Mike Kaminski

The Kingdom of Heaven 191-minute directors cut is coming out soon. he studio made Scott chop a whole freaking hour out of the film for gods sakes--no wonder it was so uneven. Reports say that this proper directors cut version is easily one of his greatest accomplishments, up there with Blade Runner. Scott is my favourite director and i have been deliberately avoiding KOH for years now because i heard it was cut up so bad in the edit--now i will finally have a chance to see it.

I've actually had nightmares about this happening but luckily I've been spared this grief. Once in film school i loaded a roll slightly wonky and the edges got fogged; it was just film school and the footage was usable but I remember how that felt--i cant imagine what flashing a whole reel would feel like.

As far as i know the only way is to simply cool down the room and get the real thing. Other than that CG breath is the only option, or maybe as you suggested, comping in some.

Death and the Maiden. Brilliant film.

Sounds like it might be a back focus issue, but i dont think the dvx even has this option. It could simply be that the huge depth of field of the CCD keeps the BG and subject in the same amount of focus and the background appears sharper and more contrasty simply because it is hot, hence giving the illusion that the BG is sharper. Otherwise, I dont know.

An interesting choice to be sure. Personally I'm glad that some form of originality is being brought to a tired genre. The film looks like it will ignore all of that Revolution stuff that happened later in her life.

Takeshi Miike's work is always interesting, although i find him overrated. His films are good watches but generally not a whole lot to them, i find. The only exception is his film Audition, probably because the source material was a novel. This, I feel, is Miike's masterpiece, even if it has been greatly overhyped in recent years and its twist ending spoiled. Amazingly, Miike appears to have made a masterpiece in spite of himself--he seems completely unaware of the subtext and treats it as a straight exploitation flick. The film works great as a visceral psychological horror flick but on repeat viewings the brilliant freudian undertone becomes apparent and you realise that the film was not at all the film you thought it was (hint, the sleeping sequences are key). Its a brilliant freudian study of mans fear of women and marriage. I'm actually looking for some good contemporary Japanese drama that doesn't involve gore, cops and robbers or Yakuza but there sadly doesn't seem to be a lot. Kitano and Miike are good but I'm still searching for Japan's equivalent to China's Wong Kar Wai or Zhang Yimou.

I still think Jurrassic Park is one of the best examples of CGI. Its incredible how well that film has held up. The T-Rex attack the Raptor kitchen sequence are 100% believable. Usually the only time i know "okay this shot is CG" is because there is no way a puppet could be doing the motion or subtlety that is onscreen. The insertion of the animatronics went a long way too but most the time i am amazed that the CG looks identical to the puppets, and the puppets looked 100% real. What an achievement that film was.

Yes i am aware, but that has nothing to do with what i was discussing, which is that every religion says "we/I are/am right and everyone else is not," and that disobedience is not tolerated. And for the record, Judaism was intially polytheistic-- Marduk, the Elohim and Yahweh are all different gods of the ancient eras. Thats completely baseless. Because we have artistic achievements that is proof of god? How does that logic work? And by your train of thought you seem to be implying that my emotion comes from god as if he is pushing buttons "be sad now" "be happy now" as if we are some kind of puppet. Theres no reason to introduce god in the equation here. Emotion comes from various chemical balances in the brain. Why do certain images and moods evoke the same emotions in most people? Because all human brains are wired in a similar manner. Theres absolutely no rational logic progression to say that this is proof of a god or gods. You are simply starting with the conclusion that god exists and forcing it into natural phenomena that dont need this conclusion to be explained.

I think this all just demonstrates what i said earlier. Scientology is hardly unique. Any religion is inevitably frought with corruption and irrationality, whether or not you see it just depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on. And yeah, religion can help people too--it certainly seems that scientology has given Tom Cruise a purpose in his life. Scientology's stance on medicine can hardly be criticized by christians, whose religion has been the biggest obstacle in scientific advancement, and in fact STILL is. I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, but I think that perhaps christians themselves may be too close to their religion to objectively see how similar they all are in the fundamentals.

Lets apply this to christianity: If you dont believe in christianity, then yes. It sure does. "I am the one true god, thou shalt have no other gods but me." Followed by orders to slay the heathens who dont believe. Similarly, anything disobedient to god is a "sin" and thus punished by eternal damnation. This is the basis of every religion, including of course good ol christianity. Sure does, hence evangelical christians. The heathens must be saved from themselves by introducing the light of christ into their life or they will burn in hell. The giant palaces the Pope lives in werent built by god thats for sure. I sure havent seen any money from the church. I think people really have to stop deluding themselves that Scientology is a uniquely harmful cult. A cult is not defined by its deceptions or manipulation, its defined by numbers--religion on a small scale.

The excuse "anyone who uses christianity for bad purposes ie the crusades is not a true christian" is a huge cop out. The Bible clearly advocates the slaughter of "heathens" and portrays its heroic warlord leader Moses as cutting apart heathen babies and allowing his followers to take the virgin girls of enemy towns as trophies. Theres a reason why the clergy of the midieval times were able to use the bible to promote bloodshed and its because it is commanded in the bible, the existance of passages promoting harmony nonwithstanding. Although Scientology promotes several harmful and emotionally manipulative practices this is not unique to it at all, nor is its misunderstanding of science, which is a natural by product of belief in the supernatural. I mean i dont really need to get into creationism, geo-centric universes or flat-earths, and i shoudl remind you that there are societies which still believe in all of those things because the Bible explicitly states such things. So again, not to be picking on christians here, but there is nothing at all different about scientology and those who loath that religion should take a look at the fundamentals of their own (and any religion for that matter).

I dont think anyone can try to seriously claim that Scientology is more destructive than christianity. I mean when scientology is resposible for the systematic execution and torture of countless thousands plus many terrible, terrible wars I'll reconsider your statement. I mean the Inquisition, the Crusades--hello?? Ring a bell anyone? As for moneymaking, i think you are seriously naive if you think the church isnt designed to maximize profit. Their entire history is one of coinage and bloodshed. The actual figures have been supressed but the startliung figure is that the church brings in billions of dollars each year. If you think about it, Scientology is really the most harmless religion ever seen--hardly anyone even takes it seriously, they are like the clowns of the religious world. Really there is absolutely no difference at all between scientology and, say, christianity (sorry to keep singling out you guys, you just happen to be the most prominent group :P ), except that the man-made roots of scientology are easy to trace since its founder lived only a few decades ago and that he was a respected writer of imaginative fiction.

I think it just illuminates the inherant silliness of supernatural worship. All the world religions have been around for a long time so we all view them as being "proper" on the basis that they were here first but since Scientology is based on contemporary superstition and not some long-ago "mythological" ancient era it suddenly loses credibility. Personally I'm all for exposing the obvious-irrationality of ANY religious belief but i dont know if this forum is the proper place to be having this discussion. Anyway, point of the original post--evangelicanism is annoying, regardless of the sect they represent be it scientology or their sometimes-more-annoying competitors the christians. A guy in a suit carrying a pamphlet and a "holy book" is pretty much the same whether he is from the Church of Scientology or the Church of Latter Day Saints (and they are all annoying).

I view scientology as equal with christianity, islam, budhhism, etc. and i suppose this more objective view comes from the fact that i am an atheist. Its all the same. The REAL question that i have is why is the mocking of the obvious-ridiculousness of scientology beliefs accepted but considered bigoted when its judaism or islam? The only difference between a cult and a religion is numbers.

Okay first of all traditional hand-drawn animation IS NOT THAT HARD. This guy is making a short film, not a Disney-quality feature. Film students make hand drawn short films all the time. But it IS time consuming, and will consume hundreds of hours of work. But if you have four or five people working on it it is EASILY doable. What you have to consider is that 2d computer programs will not give you the same look as a handrawn animation. Thats why people still do handdrawn animation--its like digital versus film. You can get something that gets the jist of it but only handdrawn looks like handdrawn. If you have a few months to spare and a few friends helping you doing frame-by-frame classical animation is far, far worth it, it just looks so much better. That is, if you can do it. Like i said, it is very time consuming but nothing near impossible. If you are going for Bluth or Disney or anything like that you can only get that quality with hand-drawn animation--theres a reason why peope still use those methods. Using the computer is fine, and I'm sure the quality tradeoff is worth the time savings--but this is really for people who want things done efficiently, in other words as quickly and cheaply as possible. If you have the means, desire, support, equipment, money and time to do it classically, then i would say do it classically.

Well, really I'm starting this thread because i might have to be buying a tripod+head for video. Can anyone recommend a good tripod that can be purchased for under $1000? It'll only be used with a dvx100 so nothing too extraordinary is needed, but still something sturdy and with a nice smooth head. Anyway, what are peoples favourite tripod for video use? I havent seen any discussion around here for video-oriented camera support.

I was dissapointed by the latest superman trailer. I thought the first one looked fantastic and it got me really excited for the Genesis but now the second one has sort of calmed me down. It just looked a lot more "digital" than i expected. Good still, but not quite as i expected.

Yes, when you think about how great THX 1138 and Good, The Bad and The Ugly look when they were made in the late 60's, imagine how well an image the latest stocks and lenses could produce. I guess the format must have died out once the big-budget studio films took over in the 80's.

Thats awesome news. I would LOVE to shoot with this format. Let us all know how the test turn out and when your article is done.

I was reading some old George Lucas interviews from the 70's and discovered that his first two features, THX 1138 and American Graffiti, were shot in the Techniscope format. I had heard about the format before but never quite knew what it was and was delighted to learn that it is a two-perf 35mm format which gives an aspect ration comparable to 2:35. So essentially, its like a widescreen 16mm frame. Is anyone shooting with this format anymore? My understanding is that its been dead for a long time now but it seems like a fantastic format.

Most newer cameras use collapsible cores, which the film feeds into and is manually clamped secure. Otherwise you just use standard 16mm cores, fold the film 1/8 of an inch or so and hook it into the slot on the core and then wind it around a few times to make sure its nice and tight. If you know what camera you will be using you may be able to locate the manual online and they usually have instructions for mag loading as well.

A bit of guessing may be required. If your puller is attentive he can estimate how far over or under the actor is just by watching the ground and judging how far the actor appears to be over; if your depth of field is a matter of inches though this can admittedly be difficult. In that case the best thing to do is put parallel marks beside the real one. An actress steps on her mark but the dress totally covers the surrounding area--but a mark placed two feet to the right, at exactly the same distance, remains visible. You can then use this as a judge for how much over and under the actor is. If its very far away depth perception becomes a problem--in this case remote focus would be a good option so you can stand alongside and judge for yourself. If you dont have a remote focus unit then use the 2nd ac. For walking shots what i like to do is mark intermitten distances with small neon cones parallel to the actors; the 2nd AC has a walkie talkie and literally walks parallel to the actors, out of camera view, transmitting me the marks over the walkie--"1, 2, 3, 4..."--i dont even have to look at the actors, i can just keep my eye on the focus wheel and move it according to the readings of the 2nd over the walkie. If its far shots that arent the type where they are walking towards the camera, judging the over and undershooting of marks can be pretty difficult since it will fluxuate in only small amounts. If i cant see or judge the compensation myself i have the 2nd stand near the actors and use hand-signals to translate how far off their marks the actors are. A good method is holding one hand out, facing straight up, kinda like a karate chop. this represents the mark. you can then use your other hand and slide it back and forth over your hand, representing how far over or under the actor is moving in relation to their marks. Now this only works for moderately distant shots, if the actors are 80 feet away you wont be able to see the 2nd's hand signals. In that case hopefully your depth of field will be good enough so that you can use a combination of these methods to arrive at a focus that is accurate by a few inches.

Well if its unpaid then its volunteer so it doesnt really count as work, hence i dont believe you would need a work permit since you wouldnt be recieving any paychecks.

If its simply air conditioned condensation wont be a problem since air conditioning is only slightly lower than room temperature; the temperature shift shouldnt be too extreme. Climatising equipment usually doesn't take too long though and by the time you get the camera set up and the action blocked it should be fine. You may however get condensation due to sheer humidity if you are for instance shooting in jungle environments, but thats a whole different ballgame. Best thing to do is keep the camera shaded from the sun; a light, white fabric draped over it works nicely to combat heating.