GregIrwin

Anyone who felt politically aware by watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and was critical to our president's methods and behavior should by all means watch the rebuttal documentary, "FAHRENHYPE 9/11". I believe that it is most important to read and watch both sides of an issue before I can judge what my opinion will be. Having said this, I was personally amazed at how easy it was to discredit Moore's attempt at non-fiction just to see how much true fiction his "documentary" was. It didn't take much effort to illustrate how he manipulated the filmmaking medium to gain unfounded resentment towards the US government. "Fahrenhype 9/11" proved how he edited newspaper articles to change their messages and cleverly edited video clips as to not show their original content. It also shows numerous people he featured in interviews who came forward to state that they had no idea or intention to be a part of his plan to attack the government and how their interviews were re-cut to relay an entirely different message. It should be noted that I am posting this as a filmmaker - not as a politician. I am still astounded by Michael Moore's inane but clever attempt to persuade us to believe his point of view. He does, of course, have the right to state his views but he does not have the right to pass illegitimate information as the truth.

Trust me... buy real-estate instead of movie equipment that will be obsolete soon after the purchase. You will make more money off of a piece of property than you would ever make on cameras.

I've been blessed in the movie biz. I pretty much go from feature to feature film. The funny part is that I only get 3 or 4 calls for work per year. When I'm on a movie for 5 to 7 months, I won't hear a thing. As the picture is nearing an end, the phone starts ringing again. No complaints on my part!!!

Tiffen is a staple of our biz but I believe that Schnieder makes the best filter available on the market today. I'm currently phasing out all of my Tiffens for Schnieder filtration. As for Hoya, it is a decent consumer filter that is mass produced without the standards that the other two manufacturers use.

Hi all... I shot all of the tests for this movie with Terry Malick and Chivo. Only a limited portion of the picture will be shot with 65mm while the rest is primarily anamorphic. 65mm is too expensive to film an entire picture in. Along with limited exhibition outlets that can project 65mm, there isn't much logic in making 65mm movies.

I own a small rental company and can supply 2 or 3 movies at a time with support gear. By that I mean the easy stuff like remote focus systems, filters, batteries, camera support, etc. I never wanted to get beyond that type of equipment due to liability issues. If I owned a camera or lenses, for that matter, and they developed problems, I would suddenly be liable for the production down time. I do not have the resources to just send out another camera like a larger rental house could do to resolve the issue. Thus, I avoid that equipment. I remember working in Canada on a movie for Paramount Pics. when the DP's 435 went down. It got a bit messy for him - after all he is the Cameraman and the rental agent. I let that be a lesson to me on what not to own.

Not to mention various ground glasses and super 35 front plates and anamorphic capabilities...

The big problem I see is that the camera carts would have to make turns to come in and out. I would want a straight shot to and from the gate for this.

I don't think that's true. Here in Los Angeles, there are numerous women in the camera department and that increases every year. I personally had a female 2nd AC for 17 years - until she became a full-time mom.

Sometimes it can be more stressful to have too many offers than not enough. You cannot avoid turning someone down for someone else and not have consequences from that. I turned down "Triple X 2" to stay at home this year. Instead, I'll be working on a movie called "Bewitched" directed by Nora Ephron and starring Nicole Kiddman and Will Ferrell. The best part is it is all in Los Angeles. John Lindley, ASC will photograph it.

I watched this film yesterday and I am shocked. I am shocked at Michael Moore's irresponsibility as a filmmaker and his abuse of his celebrity status. F911 is a blatant attempt to preach politics Moore style without substantiating most of his claims with hard evidence. He relied on the powerful influence of film and the art of juxtaposition to dramatize his zealot message. His use of narration along with edited video clips are evidence of this. Why would he not show the context of the featured interview bytes? I feel that it would have dampened his purpose. Claims such as the Fox News network clinching Bush's victory is silly and not true at all. Check the facts: Fox claimed a Gore victory just like the other networks did - prematurely before the polls closed in the panhandle of Florida. It was ABC that waited til the polls were closed and still claimed the Gore win. It was 10:00pm when the first network retracted Gore's victory. Fox? No. It was CBS. It was over four hours later when Fox finally declared Bush the winner. Why would Moore lie about this fact? This is easily researchable. As troubling as this is, this is just one example of his slander. Am I defending Bush with all of this? You bet I am. I would with anyone who is being slandered unjustly. Michael Moore had as many lies and false claims throughout his film as the guy he is prosecuting. There is not much difference between him and with Baghdad Bob! To be effective in his campaign, Moore should have backed up his claims with facts and hard evidence rather than his opinions and speculation. I feel Michael Moore is simply a propagandist with zealot ways.

A new and popular website is crewmarket.com.

Oopps! You're right. It has a single pull down claw. I just wrote the post too fast. This actually reinforces my argument. I just do not understand where this camera fits into the scheme of things with better options out there.

Why does Arri always show their cameras w/o a follow focus? They never show the complete and necessary package in their marketing for their cameras. I have always maintained that their designers do not think through all of our shooting situations when designing their cameras. They are marvels of engineering but not always practical for our shooting needs. After viewing this camera I feel that smaller is not better. This camera really does not contribute anything new that the 435 has not already done and gone beyond. After adding the necessary components to make the camera operational, it is not as small as advertised. And in the age of visual effects photography, why would Arri go backwards in technology and keep the 2C's single pin registration? For approximately $70K, I would rather have the 435 for a MOS camera. To me, the 235 is an expensive bundle of electronics with a limited application. If I need a small camera to place in harms way (ie. car stunts or explosions) all I need is the original 2C or Arri III. If the camera is lost, I sure do not have the loss of an investment of camera features that would not be used in most cases.

I have seen the Genesis and being a hardcore film guy... WOW! It will be great. It is approximately the same size and weight of the Millinium and seems very simple to use. I also saw the sample reel comparing film vs. Genesis. The handful of us in the theater could not tell the difference between the two mediums. Panavision and Sony have suddenly gotten this right. It uses the same 35mm lenses that we are used to and has the same image size and depth of field as the 35mm format. It compares to Super 35. I was completely impressed with what I saw. It will be the big hit at Cinegear.

I'll be there probably both days. My wife is working at the Panavision booth and I'll be milling around.

Let's not complicate this any more than need be. Measure as you normally would - from the film plane. You deal with the curved plane of focus by lens selection and exposure. What I mean by lens selection is choosing a lens that is "flatter" than a different, similar lens. Each individual lens has its own characteristics. You want to choose based on sharpness, flattness, contrast and color. The bottom line is deal with the anamorphic problems during prep and not on the set. You will have a much better anamorphic experience if you test and plan your lighting (in advance) around a much wider format.

As you all know, I shoot a lot of anamorphic. Shooting at a 5.6 is nice but not required for the C's. A good set of C lenses can handle a 2.8. I'm not a fan of the Primo anamorphics due to size, weight and various optical characteristics that the C's and E's do not sport. You will have a curved plain of focus. That is a big part of anamorphic. Certain lenses can help flatten out an image at a wide stop over other similar lenses and testing is the only way to ascertain that. A deeper stop will help as well - ie. T4. It's not just focus although it's a large part of a lens' performance. Stopping down a bit also helps with the contrast and "apparant sharpness" of the lens. Just by looking through the viewfinder and racking the iris from wide open to stopped down, you will see the blacks deepen and a sharper, contrastier overall image.

I own a lot of equipment organized in a rental company that does not bear my name. This is for two reasons: 1. I do not want to create a conflict of interest with a production that I am involved with as an assistant cameraman using my gear. 2. If the equipment develops problems, I am no longer the assistant cameraman but the rental agent and that only spawns problems. With that said, I don't rent to only my projects but to any movie that need gear.

I actually use a D 40mm. It's a great lens but a rare one. It's shaper and has more contrast than the C series 40.

Thank you all for the well wishes. Mitch, good for you. I'm happy the family is well and healthy. Contratulations to you and your wife.

Congratulations David. The ASC just got more pretigious. I'm very happy for you.

I just wanted to announce that I'm tying the knot in Honolulu on May 1st. Wish me luck!!!

It was fun to finally meet some of the names I've been reading on this site for years. Thanks to Mitch Gross for coordinating the gathering. What a pleasure it was meeting George and Mitch. It's good to have faces to place with the names. It was terrific New York hospitality. Good to see you again as well David. Best of luck with your Philly project. You'll have a great time there. Hopefully this will not be the only time that we'll get together. All the best...

To be precise, depth of field is the same from millimeter to millimeter. For example, a 100mm spherical will have the same depth as a 100mm anamorphic. It is the angle of view that changes wider with anamorphic thus making us use longer lenses to get the same angle of view with a spherical lens. That's why the depth is more challenging.