Tim Smyth

The process of acting has nothing to do with going on location. Someone who acts in a play is not acting because it takes place in a playhouse. The process of bringing to life a character is the same. I am not saying all animators are great actors, but they are actors.

And what have you done Macks?

So you are saying that actors are not artists? The characters do not animate themselves, they do not breathe life into themselves, much like an actors performance. The animators also talk to the directors minutes before the take, the take just takes much longer to film. It is no difference in the process. No animators do not claim to be actors, yet that is what they do, they are the stars up there on the screen, they just hide behind imitation bodies, much like actors hide behind costumes, or makeup. Is Mickey Mouse a star? Did he get that way because he had no personality, or that folks did not relate to him? Is Felix a star? King Kong? Aren't those the characters we pay to see? They did not become stars without their animators, who acted, behind them.

Let me know when you or your friends learn about animation.

Then they are not animators, or at least good ones.

I love you idea David. My experience is anything you can shoot on the set is better than dealing with it later. You will also have to transfer without any gate weave, or duplicate it in the matte. Shooting the effect live on set you won't have to worry about that.

Then you don't understand the art of animation. They are indeed actors.

There was also "On the Basis of Sex" Directed by Mimi Leder, so I agree, plenty of female director candidates to go around, maybe not as many as it should be, but more than recent years.

Wow! Just saw the film tonight. on Netflicks. I am excited, I feel now that since the Cinematography bar has been set so low, maybe, just maybe, I will take home the trophy next year. I also know how to pan the camera left, and right, even in the same shot. I should start writing my acceptance speech now. I really think you guys must be crazy, or I just don't get cinematography. Admittedly, I don't get a lot of cinematography, but I do know what I like, and Once Upon a Time in the West, or Citizen Kane, this film is not. I am glad for the folks who liked the film overall, I wish I could share your enthusiasm.

No, you are thinking of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Night of the Living dead was shot on 35mm, and edited on 16mm.

And for future reference, since this commercial is most likely long finished. If one wants it to look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, maybe one should just use a duck. The reason stop motion looks like it does, is not the lack of motion bur, but that frames, or moves are imperfect. When one shoots live action, the moves are perfects, because that is the way we move. The world of stop motion is a little different because we are moving objects one frame at a time. If one were to shoot a shot live, then cut out random frames, one may achieve a stop motion-ee look. They did that for a Energizer Bunny commercial with King Kong. Though for all the work they did, it may have been easier, faster, and cheaper just to use stop motion. So my personal view on how to achieve a stop motion look with a motion picture camera, is to shoot it in stop motion, or digital camera for that matter.

Hi Mark, Yes, I have run Kodak stock in it for years, in fact just a month or so before using Fomapan. The Cine Special II has a film track leading to, and from, the camera gate, and the Foma is ever so slightly wider than the Kodak stocks. After this happened I found other folks having this issue, but from years ago. I will try it in my Bolex, as I don't think it has an actual film track inside the camera, as I recall anyway.

But those cartoons characters themselves are actors, or at least were animated by actors.

My camera is single perf. The Fomapan film is too wide to fit down the film track in the camera smoothly.

That is really fun stuff. Thanks for sharing.

I feel this way about camera moves in films, now that so many movies never stop moving the camera, the moves have lost all impact, and meaning.

The 16mm Fomapan R100 film does not fit my 16mm Kodak Cine Special II camera. I would have liked to try it. Maybe I will try my Bolex.

Hi Frank, I could not find the 7366/2366 film on the Kodak price list.

Well that is not exactly true, films existed for a few years before editing became a thing. They may not have had plots, and were all one shot, were shot on film, but they didn't involve editing.

See, very simple. Hi Frank, what film stock do you recommend if one were to try this in 16mm?

Like others have said, t depends on what era silent films you want to emulate. To emulate a silent film, and fool someone into thinking the film is from that era is actually kind of difficult. Also many of the silent films were hand cranked, and tends to give the motion of them a different look, as well as they used all kinds of films speeds. Looking at your film, the first thing that struck me was the costuming, certainly not period. I have made 2 silent films, and really never got the look right. It sounds so easy, and heck those original filmmakers didn't know as much as we know now, but they did know how to make films, with their equipment, and if not sounding to insulting, their equipment's limitations. The filmmakers minds had no limitations however.

You really don't want longer exposures when the models are actual humans. One would be better off using a DSLR, and a computer program to capture the frames, than shooting blind. Shooting it in live action and editing it will be a pain, and may not end up really looking like animation at all.

Of course every project is different, some are far more complicated than others. For a narrative film, with several characters, I would not suggest directing and shooting. On my latest film, I was the DP, and director, not to mention the head crew, set creator/erector, prop maker, costume person, writer, and story board creator. While the film came out fine, there were many instances where I had planned certain actions from the actors that were simply forgotten about. In a perfect world, if I could do it over, I would have a DP, a dedicated crew, and if not asking too much, shoot on film.

I haven't seen either film for a while, but I believe they used a lot of latent image work, or back-winding to achieve their composites on those two films. Which means many of the shots we see are from the original negative, and not duped.

No, the only qualification to be called a filmmaker is to make films. Should one go off half cocked, and ignorant, of the medium they want to use, probably not a good idea, but may work for some.