Joe Taylor

When the RED is released, what hardware wil be needed just to have a functioning package? The camera seems rather small, and lightweight, but once you have a media drive lens' and so forth, will it be possible to have camera that is still 'run & gun?' This is important for the type of documentary storm chasing work I do. I need soemthing I can grab from the bag and start shooting with. I have inquired several times with RED, but never get a response. Has anybody actually seen this camera yet? Thanks

Eric, This is exactly what i was asking about. There are some fantastic images here. What did you shoot this film with? Excellent work. You should be proud.

Looking for documentaries that have unusually high quality cinematography. Tow that come to mind right awa are "Fast, Cheap, and out of Control" with Robert Richardson, and "March of the Penquins." Can you recommend others?

Man, I hope you're just trolling and not serious. You sound about as informed as the media when they "write" the same drivel about film being dead. And tell us about your experiences with the mighty Red. Did you enjoy using this camera? Last I saw, it was a glorified concept camera.

What is baffling is how most still photographers do consider digital superior to film. You can argue the merits of either forever.

When you're stuck shooting low end projects like I am still doing (even though I deserve better, but that's the nature of the beast) being a "cinematographer" and "videographer" goes with whatever project you happen to be "filming" at the moment. My film and video work are about 50/50 right now. My resume and vitae reflect whatever position I was hired for. My last footage was purchased by Warner Bros. for their new movie, "The Reaping." I was hired out for several desert shots that I filmed with my beater of an Arri IIC. For that job I proudly considered myself to be a "cinematographer." Next I am shooting DV for a dreaded infomercial. I'll take just as much pride in my work for that job, but then I'll be a "videographer." If you're really a cinematographer who shoots features and highend commercials, then you'll probably want to call yourself a "cinematographer." If you're just scaping by, you're just happy to be working. that's my .03 cents.

I've had problems with lens flare (good in your case) with my older Angenieux 24-250 zoom. This zoom is much older then your typical Ang. 24-250 HRs that are found in most rental houses, and can actually be bought for a song on ebay. (Might be hard to find one to rent). Overall quality is very nice, images actually intercut well with Zeiss standards, plus you get that great lens flare.

That is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks, Jack.

Trying to justify the purchase of a XLH1. Since at the present there is really no way to present HDV material after editing in the practical real-world, I am wondering if footage shot with an Canon XL2 (16:9, 30P) will compete with HDV footage shot with an XLH1 after it has been down converted to SD (16:9, 30f). Has anybody had the opportunity to compare this scenario? If so, can you offer with a no BS assessment? Thank you.

Just deepen your voice and talk real slow and low. First tell a fantstic joke. That always fools them. Then it's time to get down to business. They'll know you're a man fore sure.

Follow Oliver Stone's critque of his DP's past work when hiring him for "World Trade Center." Told him flat it was "bad" but he sensed potential. Check out the new American Cinematogrpher for story. I'm good friends with Stone's personal assistant. She say's he's a real swell and pleasent :angry: guy to work for. <_<

I really like the Choclolates (1,2,3) and especially Antique Suedes for that hot, dusty look. (I guess it would also work for that hot, humid look too.) I'm not too fond of Tobaccos, mainly because they are too strong. Even the #1 is really "hot." #3 looks like Mars. If you have the option, (if in LA not problem) you should check out your rental houses filter selection. Some like to use the #85 to warm up daylight balanced scenes.

Hired at the last minute to shoot some inserts for a commerical where the main camera was Sony's new XDCAM shooting at full rez. How will my inserts compare. I shot at 30P 16:9. I't not my fault. It's the scatterbrained producers fault. Just a pay day for me, but I do care. So, what an they expect providing the lighting and moves matches? Compositions should match too. It's a dairy camerical with lots of proudct placement and a lot of screaming halfwits. At least I try to have fun.

Maybe if I had teh experience to see McCab & Mrs. Miller in a theatre setting with a pristine print I'd feel better, but I'm thinking (hoping) the reason the DVD looks so rough is because it is made from old source material. Perhaps we'll get a more respectful DVD (HDDVD) release in the future. Such a great film.

I'm watching it now on DVD on my HD set, I and am distracted by how ugly the cinematography is. I've read articles about how they flashed the neg and so. The set design, costumes and excellent and apporpriate to the period, but the cinematography is so garish and grainy. I't almost as if the shot with available light. One scene in a brothel they used super red gels on the lights that are totally unmotivated.

I've seen plenty of uses (over uses) especially after Private Ryan. I know it messes with the shutter, but it sounds like a wood chipper sometimes. So, if anybody has seen instances of the misstimed shutter effect used in time-lapse cinemaotography, I'd loved to hear about them. I don't get to do any tests.

I've played with them on a 435 at Otto's in Salt Lake City. They seem like if not used correctly, they can really mess a the shutter. I'm going to be doing some time-lapse work using a 435, some shots with the phase chip, some with out. My concern is how consisent the streaking effect will be when. Does anybody have any experience doing time-lapse with the phase chip or know of movies or video that can be screened for examples? Thank You.

Film stares Hillary Swank and is Produced by Rebert Zemeckis. This week will be Time-Lapse footage around the abondoned mines of Victor, CO then I'll be off to film some swamp lands with dead and decaying animals. Just got the call this morning. Details aren't 100%, but a go!!! Man, this is the most I've ever been pumped. Wish me luck! Thanks Everybody!

Does anybody know where to find some good information about the tele-photo lens that Freddie Young used in "Lawrence of Arabia?" I've seen pits and pieces in books before, but I would love to find some high quality pictures of the lens and its characterists. I was so fascinated with this lens that I took an old 300mm Astro-Berlin used on my Arri IIC and kind of made it look like Panavisions.

Yeah, I agree that the 235 is piece of poop. Total waste of time and space. Worthless. What were they thinking, Matthew? ME and you-- we're on the same page now. Arri 235-- what crap. Phtptptpt Raspberries. Oh, and the Akely sort of revolutionized documentary filmmaking. I'm sure you've seen "Nanook of the North" a bunch of times. That was shot (Twice) with the Akely.

I have an old R16. They're great cameras once you get it loaded. Are you sure that the tach is not running all funky? If the motor were really fluctuating enough for the tach to jump all over, you would definetely hear it in the motor. This would be the case if it were fluctuating even 1-2 frames per second. Just because a camera is not chrystal sync, does not mean the speed flucuates much. In fact, a good wild motor will run very close to whatever speed you have it set for, just not 100%. A solid motor will run more like 96% if not better. Even at 98% you will loose sync quickly. Sounds like your tachometer has gone bad. Not critical as long as the camera's rheostat is calibrated correctly.

So if your typical theatrical release is "2K or worse" how would a 35mm release compare if made directly from the negative? The reason I ask is because I am about to have a short film I made in 35mm printed for festival circuit. I plan to have only 2-3 copies made of this 17 min. short. I have always assumed that making a print directly from the original negative would produce a better picture than going from inner postives & negatives. This would be harder on the negative (if making multiples prints) but less expensive than going through the process of making multiple generations.

Ok, cool looking cameras. I like my 1919 35mm handcranked debrie. I've shot several thousdand feet of color feet through it and the results have a life of their own. I also like the looks of the Arri IIC with a 200' mag. Have one of those too. The Arri D20 is ugly though. Looks homemade out of recycled parts.

This is a quote one day after the crash from the Des Moines Register. This is what Producer Steve Schott had to say to rally his troops. "We're doing this for Tony, and for Roland, and for Richard." Uh, huh. That Steve Schott sounds like a swell guy and a real go-getter.

I've always dug the Brownie and then my mom made me go techno for my birthday, so I got my mits on one of them fold-out jobs. Then I got really seriouss and got me a Rebel a year later. Silly child, an Arri D20 is digital. Everything digital sucks eggs. What are those quacks teaching our middle school childen these days.