Jump to content

Tim Smyth

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Tim Smyth

  • Rank

  • Birthday 02/08/1962

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Derry, NH
  • My Gear
    Super 8, 16mm Kodak Cinespecial II, bolex, Nikon DSLR
  • Specialties
    Filmmaking in general, mostly Super 8. Professional stop motion animator.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

2457 profile views
  1. I would have to see the storyboard, but it may be possible to film it, with the cat walking by, and do a split screen, replacing the cat part of the frame with an empty floor. Something like how they did that type of effect of shadows of the farm workers in the film Vampyr.
  2. I have posted on the sites I mentioned, but have been ignored. Just a warning not to believe everything you read on the internet.
  3. The problem is... when some misinformation appears, for whatever reason folks who put it out there don't want to correct it. This has happened on the Pete website listed. Another problem is with the first site David posted, is that it is just too simple, and left out important steps in the evolution of those trick shots. This is not unusual, mistakes have even appeared on the Cinefex website, and when pointed out, were just left on there for all eternity, and the comments for all of these places are useless, since many post, but few read. Though the Cinefex comments were turned off after my comments. Of course this misinformation happens in books as well, best to do as much research as possible, from multiple sources, and see where they align or don't, to discover the most probable truth on how a certain effect was achieved.
  4. Not my first choice, as I would want to shoot the effects in camera, or on film, and anamorphic kind of changes that game, but I'm all for 65mm.
  5. An allusion to an utterance of Jesus' in John 8:7, viz. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
  6. You guys are crazy, digital is much cheaper... oh wait we are on another topic. Well then, I would shoot in IMAX, do the effects, as much as possible in camera. I myself would not be shooting, I would hire David for that, I would write, direct, supervise the effects, and editing. Editing would most likely be done digitally, as most of the presentation would also be digital. I would have film prints made to show in theaters that could accommodate 70mm.
  7. Hi David, I may have been mistaken about the motion control rig, as that is what we used for commercials at that facility. How much work was done at the frame Shop I don't know, just that I was told that is where Ken Burns did the work. They have been long closed now, and the owner is not with us anymore, so I can't confirm anything at this point. If I ever run into the guy who ran the camera. I will be sure to ask him about it.
  8. Today one can do it the digital editing stage. Hi David, Ken Burns used to use a motion control camera, like they used to film the effects scenes for Star Wars. Sounds crazy, but true. This was done around Boston, I think the name of the company was the Frame Shop.
  9. But doesn't VistaVision have twice the frame size as 35MM? So that would make sense that it was sharper?
  10. Hi Mark, I was driving the other day, and something Simon said about old cameras needing servicing struck a chord. After this film incident that day, I did indeed have my camera serviced, and the guy said he cleaned, and lubed the camera, and that it may have never seen service before. Now it is working perfectly, but... on the day of the shoot with the Foma film, it was incredibly hot out, and the camera stopped working, and I now think the camera had simply just had enough. If I had had Kodak stock in the camera that day, I would have thought "Shucks, my camera broke", but since I had film I had never used before, I had assumed (which is almost always a bad thing) that it must be the film making the camera all sluggish. Hence I thought the film was too wide. I was hand-crankng that day, so I could really feel it. After your comment above, on the width of film, and Simon's comment in another thread, it made me think that maybe it was not the film after all, so I put a piece of Foma film in the camera, and it did indeed work smoothly. So apologies if I insulted anyone on this board, and certainly apologies to Foma film. I still have 4 unused rolls from that old project, so I will try to make a new film with it this Summer.
  11. The problem with this debate is that it did not define what digital is, or what film is for that matter, and became a blanket statement as Phil noted. When I shot my film last Summer, on Hi-Def, which is digital, it was between buying film, or buying costumes for the cast, so I went with costumes. Even if Kodak gave me the film, I still would not have been able to see a frame of the movie yet. Like Tyler, I own all the equipment used in all my films, whether it be 8MM, Super 8, 16MM, or Hi-Def, and no film stock was cheaper to shoot with than the Hi-def mini dv, I shot last year's movie on. What I would have wanted to shoot on may be another story.
  12. I think also that the two articles were not totally fair. They compared top of the line Alexa camera with Super 16. Not exactly a fair comparison, and the Red cam they compared came in cheaper than the Super 16. The filmmaker article also said the total film cost was $16,000.00, when the camera equipment alone cost him just over $7,000.00, and failed to mention film to digital transfer. The other article mentioned that on a digital shoot you need technicians for color correction and all that, while if you shoot film you just need the camera and the cameraman. Whenever I see behind the scenes shots of big movies being made, the director is always watching a TV to see the shots, so they use them for films shoots as well. Again, a little unfair. Unless I missed something in the articles. As far as what the director wants to shoot on, that is a different story altogether.
  13. I don't think that s quite true Tyler, I do believe they make film prints of all the films for long term storage, so that if anything bad should happen, they can always digitize the print later on. If film is to last, then at some point some company/ies will have to start producing new cameras. I think Bolex still may make cameras on demand, or I may have dreamed that.
  14. I guess it depends really on the project. The articles talked about low budget productions, but if one did not even have those budgets, then film may not be an option. If one owns the film equipment, but must rent top of the line digital equipment, then digital may be more expensive. If one owned all the equipment they needed, film and digital, and wanted to make a 10 minute film, I think digital would be cheaper. Of course the real question is, what digital are we talking about? My last 3 films were shot in Hi-def, which is digital, and they were certainly cheaper to make than if I had shot film. If some younger person was just starting out, and had the equipment for any format, than again digital would be cheaper, maybe not better, but cheaper. 1 roll of B/W 8mm equaling 4 minutes and 10 seconds at 16 fps costs $73.99 1 roll of B/W Super 8 equaling 3 minutes and 20 seconds at 18fps costs $81.99 1 roll of B/W 16mm equaling 4 minutes and 10 seconds at 16fps costs $96.00 1 hour of digital say costs $10.00 I am talking micro-budget here, not extremely low budget like the film in the article. Again, if he did not raise that money, he would not have been able to shoot on film either. So a lot of equations must be factored into the final answer, and all films are different. In a high budget film, it is probably directors choice or workflow choice that will determine the format.
  • Create New...