Search results

No you're not wrong. If you know the look you're going for, it's completely defendable to get as close as possible to it in-cam !

This is just proof that you're not a good boom op. It takes skill and practice to be a good boom op you can just excpect to swing the stuff like a boss just like that. So what you can do is tell the director that you're not qualified enough to be booming and that he should find someone else.

All true. The Oscars was part of the marketing of the movie. The whole movie is made by French people and should have fallen under the "Best Foreign Movie". But they made it an American movie (forget the details) to widen the audience.

You just heard of the movie ? After 5 Oscars, including Best Movie, Best Actor and Best Director ? Watch it and you'll know why it did good. It's not exactly a silent movie. That's Hazanavicius touch, he mixes old and modern in such a way (the OSS movies are so fucking cult in France, and...

Dude, you're not on the right forum. This one is for filmmaking, surprisingly, not picking-up women.

It's impossible. That just means you have no idea how to use a lens. If you zoom all the way to 300mm, you will have to be far enough from the dude that you'll have no trouble focusing on him.

Or just get a longer lens. 90mm would do it.

We got that. We're just saying that what you are proposing is not a practical exercise of hyperfocal which is a different thing (not only in Theory but also in Practice). As for this particular individual... I have no more idea on how to deal with him. I feel like he hasn't learned anything in...

:lol: We should really start an H44 contest :D.

Yes, but that's not hyperfocal. You're talking about putting everything in the shot far away from the camera. Then yes, focusing on Infinity will make everything in focus. But again, that's not AT ALL a case of hyperfocal. So stop this nonsense of "practical" vs "theory". Hyperfocal is...

So how much do you charge for post ? I won't be able to afford a sound production team and will end up doing it myself ( + probably some guys I know through a friend who's in filmschool). There is a lot I can give to beginners but sound-post is not one of them.

Do you have a source for this ? It doesn't make any sense for me... If you turn the ring all the way, you're focusing on infty (if you're lucky, most of the time, everything will be blurry because you'll be past infty). And by definition, "infty" is independent of the position of the camera...

Hey guys, I've had a short movie idea stuck in my head for a few days and I figured I might as well try to do it. I'm in the process of writing the script but I'm also thinking about the technical departement. Since I really believe in this one, I'm prepared to throw in all the money I have put...

Man, no, that's not hyperfocal. Hyperfocal is a certain finite distance. When you focus on THAT distance (and not as far as the lens allows which would be infinity (or beyond if the lens is not perfectly calibrated for infty)) you have acceptable focus from half that distance to infinity.

I guess you can't. You can probably record them for reference but you'll probably need to do some ADR (best moment would be right after you turn down the generator)

How dare you say "no thanks" to the face of knowledge ? How can invaluable insight on the pro way of doing stuff we care about be unnecessary ? APE, you don't need to bother with people unwilling to learn new things.

Well, you need to install QuickTime.

I'd guess so yes. Audience won't watch the movie with headphones (or at least, most of the audience) and that needs to be taken into account.

It's obviously for lack of a better option (on laptop for instance).

I have a question too. I think my ear is evolving and I'm finding more and more difficulty to enjoy badly compressed music when before I was like "dude, who cares". I was listening on some earplugs to a Vivaldi and found the experience horrible. I decided to 1/find myself better audio files...