Grabs from Peter Jackson Short

[David Sweetman]

Can we go back now to discussing the red footage?

We were, you were the one who subverted it this time. I don't care what you think about Richard, I don't care what Jim thinks about Richard, I don't care what the Pope thinks about Richard. Actually, that would be pretty sweet to know what the Pope thinks. Anyway, let's just talk about the freakin frames.

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

those making decisions decide on who they like rather than who has the talent? I wonder how investors would view that philosphy?

 

Yes! You're right: working with a (talented) person you hate is the best way to garantee the sucess of a project! The best teams are made out of individuals who hate each other, that's a known fact! :rolleyes:

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

(Double post)

Edited April 21, 2007 by Emmanuel Decarpentrie

[Tom York]

Tom, there is a difference between criticising (or being cynical about) about new technology and criticising or attacking an individual who does invest a lot of time in this forum.

 

You are right. And I guess he has never attacked anyone directly.

 

But I will stop now and not say anything further about him. I must admit that his conduct pissed me off. But I am over it. I don't want to just post about other people. I am new here and I am here to learn. If there is anything I can contribute, knowledge-wise, I will. So let the discussion continue. Richard, I do appologize, since you haven't done anything to me. But like Jim said and others have alluded, please try to stop being such an ass. Posts like yours (and I guess, to be fair, this one) really do bring down this forum.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Actually, that would be pretty sweet to know what the Pope thinks.

 

Yea, I want to know what the Pope thinks of Richard Boddington, lets call him and find out.

 

 

 

P.S. The frames do look great, however they do still have something video-ish about them, but not to a level that anyone would care. They are working with things video generaly doens't like too - exteriors, shiney objects etc...

[Mark Williams]

Yes! You're right: working with a (talented) person you hate is the best way to garantee the sucess of a project! The best teams are made out of individuals who hate each other, that's a known fact! :rolleyes:

Surely no one hates anyone here? that is pretty unprofessional isnt it? To get so worked up over a difference in opinion that you would seek to stop someone from making a living? Surely debate and argument is a way to put your case and through this to seek the truth? Isnt that what a forum is for?

[Tom York]

Thats sad are you saying the public get shortchanged because those making decisions decide on who they like rather than who has the talent? I wonder how investors would view that philosphy?

 

Happens all the time. Investors only care about returns on their investment, not if someone with talent gets to shine above the rest. As a producer you try to hire a team that works well together, talent comes second. After all, it's a job... not a talent pageant.

 

P.S. The frames do look great, however they do still have something video-ish about them, but not to a level that anyone would care. They are working with things video generaly doens't like too - exteriors, shiney objects etc...

 

You are right, they do have something of a 'something' to them that is different. I don't know if I would call it videoish, but it is definitelly not filmish. But I would like to see some moving footage to judge properly. For the record, I did NOT like the look of the Superman. And Apocalipto had several shots that did look like video. I am hoping that Red is way better than those cameras. Collateral, on the other hand, had this strange look that takes some getting used to. It almost reminds me of some of those french digital films like Baise Moi.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Tom York

[Mark Williams]

Happens all the time. Investors only care about returns on their investment, not if someone with talent gets to shine above the rest. As a producer you try to hire a team that works well together, talent comes second. After all, it's a job... not a talent pageant.

Talent comes second? People who work well together? come first? WOW I assumed that most people that get to this level in their craft would be professional enough to get on with everyone? So your saying if I audition for a part its not whether I can do it or not its if you like me? Sounds like the casting couch is also alive and well too? Perhaps those looking for a career in film should forgo drama school/ film school and take a course in sucking up? I understand that people wont always get on sometimes even to the point where they cant work together but surely a dislike of someone or a preference for someone else is over ridden by common sense?

[Tom York]

Talent comes second? People who work well together? come first? WOW

 

Okay, first of all, what I said applies to everyone except actors. There is a reason they are the only ones called 'talent'. They are the only ones who can't be replaced (easily). Everone else is replaceable (even directors and producers). There are a few people who you don't mess around with no matter what (trully A-level people). They usually have earned their right to be the way they are, and you just work around them if you are even lucky enough to work with them. But it is usually also the case that they are brilliant and whatever thantrums they are throwing is in benefit of the production.

 

But for the rest of us, no job is guaranteed. Bond companies have the right to fire anyone if the production gets out of hand. If your attitude is slowing down the production and your not the director (or an actor)... guess what, bye bye.

 

I can just picture someone trying to tell me "But he's a really talented grip!"

 

 

P.S. For the record, grips are really awsome people. Problems I've had with crew usually are in other dep's.

[Stephen Williams]

P.S. For the record, grips are really awsome people. Problems I've had with crew usually are in other dep's.

 

Hi Tom,

 

A producer that had problems with crew! Did you pay them? Just curious.

 

Stephen

[Tom York]

P.S.2 It always amazes me how people always think this industry is foremost about talent or quality. If this were the case we'd see nothing but excellent, intellectually stimulating films (the scripts are certainly out there). But we don't. The industry churns out a high degree of shlock because that's what most people want to see. Stuff that you don't have to invest yourself too much in.

 

Hi Tom,

 

A producer that had problems with crew! Did you pay them? Just curious.

 

Stephen

 

Yes. But to be fair, they were not american crew. Not every country has the same work ethic.

[Mark Williams]

Okay, first of all, what I said applies to everyone except actors. There is a reason they are the only ones called 'talent'. They are the only ones who can't be replaced (easily). Everone else is replaceable (even directors and producers). There are a few people who you don't mess around with no matter what (trully A-level people). They usually have earned their right to be the way they are, and you just work around them if you are even lucky enough to work with them. But it is usually also the case that they are brilliant and whatever thantrums they are throwing is in benefit of the production.

 

But for the rest of us, no job is guaranteed. Bond companies have the right to fire anyone if the production gets out of hand. If your attitude is slowing down the production and your not the director (or an actor)... guess what, bye bye.

 

I can just picture someone trying to tell me "But he's a really talented grip!"

P.S. For the record, grips are really awsome people. Problems I've had with crew usually are in other dep's.

That makes sense! And quite right too. So many would want to fill those places it's odd that people wouldn't make it a priority to get along. The debate regarding this camera will really stir up a lot of questions resentment, etc I really didn't believe it myself. With sensors called the mysterian and the big red camera the red drive etc it all seemed too close to april fools day but now I have a handle on it then all I can say is the pictures are awesome. Anyway you have restored my confidence in the system.

[Tom York]

So many would want to fill those places it's odd that people wouldn't make it a priority to get along.

 

Actually almost everyone makes it a priority to get along, except a couple of people here it seems (that's what promted my first post because Mr. Boddington seems so hellbent on not getting along). But what's strange now is that you suddenly switched sides in your argument. First you were saying it didn't matter if people got along because they've got 'talent'. Now you are all pro on getting along. So which is it?

 

 

With sensors called the mysterian and the big red camera the red drive etc it all seemed too close to april fools day but now I have a handle on it then all I can say is the pictures are awesome. Anyway you have restored my confidence in the system.

 

Huh? Did I miss something? What does this have to do with... never mind. I sense that the tone of sarcasm in this part of your post might be linked (in my opinion) to your sense of having lost an argument. But don't feel bad; we're just having a difference of opinion.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Did they use Cooke S4's because that's the glass Peter likes, or are the RED lenses not yet finished?

 

I think the grabs look good. It is hard to say from a still, a jpeg at that, but like Andy pointed out, they were dealing with problematic scenarios.

 

I'd really like to see some Noir type footage.

 

Kudo's Jim. I suppose when you promise groundbreaking things, it's only right and natural for people to be skeptical. I'm still not a big fan of "yes men" but I respect what you've done and look forward to seeing more footage, and eventually working with one.

 

Cheers!

Chad

[Tom York]

Did they use Cooke S4's because that's the glass Peter likes, or are the RED lenses not yet finished?

 

I think I read somewhere that Mr. Jannard did take along the Red lenses but that Peter Jackson used the Cooke's instead because that's what they were confortable with.

[Carl Brighton]

Ok, Ok, Jim J. and I have been e-mailing back and forth. No one needs to know the details, Jim did not in any way threaten me with legal action, offer me money, a free camera. Nothing.

 

So I deleted all of my posts from this thread. So now things will look a bit choppy, but my stuff is gone.

 

I've had my amusement, so that's it. Ok Jim?

 

R,

Oh that's a relief. I was beginning to wonder what JJ had been smoking, (and where I could get some) :D

 

Well I have to say those pictures look pretty impressive from here. Even with the resolution reduced for downloading, they hold up very well, particularly with the resolution up-rezzed again to 1920 x 1080 and displayed on a 50" LCD screen. In fact it was like looking at a movie screen. It would be great to show moving pictures at that resolution, but I don't have the technology to do that yet.

 

I'd say they'd be plenty good enough for the average cinema release, and the colour looks a bloody sight better that we saw on Superman Returns and various other recent digital efforts. The boys at Panavision, Sony etc won't be looking too pleased about now.

 

Now all he's got to do is produce several thousand of the things, but I'm sure if he's gotten this far, he'll be able to see the project through.

 

I guess the difference is, up until now, most of the efforts to produce similar products have been the result of inept executives conning their superiors into spending other people's money on projects that they know won't ever make any money, to justify their own existences. Jannard doesn't have any shareholders, he doesn't have any superiors, he's not spending anybody else's money, and he's got lots of it!

[Tom York]

I'd say they'd be plenty good enough for the average cinema release, and the colour looks a bloody sight better that we saw on Superman Returns and various other recent digital efforts. The boys at Panavision, Sony etc won't be looking too pleased about now.

 

Do you think the images are better than all the other D cameras? The reason I ask is because I also didn't like the look of Superman returns (as I mentioned in a previous post). I am not an expert in comparing still images and knowing which camera is superior. But I would love to find out if this camera can produce organic looking images that don't scream out digital (or is this imposible with digital cameras?). From the stills so far I can't tell. I think the 'digitalness' comes through more in the movement from frame to frame.

[Mark Williams]

Actually almost everyone makes it a priority to get along, except a couple of people here it seems (that's what promted my first post because Mr. Boddington seems so hellbent on not getting along). But what's strange now is that you suddenly switched sides in your argument. First you were saying it didn't matter if people got along because they've got 'talent'. Now you are all pro on getting along. So which is it?

Huh? Did I miss something? What does this have to do with... never mind. I sense that the tone of sarcasm in this part of your post might be linked (in my opinion) to your sense of having lost an argument. But don't feel bad; we're just having a difference of opinion.

Well I dont actually care about losing the argument only about whats right and in that sense it was resolved first of all regarding the talent your explanation was accepted by me

---------------------------------------------------

QUOTE

Okay, first of all, what I said applies to everyone except actors. There is a reason they are the only ones called 'talent'. They are the only ones who can't be replaced (easily). Everone else is replaceable (even directors and producers). There are a few people who you don't mess around with no matter what (trully A-level people). They usually have earned their right to be the way they are, and you just work around them if you are even lucky enough to work with them. But it is usually also the case that they are brilliant and whatever thantrums they are throwing is in benefit of the production.

-----------------------------------------------------

Richard was arguing his case and lets be honest this is a lot to take in. Perhaps a defining moment in the history of the industry whether people recognise it or not. Everything should be scrutinised and people will get upset.

You yourself posted this

 

QUOTE

You are right. And I guess he has never attacked anyone directly.

 

But I will stop now and not say anything further about him. I must admit that his conduct pissed me off. But I am over it. I don't want to just post about other people. I am new here and I am here to learn. If there is anything I can contribute, knowledge-wise, I will. So let the discussion continue. Richard, I do appologize, since you haven't done anything to me. But like Jim said and others have alluded, please try to stop being such an ass. Posts like yours (and I guess, to be fair, this one) really do bring down this forum.

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Actually I wasnt being sarcastic! I tend to take people at their word until they prove their word can't be taken. I never switched sides Tom I just accepted your explanations. I didnt even know it was an argument?

[Carl Brighton]

Do you think the images are better than all the other D cameras? The reason I ask is because I also didn't like the look of Superman returns (as I mentioned in a previous post). I am not an expert in comparing still images and knowing which camera is superior. But I would love to find out if this camera can produce organic looking images that don't scream out digital (or is this imposible with digital cameras?). From the stills so far I can't tell. I think the 'digitalness' comes through more in the movement from frame to frame.

I haven't liked the look of any of the digital productions I've seen so far, (and the argument about the crap pictures being entirely due to some weirdo "creative choice" wore out some time ago).

I mean compare "Superman Returns" on DVD with "Smallville" on DVD. Are you ging to tell me that SR has the better picture?

 

The thing is, most of all of the digital releases seen so far were shot on sound stages with total control over the lighting. Any exterior shots they included tended to be pretty diabolical, unless they were shot at night or under overcast conditions.

 

It was very brave of Jannard to use a shoot like this for his first demo, as aerial shots are notoriusly difficult to get right. I'd like to see a complete movie using it to be sure, or at least some sort of showreel of typical but challenging situations. Putting one in one of those reconditioned MIG fighter jets and doing a aerial tour of the USA would be a pretty good test, and might even make money at the box office!

[Tom York]

Actually I wasnt being sarcastic! I tend to take people at their word until they prove their word can't be taken. I never switched sides Tom I just accepted your explanations. I didnt even know it was an argument?

 

My bad. I think I somehow misread your post then. I appologize. You are right that there is a lot to take in right now with this whole Red business. Especially for someone like me who is not a cinematographer but who wants to understand all this better to make better decisions when it comes time to working with new formats. I think that the more a producer understands about the crafts of the people he works with, the better the chances of the production actually not sucking in the end. Many times it is the producer who ruins things by forcing an ill-informed decision on everyone.

 

I'd like to see a complete movie using it to be sure, or at least some sort of showreel of typical but challenging situations.

 

Hopefully the P. Jackson short will be just that, since it has a lot of aerial photography (at least I think so).

[Mark Williams]

My bad. I think I somehow misread your post then. I appologize. You are right that there is a lot to take in right now with this whole Red business. Especially for someone like me who is not a cinematographer but who wants to understand all this better to make better decisions when it comes time to working with new formats. I think that the more a producer understands about the crafts of the people he works with, the better the chances of the production actually not sucking in the end. Many times it is the producer who ruins things by forcing an ill-informed decision on everyone.

Hopefully the P. Jackson short will be just that, since it has a lot of aerial photography (at least I think so).

Thats alright Tom Hey you could always produce my screenplay

 

http://www.freewebs.com/stormdrainfilms/services.html

 

Set in the UK but could be anywhere. I envisage it as a little like the fantastic four except on a much bigger scale!

[Tom York]

Thats alright Tom Hey you could always produce my screenplay

 

I liked the trailer on your site. Now I'll have to read those first 10 pages that you posted. By the way, I was very interested by your film equipment list. What kind of dolly and crane do you have?

 

But anyway, getting back to the stills... It seems that some people over at reduser didn't like them so now they are trying to color correct them to make them look more like 'film'. Interesting.

[Jesus Sifuentes]

The camera is clearly no good for 3 reasons:

 

- my wife looked at the pictures and said 'I dont like them.'

 

LMAO.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Jesús Sifuentes

[Guest]

Someone who shoots other people down for amusement and now thinks all is okay? This is exactly the kind of person I would never ever want to work with or hire, and the kind of person I would make sure no one I work with would hire either. It is no wonder that a lot of producers I know keep lists of people to consider and people to watch out for. I already know this person will most likely be on several people's to-avoid-at-al-costs lists.

 

Is it bad to black-list people like this person? Naw. Life is too short. Why step in poop if you don't have to.

 

 

In light of this new evidence I feel I must appologize to Richard. I had no idea he was such a successful person. He has his own business? No way. That is very impressive. And on top of that he financed his own 35mm feature? I think we should all step aside and let him continue to be the way he is. He certainly has earned it.

 

Can we go back now to discussing the red footage?

 

 

You are right. And I guess he has never attacked anyone directly.

 

But I will stop now and not say anything further about him. I must admit that his conduct pissed me off. But I am over it. I don't want to just post about other people. I am new here and I am here to learn. If there is anything I can contribute, knowledge-wise, I will. So let the discussion continue. Richard, I do appologize, since you haven't done anything to me. But like Jim said and others have alluded, please try to stop being such an ass. Posts like yours (and I guess, to be fair, this one) really do bring down this forum.

 

All read. Response, nothing.

 

R,

[Mark Williams]

I liked the trailer on your site. Now I'll have to read those first 10 pages that you posted. By the way, I was very interested by your film equipment list. What kind of dolly and crane do you have?

 

But anyway, getting back to the stills... It seems that some people over at reduser didn't like them so now they are trying to color correct them to make them look more like 'film'. Interesting.

 

Thanks Tom! My equipment is only basic stuff

 

http://www.b-hague.co.uk/Universal%20Tripo...0Dolly%20D5.htm

 

The trailer was made using a canon GL2 on a laptop. I composed the sound using acid the effects were done using C4DLE Commotion After effects. Just for something I could show to promote the script with.