Zach Goodwin2

I remember in a conversation with an independent film theater about aspect ratios. I asked him about aspect ratios and he said that each room showing a movie in the movie theater either shows movies at the 1.85:1 or at 2.39:1 aspect ratio. And I asked him about the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, and he said you can project a 2.39:1 aspect ratio movie on a 1.85:1 screen. And that made me think that for a moment how I can get more movie rooms in a theater with my movie or a good chance of getting a movie in there had most of the movies been selected for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio in all the rooms except for the 2.39:1 aspect ratio room, and also if there was a 1.85:1 room left and all the 1.85:1 rooms were taken including the 2.39:1 room. Basically think of it like this a big box can not fit in a small box, but a small box can fit in a big box. So film theater business wise, if we are talking about the specifics of screen size and how limited and select and few the chances are of making it to the silver screen, you would stand more of a chance of making it to the silver screen had you gotten a 2.39:1 aspect ratio film than a 1.85:1 aspect ratio film, because more film theater rooms are open to you instead of closed to you.

I don't bother with gimbals, they tend to look expensive and frustrating. A good old handheld and tripod is the best for me. Sometimes I don't even use tripods but instead stack boxes and books to place a camera on. I have tried to keep up with the shoulder rig phase that some of us have had, but it got too expensive and cumbersome.

I don't know what is best for you because I am not in your shoes. Lots of people telling you what to do is best, and you may still have the same answer you had before and after this question that you made.

From what I read on the net, IMAX resolution of 70mm film is 12k. The latest RED camera goes up to 8k resolution. What if someone who makes the next 65mm sensor like that of the Arri Alexa 65, could very well make the next 12k resolution camera? Thus making the idea of film having the most resolution than digital no longer, and digital being better because of technology. I think we are getting close to that point of digital cameras being as good as film cameras. The flatbed scanner for 35mm film is 6k resolution and already there are cameras with the same color scheme and grain texture quality as film cameras. More cameras are having more sophisticated dynamic ranges too.

I noticed this picture of this stove top this morning, if you look closely you'll see a smile.

Edmika is not the most practical solution there is to getting an FD to eos conversion. Honestly the most practical solution to video is with a specialized video camera and lenses with autofocus and image stabilzation kind of like b4 lenses. Heck, not even using a canon dslr is even practical. Edmika is a solution, which can lead to some interesting results. Do research on the lens mount adapters by Edmika, and make sure there is a good amount of instruction on the lens and also that you know a lot about the lens distance from the camera, but I can assure you the product is real.

I like showing off the pictures and videos from my camera and lens.

I am kind of surprised this time that I haven't gotten any likes on my stills. ?

Here is a video still with the Canon T2i with the FD 35-105 F/3.5

New photo taken with T2i on FD 35-105 F/3.5

There have been films that I have watched that looked good on VHS quality or DVD quality and still look good to this day.

Hmmmph, maybe then I will be able to watch movies and tv shows at an actual 24 fps.

It shows how technologically advanced we have been since the start of digital cameras.

I got the edmika mount fd 35-105 f/3.5 back. I will take some more pictures and videos and will update them soon. New photo taken with Edmika Fd 35-105 F/3.5, Looks like some of the bugs ate some of the berries while I was gone. ?

That was very funny. xD

New picture taken with Canon T2i, OM 28-70 F/2.8

Take that back I have spent thousands of hours studying filmmaking and photography and have made thousands of pictures and videos.

Nevermind, I did not really spend 5,000 hours or had 5,000 pictures or videos. I don't actually know the number to all of this. Nevermind again it may really be only about 4,000 hours and 4,000 pictures and videos.

I am 24 years old. Ever since I was 10 years old, I have taken 5,000 photos and videos in my life. I have spent 5,000 hours studying filmmaking and photography. This is the 5,000th one. I can't show all of them because either they are personal, have been deleted, or are too boring. It has taken Thomas Edison 10,000 tries to get the light bulb and it has taken the Beetles 10,000 hours to be the best band there is. I have taken most of my pictures and videos in natural light.

New photo taken with Canon T2i with Olympus OM 28-70 F/2.8

New picture taken with Canon T2i with OM Olympus 28-70 F/2.8

New picture I took with Canon T2i Olympus OM 28-70 f/2.8

*Anime Music Videos *Music Videos *Haunted House *Let's play videos *Unboxing videos *Greenscreen *Use yourself as two actors *Travel Videos *Test Videos

*Vine-like films *Reaction to News Stories *Sock-Puppet Skits *Claymation Skits *Paper Orgami Skits *Stop Motion with Toys Skits *Royalty-Free Plays With One Person *Skits on Simple Jokes *Shorts on Tone *Stories around a computer *Stories around a phone *Stories about inner thoughts and dreams *Movies except done in a cheap backyard home movie style *Cardboard *Vlogs *Dancing *How-To Videos Tell me what ideas do you have for short films with no money?