british filmmaker. Hitchcock and Ridley Scott are british by nationality, but work/ed in hollywood. Kubrick is the reverse, an american who lived and mostly worked in Britain. Is Clockwork Orange a british film? Barry Lyndon, which is great? Anyway, I would add Terence Davies, Ken Russell, Stephen Frears, Peter Greenaway, and Neil Jordan. Off the top of my head, I would say Brazil qualifies, though maybe you can call that monty python. My Beautiful Laundrette. Performance or Don't Look Now by Roeg. The Long Good Friday by ?(I forget). The Third Man. There are tons more.

I think a lot of the criticism of this film comes down to Scorsese and his legacy. I liked The Departed, but for me (and maybe for a lot of people), it's hard to really love and get excited about this movie when thinking about Scorsese's body of work. I also saw Infernal Affairs before The Departed, so in some ways that will always be the original and basis for comparison. Thought the cinematography was fine but maybe a little uninspired. Not sure there's any classic Scorsese like the tracking nightclub shot in Goodfellas (or the car trunk/red scene with Pesci burying the body), the boxing scenes in Raging Bull (or the final shot in the mirror), the slo-mo bar scene with rock music in Mean Streets, or the ultra stylized ending of Taxi Driver. And that's fine. Not sure there's anything 'bravura' about The King of Comedy, but I love that movie. For me, the bigger problem was that the movie just didn't have that much to say, especially for a Scorsese movie. This territory has been covered by Michael Mann ad nauseaum, and I'm not sure Scorsese added anything new re: life undercover, evil, parralellism between cops and crooks. One of the things I liked about Goodfellas is that you realize they're petty, small time, banal people, and also that they're addicted to the lifestyle. They feel guilty but want more. For me it dealt with the romaticism of the gangster life but ultimately exposed it. Not sure The Departed left me thinking about anything new. I also really didn't like the ending, especially the last shot with the rat (too glib for me, though I guess it makes sense with the movie's POV). If I remember correctly, Infernal Affairs ended with the Matt Damon character living, having to deal with his empty life as a police officer. To me that's a more realistic ending. With Damon dead in The Departed, it's tidier: justice is somehow served, and good triumphs, though at a cost. I guess I just find the Matt Damon character more interesting. To me Dicaprio character is obvious and telegraphed: missing father, can't choose between good and evil, dies in service of good. Damon's character, if he lives, is harder to deal with. Can he become good? Is he ultimatley corrupt etc? As for the other technical aspects, I really liked the editing, especially the playfullness/quick cutting in the beginning. I also really liked the NAS song. I wish Scorsese would use some newer music. Anyway, the departed was definitely enjoyable, but for a lot of scorsese-philes, myself included, that's not really enough.

Hi, I'm wondering about the procedure for getting the rights to short stories. Is it as simple as contacting the author? The publisher? Does anybody have any experience with this? Obviously it's not feasible for me to spend big bucks. I guess I'm also wondering how realistic this is. Is this possible if you're not enrolled at a big name film school? And does every short film based on a short story on the festival circuit clear rights? Who polices the system? It seems like every year someone is making a Carver story into a short (which then plays at festivals), and I wonder whether they have the rights. I know that personal or educational use films aren't subject to the same copyright issues, but what about for the festival circuit? Thanks for any info. Matt

I'd be wary of this Aaton. While I don't think the auction is an absolute scam, the seller has a tendency to not answer questions directly, specifically about when the camera was last serviced. Also, his feedback is private, and he only takes bank transfers...even when I suggested I would cover the fees for paypal I heard nothing from him. He may just have different motivations than most in terms of selling his camera, but I would procede with caution.

In terms of the bible contradicting itself, there are two, almost contradictory creation stories in the first two chapters of genesis. I understand that one could be viewed as general and the other specific i.e. chapter two an extended account of day six, but i think that's a stretch, given the order of creation in each. In Chapter 1 of Genesis G-d creates man and woman at the same time (not to mention the fact that he creates beasts before humankind): 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. In Chapter 2, G-d creates woman from man (and humankind before beasts): GEN 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. GEN 2:21-23 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Also, the issue of whether or not man can see G-d seems to be contradictory. In some verses he can see G-d and some he can't, although maybe this distinction can be fudged if you believe in the trinity. Google it if you're curious.

In terms of Russian cinema, you may be thinking of Russian Ark by Sokurov. One take in the Hermitage museum. For current Japanese cinema that's not as genre bound, check out Hirokazu Kore-eda (Maborosi, Afterlife, Nobody Knows), Kikujiro by beat takeshi, and Tony Takitani. I'm sure there's tons of other current stuff too that I don't know about. For past stuff, check out Imamura. Matt Serrins

Someone mentioned to me that the Kodak office in New York sells 16mm film on 200ft cores wound down from the 400ft loads, and that these are different from the A-Minima loads (b wind not a wind). Is this the case? Maybe John Pytlak or someone can confirm or deny this (I'm not in NYC so I can't go check, and I called the office but they only knew of the A-minima), but he was pretty adamant about this being possible. I'm considering the ACL, and obviously this would be easier than winding down myself or paying a lab. Thanks. Matt Serrins

Thanks for the info and for the link guys. I appreciate it. Matt

Hi, I'm a short filmmaker who's been asked to do some corporate video for a small company, and I'd like to know what kind of rate I should ask for, as I've never done this. I'm basically freelance, and I will be required to film for about half a day (4 hours). I'm not involved with the creative, but I will be required to light and compose, and I will also have to edit. I also need to borrow/rent a camera and whatever minimal lighting kit will be necessary. I'm in a smallish city in the South if that affects anything. What's a fair rate for this job? Do I charge for the time spent tracking down the materials? For the time spent brainstorming? How much do I charge for editing? Thanks for any advice. Matt Serrins

Thanks for the reply Mike. I talked to Forde Labs in Seattle and they will wind down 400ft loads onto 200ft cores for $5 per 400ft. It seems reasonable to assume that a number of labs will do this. I also talked to someone who says Kodak New York sells 200ft cores that are B wind (at least in person). He's reliable, but I'd like to double check it myself.

In terms of film, what do most people do for the 200ft mags on the ACL? I don't have the access, equipment, or wherewithal to spool down from 400ft cores. Are there labs that will do this? What about kodak? What's the verdict on the A-minima loads? From this forum, it seems like they may work (some claim they do, some don't), but maybe there are problems in low light focusing? Anyone have experience to relate? Are 100ft daylight spools noisy in the mags? Thanks for any advice or suggestions. Matt Serrins

If you're looking for high quality, I would transfer at Forde Labs in Seattle, which handles a lot of super 8 neg for telecine, and then use Technicolor in the city for the HD scan. Check out this link. This film probably has a similar post path to what you're considering. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/s8mm/light.jhtml Matt

The real comparison is between prime lenses on a lens interchangeable super 8 cameras and the best super 8 zooms, not a comparison between primes and the fixed zooms on basic cameras, since they obviously aren't good and can't be changed anyway. I don't think the prime lens claim has been proven theoretically or empirically. Just because prime lenses from the 70s resolve 50% more than zooms from that era, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will show 50% more resolving power in super 8, or that there will be a gain at all. Theoretically, if a zoom such as the schneider 6-66 resolves to max level of the film being used, what's the point of putting a higher resolving prime lens. I know that this may not be the case with vision2, but I think that this is the deductive flaw that people were pointing out. And just because a modern lens is 10x sharper than the best super 8 zooms, will putting this lens on a camera necessarily will produce a 10x sharper image? What's the limit of the film? Are there other limiting factors? Does the frame size matter (maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the smaller information area of super 8 would make the differences between the really good and extremely good lenses less noticeable, since super 8 tops out around HD lets say)? It's not that the claim is necessarily incorrect or not intuitive, but without identifying the upper level resolving power of the film being used, and the resolving power of the lenses in question, it's hard to know whether the prime lenses are useful or overkill vs the best zooms. Maybe they can pull more sharpness out of super 8, but with such a small frame, does it justify the investment? In addition, I don't think there have been any empirical tests that prove this, including the pictures that have been posted. My guess is that primes show some advantage with vision2 over even the best zooms, but I'm not sure how much and whether its worth it. If we knew the resolving power or had some shots of charts or what steve's proposing maybe this would be settled. Also, what's up with the fetishization of sharpness in super 8, of all things. Of course I want my films to be a sharp as they can be, and for that reason I use a beaulieu with a 6-80 and neg, but just because built in zooms on most cameras aren't necessarily the sharpest, that doesn't mean they can't make successful films. Look at the dude who got into Cannes. Sharpness can be measured objectively, but image quality/beauty are subjective and may vary project to project. I'm not sure sharpness will really make anyone's film better, especially in super 8, which is never gonna look as sharp (or maybe I should say resolution)... as 16 to begin with. I really like super 8, and I agree appreciate your efforts to bring it to the limit, but I'd like to have some charts and figures to know the cost benefit before I declare you the winner ;) . I think you'll probably be proven right to some degree, but I wonder if it's kinda like putting lipstick on a pig, to borrow an expression from the south.

How did Doyle light this, specifically the interiors? Watching the DVD, it looks like practicals and natural light in addition to the overhead top lighting that's been mentioned previously. It seems like a look that could be recreated without extensive equipment and would give freedom for camera moves. I'm aware that it may be a lot more complex and that pushing fuji (i heard 320, was that even a stock) 2 stops had something to do with it . Anyway, here are some specific questions. Was top light bounced, or did he use soft sources? Any ideas on what he used specifically(china balls...)? Any guess on what kind of wattage/bulb he used in the in frame practicals, and were they corrected? Was he using sunlight (and correcting) or blasting lights through the windows? Also, in terms of the camera moves, was it dolly or steadicam (doesn't really look handheld but maybe)? Someone also mentioned a bunch of filters on the camera for this one? Any guesses? Any ideas on this film and 'lighting the space' techniques in general would be greatly appreciatted. Thanks for the help. Matt Serrins

Technically, the film is very good, and you obviously have a great facility with composition and camera movement. Good job. However, as other people have noted, I found the film lacking in the storytelling department. The film strikes me more as a trailer or as advertising than as a narrative. I understand that there is a story behind the film (synchronicity/coincidence/grace of god with the four characters), but I don't indentify with any of the characters. I don't see any of their stories or development, just the outcome/downfall. And after the first 3.5 minutes, it's don't really care to see the rest, and since I don't really know the characters and already know the outcome. Depressing films are fine, but without purpose (identification with the character or situation), they come off as excessive or manipulative, which is what some people are responding to. Seeing characters act desperately or unwittingly is fine, but there has to be some background as to why they're driven to act that way (i'm thinking of the drug addict here). Normally, I woulnd't reply to a film posted on this board for fear of being too harsh, but obviously, you're talented and have a facility with film and composition. However, keep in mind that narrative film is about character and story, not spectacle and shock. I only say this because you are obviously talented and I believe that constructive criticism will do you well. Good luck, and keep making films.

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see the clip. I wasn't trying to make an absolute statement, but from what I've seen and heard, the high contrast ratios in reversal make it harder to transfer, as video does not deal well with highlights and tends to miss detail in the shadows and blow out itself. To my knowledge, it's not that kodachrome cannot look good in telecine, but rather that it presents problems, whereas neg's lower contrast and shadow detail make it easier to manipulate and bring out subtle aspects in the edit suite. I'm sure both can look good telecined, but I thought it was pretty commonly accepted that neg telecines better than reversal.

I agree with Leon. It's too bad Kodak discouraged you from shooting film, but at the same time, why not shoot a scene from your feature in both super 8 and 24p and see which one you like better. DPs do this all the time to make stock choices and figure out post production routes, and it wouldn't take that many carts to get an accurate comparison. Working in a tinkerers' format like super 8 means that sometimes you have to go against 'better' judgment and see for yourself what actually works for your project (though I understand that there are pretty big hurtles to shooting a super 8 feature vs 24p). And in terms of Kodak hating super 8, I think that's not really the case. While at times in the past they've responded with neglect, Kodak recently has come out with more stocks that push the potential of super 8. There's too much fixation on kodachrome. While I like the look, what's the problem with kodachrome processing? It's not very likely for things to be fast, cheap, and high quality, and it seems that kodachrome has the latter two. Also, kodachrome isn't very well suited for telecine, which makes it not well suited to HD/2k finish for shorts and or features. Not to completely absolve kodak, but they do operate in a marketplace and can't be all things to all people (which makes it all the more frustrating that a boutique, niche company like Pro8mm isn't better at filling in the gaps). Kodachrome satisfies my need to shoot film cheaply, and if I'm shooting something for someone else or for a festival submission, I go neg. For me, the biggest problem with super 8 is the lack of v2100t and the cost of telecine. It's too bad they don't have something neg as a loss leader, but maybe that's what kodachrome is for.

I don't have any criticisms of the cinematography, and overall, I liked the movie, but the boxing scenes with the 'blue bear' were completely implausible and really took me out of the narrative. Given all her punches during tie ups, low blows, and shots after the bell, the blue bear would have been disqualified in any 'real' boxing match way before the 'punch'. While there's gamesmanship in boxing, cheating never goes that far, and I don't even see how it was necessary in terms of the narrative. Boxers have occasionally, though rarely, been beaten into comas/paralysis/death, but I've never heard of nor seen a cheap shot resulting in a fall into a stool. Maggie is just as heroic, and the outcome no less unfair if she loses a 12 round battle b/c of crooked judges or even wins and then slips into a coma/paralysis after a brutal fight. To me, the stool part was just schmaltz and took away from what was otherwise a pretty solid movie. Another consideration. What if Morgan Freeman played the Frankie Dunn character and Eastwood the washed up fighter? Would the movie not have done the same box office with a black lead? Obviously, this wasn't any sort of conspiracy, and it was clint eastwood's movie to cast (no surprise he took the lead role), but sometimes I wonder why black and white roles aren't switched, and how much of a difference it would make either way, especially when the characters are without a lot of racial specificity like in Million Dollar Baby. I'm sure it's happened, and I don't know if it really affected this film, but it's something I thought about. Interested to hear what other people think. Matt

Hey David, I have a switar 5.5mm from an H8rx, and i'm trying to put it on my beaulieu 6008. Have you been successful in doing this? I heard that the mounts on the switar h8 lenses aren't compatible with other c mount cameras. Is this true? Also, what is the modification that JK camera does (increased coverage)?. Thanks. Matt

I'm looking into 16:9 adapters for both my video camera (dvx 100) and also maybe my bolex with switar primes (since most of my film ends up telecined anyway), but I don't really understand the difference between some of the adapters on B&H, for example. There is a $1300 century optics which is fully focusable, a $700 that is not, and a $300 that is not (and also has a small rear element, which may be limiting for video lens i.e. vignetting.) How does the focusability affect the use of these lens, on both a video camera and on the switar primes ( i know i'll need some sort of stepping contraption for the bolex). Is there an advantage to having a 16:9 lens that focuses? Does using a prime lens change the equation? Thanks for any advice. Matt