Joe Taylor

Might seem like a dumb question, but are you powering down your camera before you mount the lens'? Did you buy this camera and lens package new? If you bought them together used, the seller should have known there was a problem.

I posted this originally in the General Section by mistake. ____________________________________________ Been watching There Will be Blood" and have read that the filmmakers used an old Pathe Lens for certain shots. Does anybody know for sure what shots were made with this lens?

Been watching There Will be Blood" and have read that the filmmakers used an old Pathe Lens for certain shots. Does anybody know for sure what shots were made with this lens?

Trust me. I use that one all the time and it never works.

Does anybody know if a new version of "Bound for Glory" might be in the works on DVD? I watch my 2000 release ever now and then but it is a such a shoddy transfer and non-anamorphic to boot which does not translate well to HDTV. Such an important film deserves the Criterion touch.

I too was somewhat dissapointed. And the score really grated and reminded me of those THX sound swells to the point that I huffed (softly) 5 minutes later when the score "swelled" again. "Assassination of Jesse James" had it all for me this year.

Hello Walter, Those are some sweet looking pics you took. I'll take a look at the JVC.

I've finally seen at the Best Picture nominations and I am actually concerned about how the winners are sometimes decided. This also holds true for the Golden Globes. "There Will Be Blood" is a very good movie and I appreciate the stark realism in the cinematography but I recently screened "Assassination of Jesse James" for the third time and truly feel this movie will go on to be a classic because of gorgeous lighting and compositions. I am sometimes troubled that many Winners in Cinematography win by default because of Best Picture Wins. This certainly seems to be the case when a film is simply nominated-- Best Picture is usually given a nod for Best Cinematography.

Yeah, but what happend to that gravity in 2001 when they get to they got to the moon? The way they are walking around the monothith like they're at the construction has always ruined the illusion to me.

IF CG Artists can stick Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman on Giza at sunset, I'm sure someone can put a little color in a B&W image no matter how it was shot.

Don't POST drunk.

The point is is that if ALL theatres are 3D in the future, the medium will only work as long as ANY and all films can play for the audience like reality. The picture has to be real. Actors can't look like T-REXs jumping off the screen every time they walk past the camera. The audience has to be as comfortable watching 3D in the future as they are watching 2D today. I don't believe that even the biggest 3D lover honestly feels comfortable watching their favorite movies today that way. There's just too much luggage. Anyway, I despise 3D. I've seen one IMAX 3D movie and have attended only one 3D feature but found out only after it was too late. After the two hour show I felt like I'd just flown in after a eight hour flight. I gave that same movie a second chance on HDVD and found pars of it enchanting. I missed that in the theatre. I hope the movies remain 2D as they should-- at least as long as I'm alive. But "if" the future is 3D then it simply will have to be a much simpler technology and EVERY movie will have to work. The cameras would have to wield like today's lightweight cameras and without a bunch of 3d "technicians" standing around. And finally your basic movie lover would need to be relaxed enough to enjoy the show and not running for the exits. I'm not worried. It will never happen.

I'm sure they could find a way around that. Besides, how many other movies have you seen that are the POV of a man with one working eyeball? I haven't seen "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" so "Johnny's Got His Gun" might have that sort of shot but I haven't seen that either. Today, 3D movies are still pretty much a ticket gimmick. In order for 3D movies to really be the future, they'll need to be a representation of real-life and not have their money shots calling attention to themselves. And who wants to sit next to their date for two hours looking ridiculous? Once 3D can look real without making the audience sick and feeling stupid.. if the audience can relax, even the most simple movies might work.

I have a big ol' Sony HD CRT that I went far out of my way to buy since the picture quality far surpasses PLASMA or LCD. The picture is more rich and vibrant than anything else. It weighs 300+ pounds but the image is so worth it. It's three years old and I'm not sure if they even make them any more

Good info. That's one thing I was wondering if he used his regular DP. Thanks Elisabeth

I've seen this video many times and know it was directed by Paul Anderson. Does anybody know who photographed it or know any other technical info? It's B&W and I wonder if was shot on B&W film... that sort of stuff.

Texas is very good! Thanks!

Does anybody know of a place where one can find a state by state listing of that particular states film & video production companies?

Hey Kevin, I've known Jean Stawarz for about 12 years. She's about as good of a screenwriting professor as you'll ever meet. Take her classes and you're in good hands.

Damn. Now it's gone again.

Just watched Baraka, there's quite a bit a motion tracking in that film. Doing multiple exposures with a sky tracking device is kind of a science in itself. You have to have a very precise system and dead on in your alignment if you expect to keep it zeroed overnight. I've tried it once out in Utah (it's in Part Two of the links below) there's some movement and it picked up the ground towards morning. I actually flipped the frame since my Arri was inverted.

Thanks everybody! Shooting artificial light at night, like a downtown setting, you could get away with a slower film, like a 250, since your exposures will be generally less than half if you were exposing with moon light. But I would stick with 500. For a bright down setting with many lights, I've done shots with around :06 secs at T/f5.6 Best advice is to go out and experiment. You can almost never go wrong and you will probably be so excited with your first shot (if your shooting with a good DSLR, that you'll be there all night.

Since you have the $400 in your budget, go with a dedicated 35mm scanner. I've been using a Minolta for going on 5 years now with great results. 5 years is a long time so I can only imagine that a scanner for the same price will give you even better results.

Jase, Thanks for your comments. The big monolith, Valley of the Gods, just outside Monument Valley in Utah, was exposed by moonlight-- a :25 sec. exposure. Because of the length of the exposure, the film was also able to "soak" up enough light for it to appear to be daylight-- even the stars to show up. Everything in that shot as well as the entire film, "Dead Lonesome," was filmed using an Norris intervelometer. No double exposers or matte shots.

Meade 16" RCX. That's some serious hardware. You can do deep sky with that beast. With the ETX 125 I stuck with :10 or less, unless I piggy pack with a normal lens, then I can expose as long as I like, though Hopefully my links are showing up way down below at the bottom of the page. If not, here they are: Part 1: Part 2: