Joe Taylor

How was/is "There will be Blood?" Did you like it?

No. Really.

During a time-lapse workshop I taught last year, we shot a 100' roll of Fuji Provia through my Arri 2c then had transferred to video. Students picked and bought what ever film they wished, don't know why they wanted photographic film, but there was really not much difference in the other negative film we shot. If they could hve processed and projected that film, that could have been pretty sweet

HD DVD players prices have dropped like rocks ovr the past month. There are places selling them for just over a $100. IF Blu-Ray can't compete (and they can't) the war will be over before--- I was going to make an Iraq joke, but it's getting so lame.

If they're showing off the latest 4k machinery, why not splurge and show off a 4k "print?" I'd think there is quite a difference between 2k and 4k. Has anybody in here seen anactual top notch 4k projection? If so, what was it like? I'm sure some film snobs might refuse to admithat they think they saw, but I would like to hear a no b.s. unbiased report.

Wow. I miss music videos. Sure wish they still made them. I haven't seen one in so long, I'll have to think deep to moments in some videos that really stuck out. The Bjork Video, "So Quite" where she raises up into the air at the end is still a moment that I'll always remember. Spike Jonze, I think. Nine Inch Nails, "Hurt" I think. With they wicked snake and that so real that it cool shot of they bird diving 5 feet under water from the fishes POV. Nine Inch Nails, can't think of the name, with the awesome vintage camera handcranked footage. Not only vintage camera but vintage lens' I think. You have to go all out anddo it right. I might get a virtual kick in the balls for this one, but Madonna's "Ray of light" has some really cool images. time_lapse is my forte. They even pixelated Madonna to do these weird movements, which is gutsy since you would think vanity would overrule anything clever and cool looking. How about Twisted Sister's "I want to Rock." That fat dude at the begining loks just like this fat head banger I knew when I was growing up. His name was/is Timothy McVey. Nothing ever went right for that poor kid.

I thought it started off very well with a twist, al least I, didn't see coming. Very dissapointed with the "just got there in the nick of time" moment at the end. I groaned to myself.

Why are you limited to Super 8? In this era of mega-resolution, Super 8 seems to be the last frontier of actual fim that looks like it was shot on film. The grain in super 8 is what gives it iss charm. Shooters filming on the ultra-expensive Super 8 negative stocks for its lack of grain baffles me. If you want the Super 8 look, why not shoot on Super 8 chrome. Vision 3 super 8????? Who gives a damn?! They took away my Kodachrome, don't force this Vision 3 and your fancy-shmanzy pee-wee grain. And how come they don't have a little yellow bawling baby face??!! Answer me, damnit!!

An ironic answer to this questions is tht "yes," since I can only afford to shoot this way-- or anybody operating on a budget of -$5. Hollywood could not shoot this way simply because it would confuse the hell out of them. Anymore they have to insert CGI work simply because it is cheaper today to CGI a shot than to actually film it. One of the most fantasic shots/sequences that I play/rewind/play over and over is a magnificint shot of a huge thunder storm/head in "Days of Heaven." It is so majesetic and awesome because it is real. That is a real thunderhead with realistic distant thunder. It makes us feel how puny the characters we love in the movie are compared to nature. Today they would probably shitcan that shot and insert a big noisy turdfloater with all sorts of fake crashy thunder and make is abombastic as possible and it would just piss me off. They simply can not make things seem real anymore and it is depressing.

During the late 60's and early-mid 1970's, what were the most common glass filters (excluding the obvious-polas,nds) used in-camera? This era produced some of the most innovated filmmakers who actually got their hands dirty instead of relying on CG. Filtration would be one of the key ingredients in achieving a desired look. I understand that it still is, but more and more all of this being done with digital intermediates-- a great tool, but I find it far more interesting when a filmmaker tells their story about in-camera effects. I'm bored silly when the story goes to explain how a look was achieved through DI. Again, a great and effective tool, but not very interesting. When I know something was done in-camera, much more attention is paid to that film's results. For example, "The Illusionist." When I first saw that film, all I could think was, "ho-hum. Nice digital effect." But when reading how much of those some f/x where done through good, old fashioned smoke and mirrors, I was floored. But post has strayed, so back to my intentions. I'm really interested in what kinds of filters the cinematographers would have used. For example, what sort of diffusion was used in-camera? Back then there was no Promist or BPM. Where would a guy be able to find these vintage filters?

While watching the HD DVD release of "Deliverence" the opening scenes at the backwoods gas station, I've noticed that most of the shots have a real nice, but subtle, diffused look. Does anybody know something about the production of "Deliverence" and what sort of techniques where used in the photography? If in-camera was used, I'd like to know what kinds of filters were used. I really like that look.

What he is saying is that the footage shot with RED looks better than the film transfer he saw. I've seen footage shot and projected in Chicago two weeks ago and what I saw was stunning. What I saw would hold its own with 70mm. And I used to get offended when friends called me a film snob. These new generation of Digital Cinematography cameras are going to change the movie industry in a big way and in a big hurry. Not only because the results are superior, because films costs a hell of a lot of money... even for the studios.

Yes there is. I haven't listened to it yet, though. I'm still in shock as to how great the treatment WB has finally paid to the Kubrick HD series. I remeber back in '99 when the "Kubrick Collection" came out and how shoddy it all was. They've sure made up for this time. Yesterday was by far my best DVD score ever and can't imagine toping it. 2001. The Shining. Clockwork Orange. And what may be best, "Days of Heaven." It's not HD but Criterion did a fine job indeed. But if they force a HD double-dip it had better made of gold. The Shining has the best Extras. Vivian Kubrick's Making of doc (with commentary) and three other nice docs with more never seen behind the scenes. There is also a great interview with Wendy Carlos who scored Clockwork and the Shining. She's really intense and has great stories about working with Stanley Kubrick. I was a bit nervous shelling out all that money yesterday, but man! These films look absolutley like new. Days of Heaven is SD, but played through my HD player, it's very impressive. I've been watching this stuff all day and will keep on through the night. I'm also surprised that nobody else is flipping out on this forum. Oh, well. Somebody will.

I'd figure if anyone on this forum had a HD DVD or Blueray player, it would be you , David. I just bought everything Kubrick has on HD DVD, and seeing 2001 in HD has been an entire new experience for me. I've never had the privilege to experience it on the sliver screen, much less in 70mm. I watched it at two in the morning (this morning) and I was in awe. My set is a Sony 35" HD tube set. I trully believe the best HDTV has to offer is a good old fashioned tube screen. Weighs almost 400lbs and the quality is amazing. The Shining in HD is awesom too. 1:85 for the first time for me (NO CHOPPER BLADES). Hope the release Barry Lyndon in HD, sure the will though.

And guess what IS NOT seen?!?!?! Very nice transfer by the way. Seeing it for the first in widescreen is almost a revelation. In my opinion it plays much better that 1:33.

I went crazy today and bought not only "Day," but 2001 HD DVD, The Shining HD DVD, and Clockwork Orange HD DVD. The Days of Heaven release is leaps and bounds above the old 1999 DVD that was until yesterday still one of discs. The new transfer is a bit cooler (I've always been a sap for "the golden look" but it is so much sharper. Looks like it was shot yesterday. I haven't even had a chance to look at the special features yet. Now "2001" in HD DVD is what has really blown my mind. Again, it really looks like a newly released film. I compared several shots back and forth from the SD with the HD and differences are startling. I have stopped, opened, and shelled by SD of 2001 for the last time and feel so damned proud of my shiny new 2001 that I will GIVE the old disc away plus $5.00 to take it off my hands. I drank a few beers watching it, maybe that's why.

I've been watching the "Making of" doc for the "New World." Terrance Malick is no where to be soon (no surprise) but it seems that a great deal of the film (at least on this day) was directed by the cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki. In the doc he is shown regularly directing actors and setting up shots that involve man struggling with Nature. How could this be? When I imagine a Terrance Malick film, I envision a bona fide obsession with Nature out getting his hands dirty. I was more than a little dissapointed that he seemed to be no where near where "his" film was being made. Can anybody enlighten me? Help restore my admiration for a man whose images of mankind being overwhelmed by Nature gave me goosebumps. See "Days of Heaven" with the girl's narration be punctuated by a great thunderstorm. That's the Terrance Malick I want to believe in.

Doing some reading about "George Washington" and it's been said that the cinematic process is "2.35 Research." Does anybody know what that means?

That looks..... prety messed up. IS is a cheap camera, one tht you don't want to spend a bunch a time fighting them about about? If not, I'd keep and shoot som really biizarre stuff with it and having everyone scratching their heds think you're some kind of guiness..

Very charming

I kid, I kid!

Love the movie. Love the shot of Darryl Hannah where she is frozen then snaps here head impossibly to face the camera/audience. Great creepy incam effect. So which version is this: Definitive Edition 2.0 or 2.1?

How difficult, or more importantly, will it be possible to change out the lens mounts on the RED camera body? Also, I have searched and I've heard it mentioned, will the RED system mount still camera lens'? Also, my ARRI 2C uses the bayonet lens mount. Would I be able to use these lens on the RED with the PL adapter?

Yup, Sam sold me my Debrie camera several years ago. Everything he sells is top notch. He once had one of the cameras from the Original King Kong. Cool guy

I have a 35mm Debrie I purchased from Sam Dodge. I shoot lots of color stock through it. The benefits of using an authentic/vintage handcranked cine camera is that the movement, although a beautiful to behold, does not have the registration perfection of most modern cameras that have been adapted for handcranked work. True HC cameras will give you the sometimes flickering sensation that is you simply don't get with an Arri. Another and most important are the century old lens'. Nothing can replicate that look. With color stock you get an almost pastel look that really blows my mind even after six years of shooting. I'm on loation now or I'd attach some stills that are worthy to hang (They do!!!)