Joe Taylor

I just bought a Fostex through B&H. Should be here Monday. I looked REALLY hard for the Sound Forum here, then looked again even harder. Either I can't read or.... damned if I can find it.

What happened to Mia Sara? Her "innie" isn't an "outie" now, is it? Oh, "On Golden Pond" "Strange Brew" and "Johnny Dangerously"

I have two Arri IIc Bodies with CE Crystal bases and a Norris Intervalometer. I bought them mainly for a project I have been working on, "Dead Lonesome," about ghost towns and the mystique of the western landscape. I also now use them for freelance work. I also have a 35mm Handcranked Debrie that I bought for "Dead Lonesome."

I'm not angry. But I am appalled that people are applauding such a contrived, cliched, pretentious, obvious, unreal, piece of Tinseltown clap-trap. There are more subtle ways to discuss social problems. I don't need people SCREAMING in my face.

Oh, wow. I forgot all about "Songs from the Second Floor." Pay extra attention to the very last shot. Very long, maybe over two minutes. takes place in a land fill where they are dumping a truck load of plastic Jesus'. Then, from off in the far distance, a crowd of people slowly make their way across the desolate landscape like zombies. Very creepy. It's at the top of my Net Flix que.

Okay, Jason already stole my thunder on this one, but I'll make of a list of Best Picture winners that most certainely cannot be considered "art." I'll begin with "Crash," because I'll never, ever forget this most artistic scene: ______________________________________________ Little girl runs out of the house, all happy and sunny. Her victimized dad is being held at gunpoint by another victimized minority. LITTLE GIRL Daddy! Daddy! You forgot you impenetrable shield! Of course the little girl jumps in daddy's arms just as the victimized Arab shoots the victimized father. (Why does she jump in her father's arms?... so she can be shot, or course.) Camera cranes up and angles straight down the big tragedy. (If only it were pouring rain.) IN SLOW MOTION... OF COURSE. (And if you have not seen this movie, I am not kidding) VICTIMIZED FATHER Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! But wait, there's a nauseating twist to this most unoriginal scene. The little girl has remembered her impenetrable shield. (The little goose) And the rascist cracker gun shop owner who sold the victimized wife the gun and bullets of the victimized Arab, gave her blanks. That dirty, rascist bastard. (Groan.) Little girl lives, victimized father burst forth with tears of pain and joy. Victimized Arab learns a very valuable lesson. What, I'm not sure. But he has that cliched look on his face. In reality he would have panicked and hauled ass out of there. But that would not have look artistic in super slow-mo. _______________________________________________ So, I'll begin with "Crash" and stop at the first year a movie deserved to win best picture. I imagine it will be in the 80's. Some of these winners make me sick, and I'm not being funny. Crash - Very, very Sick. Criminally sick. Million Dollar Baby - Sick Lord of the Rings Chicago - Sick A Beautiful Mind - Sick Gladiator American Beauty Shakespeare in Love - Sick Titanic - Very Sick The English Patient - Very sick Braveheart - Sick Forrest Gump Schindler's List - Okay, this was a very good movie, we'll stop here. But I'm not letting "Driving Miss Daisy" off the hook. Or "Dances with Wolves" nor "Rain Man."

I'm working on several personal projects that need specific sound f/x that I can't find. It's also a good a excuse to buy me a nice digital field recorder and mics. Can anybody recommend any good books about recording sound in the field? Or even good web sites? Thank You

Very Cool Steve! Music to my eyes. Thanks for the link.

I have both "Barry Lyndon" and "Clockwork Orange" on DVD, but neither are anamorphic. I am hoping that Warners someday will at least re-release these two with HD sets in mind.

With the exception of "Spartacus" and "2001," Kubrick's films have never been treated kindly for video releases. I know how Kubrick demanded that they be shown full screen, but do you think they might ever be re-released with pristine transfers and don anamorphically? Stanely Kubrick had ( and still has) such a firm grasp on anything pertaining to his work, it almost seems impossible that his films will never see much of a full-blown, all stops pulled, chock full of special features collector's edition.

Just watched "Domino." Very interesting look if you're into this sort of thing. I understand that the film was shot on reversal then cross processed, but the sickley yellow/orange look, I'm wondering if this was achieved with glass filtration and/or through the use of DI. I remember really being struck by this look with "Summer of Sam" way back in 1999, but that was before everybody was doing DI. I have experimented with cross processing of reversal film, but could never get that "look." When it comes to really admiring great cinematography, I have always appreciated classically shot color films such as "Days of Heaven" but there was some really striking work in "Domino." I understand that it could be regarded as "trashy" but there is some work in this film that is every bit as impressive as any movie I've seen from 2005. O'd be interested in hearing what others think.

I have an old 1917 35mm Debrie that I bought a few years ago. I know that when this camera was made there were no motors but somewhere along the line a motor was made for my Debrie. I have one and it works. I also made a motor for the 1:1 shaft on the back of the camera so that I could do time-lapse shots with this camera. As an offtopic, shoot modern color film through these ancient cameras and their lens' you get the most gorgeous images. They have a soft pastel look that sort of reminds me of the old autochrome. No amount of digital trickery can match the look you get with old, uncoated lens. Aah, I love film. <-- that little virtual orgasim was also offtopic. Glad I caught it when I did.

I've read that the the tracking shot with Russel Crow coming out of a feavor dream was done with a very narrow shutter angle. When I first saw it I was absolutely convinced that it was a digital composition. Since time-lapse is my specialty I watched what they did over and over. I'm not sure if they did a DI on this, if not I imagine they got the look through filtration or they added extra blue in the printing stage. Later in the movie there is a real time shot of the same setting, just outside the gate looking towards the house and farm. This shot looked more natural.

I have a Kinoptik 9.8mm Kinoptik prime. It's a very nice lens, very sharp. It is also an interesting looking lens. The front element is practically flush with the outer lens barrel. Luckily I have a MB16 mattebox or else there would be problem using filters, unless you have 1x1" squares that you can drop in.

Landon, I think the majority of the people who are bashing you are a bit jealous of your age. You have an advantage over most people, even people your own age, because you have a lot of passion for whatever it is that interests you. Most people these days have zero interests in anything. No hobbies, no nothing. They put in 8 hour days then watch tv till bedtime, then repeat the cycle over and over. I don't know much about you since I have only recently joined this site. But in my opinion you've handled yourself like a champ. Most people, no matter what their age, would have resulted to childish name calling by now. A few of the pros have taken a disturbingly large amount of their time to actually dig up dirt on you and even make a few phone calls. That's pretty sick. It's cool that you like caving. A few years back I worked as an assistant to a photographer who was doing a major photographic documentation, on 4x5 no less, of Mammoth cave. We had to crawl on our bellies, for over a hundred yards, to get to an area that hasn't been visited by humans since pre-historic times. We found piles of human waste that was thousandsof years old. Just think, some dude actually squated there so long ago. Even petrified bats that were still hanging from the ceilings. Cobwebs that were thousands of years old. Really cool stuff. That's what you should focus on instead of this embarrassing, worthless crap. Good luck with whatever your heart desires.

I love how some of you "Directors" and "Dp"s and other working professionals find the time to dig up dirt on some 17 year old kid just because he likes "Harry Potter" and "Baby's Day Out."

I find it strange that for almost a century we have left ourselves at the mercy of the limits of the 35mm film frame, this is true mainly for motion pictures. I am not dissing 35mm at all, but there have been many complaints about it's somwhat awkward size and so forth. Now that digital acquisition is really beginning to threaten film based motion picture cameras, camera manufactures are still designing their technology (cameras and lens') around the 35mm format., i.e. chips and again lens'. The same thing is happening with still cameras. "Full frame" format is what everyone is after now. If we're moving into an entirely new era, why not start from scratch? Why do the highest end motion picture cameras have to have Super 35mm chips? It just seems like their making these brand new $250,000 cameras to support old film lens'.

Now come on. Are you guys really falling for this? I've only been here a few weeks and can tell this is a regular members creating a fuss over the "sign your posts" debate. Don't feed the troll.

Yes, but these types of ads are often misleading. I've read that more than a few academy members will often vote without actually seeing the film or watching their screeners. Could an academy member actually base their judgement of someone's work by glancing at a glossy in a magazine. I'd be outraged but not surprised by a truthful answer.

I'm not big on digital F/X shots, but when done in a manner that serves the story, then I'm all for them. I thought the look of "Sin City" was mind blowing. I usually cringe and even feel a tingle of embarrassment when I see actors trying to do their work in front of a green screen, but for "Sin City" it works the entire time. Whenever Marv goes to that farm, man, I'm in another world. The skies, the atmosphere. Brilliant filmmaking. However, I won't call it cinematography. Great cinematogrphy is "Days of Heaven," "George Washington," even the handheld shots of the African slums in "Constant Gardner."

This is especially true in American Cinematography. There is an image in an ad for "Jar Head" that credits Roger Deakins' cinematography for a shot of soldiers marching through the desert with oil rig fires blazing in the B.G. What makes this shot what it is is the digital F/X, not the cinematography. Why do they think they can fool the academy. It's almost insulting. I'm sure they didn't build their own oil rigs to burn in the desert. I don't think you can even legally burn a tire in America. I can recall other examples. "A.I"s ad for cinematography consideration is all digital. I can also remember a image for a giant moon married in the image for another film that was supposed to be credited to the cinematographer. Why does this happen?

Very good advice, everybody. I've been leaning towards film projection since I concieved the projest and bought me an Arriflex. Film projection sounds ideal to me, but I've been a little concerned since the industry began stating that even the mulitplexes would be projecting digitally very soon. For some reason I really believed what I heard this time. I know that some festivals use local commerical theatres for 35mm submissions, so naturally if that particular theatre gave up their film projectors ghost, then it would be a problem. Further ideas are greatly appreciated.

Getting ready to get my short film, "Dead Lonesome," that I shot on 35mm ready for the festival circuit. I've been planning on having several 35mm prints made, but I've been reading that many theaters (multiplexes) will really begin projecting digitally by mid-2006. Debatign what I should do. Those who have seen a 35mm originated film projected in HD, (I have not) how does it compare?

I was the rental manager at Otto Nemenz in Salt Lake City and I can tell you upfront that if you've never rented a package from a real rental house you might be surprised just how much insurance is. If you do have the required insurance then a basic package for a Arri BL3 III or BL4s will probably cost you around $1750 to $2000 for the two days. That is a bare bones package. Body, 3 400' mags, Zeiss Standards, sticks, high-hat, etc. Film... new 400' loads of Kodak are around $210.00. Much cheaper if you get it through Dr. Rawstock.

I always thought Criterion stood for quality. I can think of a blockbuster or two that far surpass the merits of "The Rock" and that other one. Action adventure blockbusters doesn't mean typical Hollywood crap. Damn, man. This was sort of a heavy blow for me, but I'll get over it. Still, what a sell out.