Greg's & Roger's Comments...

**Alex** · July 30th, 2003, 10:16 PM

As for the author of the original topic post that started it all, he wanted to shoot a demo piece for his reel, no mention of it being for a bank commercial was ever stated.

He wanted to put together a DP's reel and NY was his location. The shots he could have stolen with Super-8 would have created a different style of reel than if he went out with a more conventional, 16mm or 35mm rig.

I doubt I could have put together a Set-up that met the requirements I needed in either 16mm or 35mm. You may believe the proper package could have been put together, but I know how my Super-8 camera operates and I don't believe the exact same options exist in either 16mm or 35mm.

The amount of equipment needed in either 16mm or 35mm would mean the project would need either extra help to carry the equipment (I filmed alone), or significantly extra time to complete the 3400 frames that I shot, one by one. A 16mm or 35mm set-up would have actually proved a distraction to the public as I all of my shots were along city streets, and once again, I don't believe I could have worked anywhere near as fast.

Super-8, just as the proponents of Mini-Dv have said, allowed me to fly under the radar.

**MovieStuff** · July 30th, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Alex:
As for the author of the original topic post that started it all, he wanted to shoot a demo piece for his reel, no mention of it being for a bank commercial was ever stated.

Totally incorrect. There was no demo reel, Alex, and I never said there was as bank commercial. The original poster had a job to shoot a 30 second PSA with a $3000 budget. He had exteriors on the street and he had interiors in a large bank lobby with high ceilings. No location sound. He said he really wanted to shoot 16mm but felt doing so on a $3000 budget might not be possible, which is why he inquired about super 8. I said it was very possible, and appropriate, to shoot on 16mm and gave valid reasons (namely his client expected it). You said it wasn't possible, gave bogus reasons why super 8 would be a better choice and then insulted me by claiming that I hated super 8 or I wouldn't be talking about 16mm on a super 8 forum. The guy deleted the topic and left. Things simply got ugly from there on out. There was no demo reel ever mentioned. There was, however, a specific desire to shoot 16mm by the original poster and you completely ignored his needs in favor of propping up super 8, even if it was inappropriate for the job at hand.

Roger

**Alex** · July 30th, 2003, 10:48 PM

The guy didn't delete the topic because of anything that was posted. Where did you get that from.

He did say he had a demo piece he needed to make for his cinemtographer's reel. Why would he have to shoot in a bank lobby if it's a demo piece for his reel?

Our discussion centered around the mobility and portability of the different formats. You were resolute in stating that a canon scoopic could basically be used in place of a Super-8 camera in any circumstance.

You stated that the flexibility of 16mm with a canon scoopic would allow one to shoot in places that would look better in 16mm than Super-8.

What you didn't account for was that the shots were not pre-selected, and since shot selection was wide open, I knew that there were some shots that could be done easier and quicker in Super-8mm than in 16mm.

Just so you understand one final thing, I recommend my clients to use what works best for the situation at hand, irregardless of whether or not I own the piece of equipment needed to do the job.

**MovieStuff** · July 30th, 2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Alex:
The guy didn't delete the topic because of anything that was posted. Where did you get that from.

I never said he deleted the post for any reason that you or I would be privy to, Alex. I simply stated the fact that he deleted it. Then again, how would you know he didn't delete because of anything that was posted? [img]wink.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Alex:
He did say he had a demo piece he needed to make for his cinemtographer's reel.

Nope.

Originally posted by Alex:
Why would he have to shoot in a bank lobby if it's a demo piece for his reel?

Because you are wrong. It was not a demo. It was a PSA with a $3000 budget as I described. There was a topic (much later) that someone in New York wanted to shoot a demo reel and specifically wanted to shoot on super 8. This was not that topic. This guy wanted to shoot 16mm from the beginning.

Originally posted by Alex:

You stated that the flexibility of 16mm with a canon scoopic would allow one to shoot in places that would look better in 16mm than Super-8.

That is correct. I still stand by that statement, which is 100% accurate. I won't debate that issue again.

Roger

**Alex** · July 30th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Well that's interesting. I do remember the $3,000 budget, and I do remember the cinematographer's demo reel, but now you are saying that is a completely separate issue and post.

Well, we may never know now, you seem to have some of the details different than I do.

As for the Canon Scoopic issue, I agree with your claim that in many instances you could pull out a Scoopic and grab a shot almost as easily as in Super-8. (however you still have to load the film and the set-up is bigger and heavier).

My point was if the shots to be aquired are up to the actual cinematographer shooting the piece, than someone with a Super-8 camera could creatively come up with a piece to rival what could be done with a Scoopic.

You seem to be dwelling on the notion that this was a pre-scripted piece. I think we differ on that point, which will probably make all the other points moot as well.

**Sam Gowland** · July 30th, 2003, 11:34 PM

*Trainee peace keeper*

As interesting as this may or may not be ... as an outsider can I make the suggestion that you BOTH drop it. The guy in question(or his original post) doesn't appear to be around anymore to prove either way once or for all which of you two has the correct details on this anyway.

You both obviously feel you are right and who knows you both could be totally right in your own way. Heaven knows you both sound convincing. So neither are going to concede to the other for fear of 'losing face'.

What one person writes/says is not always what another person reads/hears and certainly someones comprehension of a situation is not always what was intended:

"Language is like shot silk; so much depends on the angle at which it is held." J.Fowles

Move on guys - all of you.... and stop frightening the potential new ppl away [img]wink.gif[/img]

**Alex** · July 31st, 2003, 12:09 AM

and that comment by Optimal Star is a perfect example of the type of post NOT made by Brantley that gives credit to both sides while telling both sides to move on.

Optimal Star, please take a bow.

**MovieStuff** · July 31st, 2003, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Alex:
Well that's interesting. I do remember the $3,000 budget, and I do remember the cinematographer's demo reel, but now you are saying that is a completely separate issue and post.

Well, we may never know now, you seem to have some of the details different than I do.

Others that were there remembered it. They commented that my response was not out of line because the buy WANTED to shoot 16mm and was under the false impression that he could not.

Originally posted by Alex:
As for the Canon Scoopic issue, I agree with your claim that in many instances you could pull out a Scoopic and grab a shot almost as easily as in Super-8. (however you still have to load the film and the set-up is bigger and heavier).

A distinction without a difference. Like saying that a Honda Civic is heavier than a Geo Metro. Technically that may be true but had no affect on the final usage. A Canon Scoopic is no bigger than a Canon Double Double Super 8mm camera. In fact, they are the same camera and, if I had to shoot in super 8, then I would use the Canon Double Super 8 because it would let me shoot on 100foot loads. So the Canon Scoopic for 16mm would offer higher resolution with the same camera weight.

Originally posted by Alex:
My point was if the shots to be aquired are up to the actual cinematographer shooting the piece, than someone with a Super-8 camera could creatively come up with a piece to rival what could be done with a Scoopic.

Not in a bank lobby with high ceilings and a limited lighting package, which would be the case on a $3000 budget.

Originally posted by Alex:
You seem to be dwelling on the notion that this was a pre-scripted piece.

You seem to be ignoring it.

Originally posted by Alex:
I think we differ on that point, which will probably make all the other points moot as well.

Whatever.

**Alex** · July 31st, 2003, 12:56 AM

Roger, there is no mention of a bank in the original post, I just checked.

My peace plan in this issue is to blame Brantley for benefiting from the huge hits the forum got during our debate, without tending to the combatants.

Kind of like what happened in "Far and Away". (I get to be Tom Cruise!)