Can you shoot a major film with the AF100...yes or no?

[EndCredits]

ERMAHGERD!!! Zak, you made my day
Been feeling down about film making and how negative some people can be. Love the look of the trailer, totally picked me up.

Posting on FB now

 

[Adamsenoj]

thanks or the kind words everyone. I had a kit of nikons that i've collected over the years and had rented the 11mm-16mm tokina. here's who did what on our crew.

1. Zak Forsman. director, writer, cinematographer, camera op, make-up, fight choreography, props, special fx, visual fx, colorist, post sound effects editor and mixer.
2. Kevin K. Shah. producer, locations, props, rentals, scheduling, budgeting, lodging, food.
3. Randolph Scott. 1st assistant director, slate, call sheets, props, transpo.
4. Jamie Cobb. editor, location sound mixer & boom op, wardrobe, props, co-producer.
5. Sam Krueger. lighting cameraman, gaffer, grip, asst camera, dolly, jib, all around problem solver.
6. Erik Reese. transpo, grip, gaffer, asst camera, food, props, co-producer

I'm probably forgetting some of the roles covered. as you can see, if any of us had faltered, entire "depts" would suffer. fortunately these are all good friends, and one even happens to be my wife.

Zak, the trailer looks great. Really well done. Arguably one of the most filmic pieces of footage I have ever seen from the AF100.

But one thing in your crew list confused me. You list Cinematographer and Lighting Cameraman as two separated positions. They are basically the same. A Lighting Cameraman is just how a DP is called in the English system. The difference is that he only takes care of lighting and not operating matters such as framing and positioning. But I'm sure you already knew that. The fact that you seem to be in the U.S. also adds confusion to your choice or terms. Since he was a gaffer too, I wonder why the need for the Lighting Cameraman title? Nothing big and you of course may give titles on your film as you see fit. It just caught my eye because I have worked on my share of indie projects where people wear several hats and giving credit is always a bit tricky. So I was just wondering about your criteria.

Congrats again on the project. If the story holds up to the images I think you will have a winner in your hands.

 

[XSVpro]

Wow Zak this looks awesome, totally professional and very well shot. Did you have a BTS guy? I would enjoy watching that as much as the movie!

Any chance you can share some of your settings or have you stated a tread on this awesome film somewhere on here?

great stuff, tweeting/Facebooking the trailer now.

http://thesabicompany.com/downanddangerous/

 

[Rod Pike]

The answer is in my strapline. It was said to me by the president of a photographic society that I had just joined nearly 50 years ago, when I wanted to buy a pentax SIA and be the dogs b***ocks!!
Cheers!
Rod

 

[XSVpro]

If you can have one millionth of the success of Pink Flamingos - shot on a camera you wouldn't even let a dog crap on today - with whatever you shoot on your AF100, you'd think you died and went to heaven. Unfortunately, few - if any - people reading this board will have anywhere near such success and subsequent career.


So what was the question? Oh, that's right - "camera"... HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!


The camera is about as relevant as you make it. If you focus your film on camera pyrotechnics, well, you'll need a nifty camera. If you focus on the content, then your camera merely needs to focus.

I found a little off target, there are people on here that are hobbyist, event shooters, commercial creators and DPs to name but a few and you mainly seem to be questioning if the film the OP wants to shoot is worth the time over his actual question of "Can you shoot a major film with the AF100" hence the advice, content is king and hardi haha, you think it's just the "camera" that's important...


Can I just say that DVXuser (in my opinion) is primarily filled with aspiring camera operators, owners, DPs and hobbyist as well as the odd sole Director. Our job is the camera, its use and how to compose and light the scene in order to demonstrate the relationship of the characters to the audience or to capture a head and shoulders shot/sound bite or action to the best of our ability and that includes knowing how to light a scene for the digital strengths and weakness of the AF100, I.e. the highlights need to be protected and that involves a skilful use of fill light etc etc. How good a performance or a story is is not our first priority as a DP, in fact thats nothing to do with us, that's a producers, directors and of course, writers job, I don't even talk to the actors on set, that's there home once they set foot on to it and its my job to capture the truth they provide, its not my job to question the content, i coud of done that at the first script reading.

It seems quite a few people on here are starting to assume we are all aspiring Directors? I'm sure a few of us are and a few of us are already directors and are on here to talk to DPs and what not but I would hazard a guess that most are looking at the Wally Pfisters, Shane Hurlbuts and Roger Deakins and trying to head in that direction? if not then maybe as a news camera man or documentary film maker or hobbyist. I'm sure I have missed a few sub genres but I'm sure no one here is really trying to be a jack of all trades and are more camera/lighting focused?


I say this as the post above is a typical example, the OP is asking if the AF100 camera is capable of shooting a feature film, if he's Directing the film too and wearing many hats (like Zak), in this post he most clearly is wearing a DPs hat with a touch of producer concerned with the practicalities of shooting a major film with the AF100. It is a practical, equipment based question, not "the majestic of film making" question. You can be as floaty as you like in regards to "you need a great script" "are you ready" and "it's all about the content man" while mentioning a film that you would have to be in your 50s (now) in order to of been around a conscious age when it was released but I think you're missing the point. It almost feels like a snobbery remark, as if everyone here is just worried about the tech? You even laugh at the question being about the camera? Of course it is about the camera, that's what this site largely is for, you don't see any stickies for film making techniques or discussing crossing the line do you? and if we're talking millions of revenue I could easily quote a Jackass film but I won't as I'm talking to a DP/camera operator and doubt any of us want that to be our future. People have mentioned The Raid and Act of Valor films for the cameras used, not because they put them in the same list as the god father.


No, the question is about the camera because the person wants to know if the camera will hold up to a theatrical presentation and what the turn around is for a lighting setup with the AF100. Time is shots on a film and the AF needs to be treated well on set to get the best out of it, a Raw camera will have an easier time on set than an AF100 and an iPhone will need even more work. The question is about the camera not the film.


Lets drop the Yoda s**t and talk about cinematography and the nessecary or not nessecary equipment to get the job done and please, don't predict the future careers of fellow camera operators based on a directors or writers success with a movie 40 years ago.


To the OP;


Yes, the AF100 is more than capable of creating a cinematic worthy image, technically on paper the camera is more equipped and easier to use than the Sony cameras used on Star Wars 2 and 3 but your budget for lighting probably isn't and its in the lighting that you will get the best out of this camera, being stressed it doesn't like. I hope others chime in but if your factoring in 4 lighting setups per hour (which could mean 4 shots and up per hour), then you will have the time to capture a beautiful but well organised film on the AF100, at least that is my experience so far. Zak, HSScully and shooter are wel worth talking to in this regard as they have achieved fantastic results with various budgets using the AF100

 

[Spartacus]

Amen to that.

 

[Zak Forsman]

thanks adam. yeah i'm aware of the overlap in the terms and there was indeed overlap in what he and i did on set. it was our way of acknowledging that sam also had a degree of autonomy with the look of the movie at times when I had to focus on other things. i established the "rules" of the movie's look and he, maybe 30-40% of the time, used those as a guide to make creative decisions in lighting the scene. my understanding about the difference between a lighting cameraman and a cinematographer is the same as yours. while I had control over framing and lens choices, sam did not. but his work exceeded that of a gaffer and I wanted to make sure he was credited for the work he did.


zak

Zak, the trailer looks great. Really well done. Arguably one of the most filmic pieces of footage I have ever seen from the AF100.

But one thing in your crew list confused me. You list Cinematographer and Lighting Cameraman as two separated positions. They are basically the same. A Lighting Cameraman is just how a DP is called in the English system. The difference is that he only takes care of lighting and not operating matters such as framing and positioning. But I'm sure you already knew that. The fact that you seem to be in the U.S. also adds confusion to your choice or terms. Since he was a gaffer too, I wonder why the need for the Lighting Cameraman title? Nothing big and you of course may give titles on your film as you see fit. It just caught my eye because I have worked on my share of indie projects where people wear several hats and giving credit is always a bit tricky. So I was just wondering about your criteria.

Congrats again on the project. If the story holds up to the images I think you will have a winner in your hands.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Wow Zak this looks awesome, totally professional and very well shot. Did you have a BTS guy? I would enjoy watching that as much as the movie!

Any chance you can share some of your settings or have you stated a tread on this awesome film somewhere on here?

great stuff, tweeting/Facebooking the trailer now.

http://thesabicompany.com/downanddangerous/

I've maintained a thread on making the movie here... http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-AND-DANGEROUS-quot-new-update-one-year-later

Let me look up my scene profile. i'll get back to you shortly.

 

[XSVpro]

Thanks Zak, ill be looking into this. I think you have probably created one of the best examples of the AF100 to date!

 

[Zak Forsman]

Pretty sure these were my scene file settings most of the time. It was a year ago so I can't say 100%.

Detail -4
V Detail -4
Coring -2
Chroma Level -7
Chroma Phase 0
Color temp 0
Master Ped -2
DRS Off
Gamma Cinelike D
Matrix Norm1
Skin Tone Off

 

[Zim]

Zak is that the same actor who was in your D90 movie?

Pretty sure these were my scene file settings most of the time. It was a year ago so I can't say 100%.

Detail -4
V Detail -4
Coring -2
Chroma Level -7
Chroma Phase 0
Color temp 0
Master Ped -2
DRS Off
Gamma Cinelike D
Matrix Norm1
Skin Tone Off

 

[XSVpro]

Pretty sure these were my scene file settings most of the time. It was a year ago so I can't say 100%.

Detail -4
V Detail -4
Coring -2
Chroma Level -7
Chroma Phase 0
Color temp 0
Master Ped -2
DRS Off
Gamma Cinelike D
Matrix Norm1
Skin Tone Off

Thanks Zak, any particular post work flow with these settings? Denoise followed by grain perhaps? I guess the budget and time allowed for a fairly comprehensive lighting setup.

I'm trawling through your film thread, how many locations?

Dig the poster by the way!

 

[Zak Forsman]

Thanks Zak, any particular post work flow with these settings? Denoise followed by grain perhaps? I guess the budget and time allowed for a fairly comprehensive lighting setup.

I'm trawling through your film thread, how many locations?

Dig the poster by the way!

36 day shoot, 24 locations. i'm denoising and adding grain, yes. color grade generally involves cooling down the backgrounds while bringing warmth back to the skin tones through secondaries.

 

[Zak Forsman]

yep, that's my buddy John T. Woods.

Zak is that the same actor who was in your D90 movie?

 

[dtzfilms]

Zak, the trailer looks great. Really well done. Arguably one of the most filmic pieces of footage I have ever seen from the AF100.

But one thing in your crew list confused me. You list Cinematographer and Lighting Cameraman as two separated positions. They are basically the same. A Lighting Cameraman is just how a DP is called in the English system. The difference is that he only takes care of lighting and not operating matters such as framing and positioning. But I'm sure you already knew that. The fact that you seem to be in the U.S. also adds confusion to your choice or terms. Since he was a gaffer too, I wonder why the need for the Lighting Cameraman title? Nothing big and you of course may give titles on your film as you see fit. It just caught my eye because I have worked on my share of indie projects where people wear several hats and giving credit is always a bit tricky. So I was just wondering about your criteria.

Congrats again on the project. If the story holds up to the images I think you will have a winner in your hands.

I saw that, too. Cinematographer and lighting camera man and the British distinction - I just assumed Zak operated the camera, while he consulted and worked with the "Lighting Camera man, gaffer" person. But anyway. I've watched this trailer a few times now and I'm going to London to shoot a feature and in my mind I was prepared for a certain quality of film, but seeing Zak's accomplished work here has raised my expectations way up. It is possible to shoot something very well. The lighting is suberb, shot composition is great, the acting doesn't sound bad, I want to see the story. Definitely want to see the story. Good stuff, man. Very good stuff. Can a major film be shot with an AF100? I'm sure JJ Abrams would and we wouldn't care.

 

[OldCorpse]

Thank you XSVpro for the effort you made in writing out your post. I think there may be a misunderstanding here - because I do agree with many of your points. I'd like to clear up any misunderstanding.

I found a little off target, there are people on here that are hobbyist, event shooters, commercial creators and DPs to name but a few and you mainly seem to be questioning if the film the OP wants to shoot is worth the time over his actual question of "Can you shoot a major film with the AF100" hence the advice, content is king and hardi haha, you think it's just the "camera" that's important...

No, I did not question if the OP's film was worth the time to make it. That's entirely made up by you. Pay attention. I did not write that the OP "thought the camera is important". You made that up.

On the contrary - and contrary to your assertion - I in fact did address the OP's question, which was: "Do you think you can make competitive, sellable, potentially theatric releases with the Panasonic AF100?"

My answer was an emphatic "YES" with an example cited of a film (PF) made with a much worse camera that fulfilled all those conditions. That was the sum total. Pay attention to the words on the page, not the projection you make up in your mind.

Can I just say that DVXuser (in my opinion) is primarily filled with aspiring camera operators, owners, DPs and hobbyist as well as the odd sole Director. Our job is the camera, its use and how to compose and light the scene in order to demonstrate the relationship of the characters to the audience or to capture a head and shoulders shot/sound bite or action to the best of our ability and that includes knowing how to light a scene for the digital strengths and weakness of the AF100, I.e. the highlights need to be protected and that involves a skilful use of fill light etc etc. How good a performance or a story is is not our first priority as a DP, in fact thats nothing to do with us, that's a producers, directors and of course, writers job, I don't even talk to the actors on set, that's there home once they set foot on to it and its my job to capture the truth they provide, its not my job to question the content, i coud of done that at the first script reading.

I agree with you 100%. I too am irritated, when a technical question asked by a DP or anyone interested in film is answered by reference to content with zero attempt to answer the OP's technical question. We are in total agreement. But that is not the situation that obtains here - it is something you projected. Pay attention to the facts, not your projections.

It seems quite a few people on here are starting to assume we are all aspiring Directors? I'm sure a few of us are and a few of us are already directors and are on here to talk to DPs and what not but I would hazard a guess that most are looking at the Wally Pfisters, Shane Hurlbuts and Roger Deakins and trying to head in that direction? if not then maybe as a news camera man or documentary film maker or hobbyist. I'm sure I have missed a few sub genres but I'm sure no one here is really trying to be a jack of all trades and are more camera/lighting focused?

You're repeating yourself. See my response above.

I say this as the post above is a typical example, the OP is asking if the AF100 camera is capable of shooting a feature film, if he's Directing the film too and wearing many hats (like Zak), in this post he most clearly is wearing a DPs hat with a touch of producer concerned with the practicalities of shooting a major film with the AF100. It is a practical, equipment based question, not "the majestic of film making" question.

First of all, the OP is the director, so talking in circles about how most here are DPs and technical people misses the point. The OP IS IN FACT a director. The OP wears different hats, yes, including a DP. But his question was broader than just from the perspective of a DP: "Do you think you can make competitive, sellable, potentially theatric releases with the Panasonic AF100?" - as it is not the job of the DP to worry how sellable a film is. You are very concerned about not stepping outside of the concerns of a DP, so I'd think you'd notice this here, and clearly you didn't - so pay attention. And pay attention to the OP's question. Clearly, he is very much wearing his director and even producer hats here in addition to the DP hat, what with "competitive, sellable, potentially theatric". Pay attention to the actual question, not what you project the question to be in your mind.

You can be as floaty as you like in regards to "you need a great script" "are you ready" and "it's all about the content man" while mentioning a film that you would have to be in your 50s (now) in order to of been around a conscious age when it was released but I think you're missing the point.

If I'm missing a point here, it's only because that sentence is making nonsensical points. Of what relevance is it how old someone must have been to be around when a film is released? The Godfather and Jaws were both released around the same time, can they no longer be referenced because... what exactly? Or does one actually have had to have been around when a film is released to reference it? Only 90 year olds could possibly reference Citizen Kane? Gee whiz, I'm not 50 yet, my wife is just over 30 and we've both seen "Pink Flamingos" before we even met - what now? Last year, we went to see John Waters talk at Hollywood Forever, and the audience was filled with 20 and 30 year olds. None of them were around when PF was released - what exactly is your point? That the film is irrelevant? I guess we should never reference anything from before 5 years? Or 4? What's the magic number? Because PF is still very popular - with young college kids especially.

It almost feels like a snobbery remark, as if everyone here is just worried about the tech?

No, that's entirely your projection. Pay attention to what's written, not the projection in your mind.

You even laugh at the question being about the camera? Of course it is about the camera, that's what this site largely is for, you don't see any stickies for film making techniques or discussing crossing the line do you?

I laughed at the notion that the camera would be of primary concern about whether "you can make competitive, sellable, potentially theatric releases". I cited an example of a film shot with a much lesser camera and was "competitive, sellable, theatric release". So insofar as that is the aspect of the "about the camera" that was asked - and that was exactly what was asked - pay attention - I answered it precisely to the point. Pay attention.

and if we're talking millions of revenue I could easily quote a Jackass film but I won't as I'm talking to a DP/camera operator and doubt any of us want that to be our future.

No, you are entirely wrong with every part of that statement. Pay attention to the question by the OP: "Do you think you can make competitive, sellable, potentially theatric releases with the Panasonic AF100?" Citing millions in box office of PF - or Jackass (the first of which I actually liked!) - addresses itself squarely at that question - it IS sellable, because it sold - did boffo box office - and was a theatric release. And NO you are not just speaking to a DP/camera operator - pay attention, those are not the questions of a camera operator "sellable". He is also a director (and maybe producer) and that is in his purview as a director/producer. As to whether people would like to see the success of a Jackass in their future - speak for yourself, I bet many would love to. Wrong on all counts.

People have mentioned The Raid and Act of Valor films for the cameras used, not because they put them in the same list as the god father.

That is correct. But it is also correct that in order to prove the point, they had to point to successful movies - and so did I. If you shot a film on camera X, and the film was not successful, would that be a good example? No. So too with my example. The camera in PF was not an impediment to that success, and it was much, much worse than the AF100 a point I specifically made and mentioned the AF100 in my post - ergo...

No, the question is about the camera because the person wants to know if the camera will hold up to a theatrical presentation and what the turn around is for a lighting setup with the AF100. Time is shots on a film and the AF needs to be treated well on set to get the best out of it, a Raw camera will have an easier time on set than an AF100 and an iPhone will need even more work. The question is about the camera not the film.

And by pointing out that films shot on much worse cameras than the AF100 managed to prove themselves during production and the films were not only distributed theatrically ("theatric releases"), but were very successful ("competitive", "sellable"), you are pointing out that if THOSE could do it (including the namesake of this site - dvx100), so can the AF100.

The context of my answer was that someone mentioned content FIRST - and it wasn't me. And mentioned it by saying "if you film a dog taking a crap under a tree" it would be worthless regardless of the cam used. I couldn't help noticing that in fact a famous cult film had it's most famous scene involving a dog taking a crap - and I riffed off of that. A lot of irony involved - and a welcome object lesson in success of content, as it launched a very successful film career

Lets drop the Yoda s**t and talk about cinematography and the nessecary or not nessecary equipment to get the job done and please, don't predict the future careers of fellow camera operators based on a directors or writers success with a movie 40 years ago.

Err, I didn't predict the future of a camera operator - I remarked on the odds of success for directors - and the OP is a director on this project (in addition to perhaps a DP or other hats he may wear). I made an accurate observation about odds, not a prediction about careers. Pay attention. And merits of film technique and artistic result hold timeless truths and are not limited to a horizon of 40 year, or 5 years or anything - they stand the test of time.

As to dropping Yoda ****, I think we should drop attacking other posters and concentrate on providing one's own perspective in answer to the OP - attacking other posters is not productive and tends to be OT. If you have a technical disagreement with what someone says, please address that specifically... but before you do, make sure that you are in fact addressing things said by the poster, not a projection in your own mind. Pay attention, and worry about your own advice. Don't address yourself to other posters with off-base attacks for imaginary offenses - instead, address the OP... as you did below, only instead of writing "To the OP" you should have limited yourself to just this part and skipped the entire misguided text that came before this bit right here:

To the OP;

Yes, the AF100 is more than capable of creating a cinematic worthy image, technically on paper the camera is more equipped and easier to use than the Sony cameras used on Star Wars 2 and 3 but your budget for lighting probably isn't and its in the lighting that you will get the best out of this camera, being stressed it doesn't like. I hope others chime in but if your factoring in 4 lighting setups per hour (which could mean 4 shots and up per hour), then you will have the time to capture a beautiful but well organised film on the AF100, at least that is my experience so far. Zak, HSScully and shooter are wel worth talking to in this regard as they have achieved fantastic results with various budgets using the AF100

Bravo! Best of luck!

 

[XSVpro]

Pay attention, read your response;

But take that dog into the street, have it take a crap and then the actor picks it up and eats it, and you have a masterpiece - "Pink Flamingos". A film that made millions and an enduring career and is still a cult classic.

Script, actor, camera setups, lighting,

Pink Flamingos - all actors amateurs (including the dog); camera setups and lighting - a joke... as was the sound, and pretty much each and every technical aspect. Made for almost no money, no permits and no insurance and so on.

But guess what?

Content. It had energy and the kind of courage and 'in your eye' defiance that DEMOLISHES the tens of thousands of films made with better technical means, bigger budgets, better actors, giant marketing efforts and so on. It prevailed on merit, on the passion of its fans and word of mouth. Personally, I prefer Pink Flamingos to Star Wars, but that's a matter of taste and opinion. But what is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact, is that Pink Flamingoes was a huge commercial success and launched a durable career for the director, and is a film that is still watched today - watched more than many Oscar winners of years past that have long since fallen into obscurity. The films that were mentioned so far, like Raid Redemption, Acts of Valor and so on? Let's see who talks about them - and watches them - in 10 years... heck, in 5 years! But guess what - people will still be watching and talking and loving Pink Flamingoes - as they have been since 1972, over 40 years now.

So you are actually asking him to bottle this, to find a way to reproduce this? by all accounts it shouldn't of worked but its script saved the day. Unfortunately this is not the norm and you'd be best off preparing not to make these mistakes. That does not mean shoot a crap script.

If you can have one millionth of the success of Pink Flamingos - shot on a camera you wouldn't even let a dog crap on today - with whatever you shoot on your AF100, you'd think you died and went to heaven. Unfortunately, few - if any - people reading this board will have anywhere near such success and subsequent career.

So what was the question? Oh, that's right - "camera"... HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA! [So you agree its about the Camera?]

The camera is about as relevant as you make it. If you focus your film on camera pyrotechnics, well, you'll need a nifty camera. If you focus on the content, then your camera merely needs to focus.

Now read the actual post;

I see ALOT of cinema worthy images from the AF100 and at the same time alot of debate about whether or not it is a viable broadcast and cinema level camera. As an owner I have my own ideas but I want to know everyone's honest opinion [Asking about the Camera]. Do you think you can make competitive, sellable, potentially theatric releases with the Panasonic AF100? If so, with what equipment and under what circumstances? [Asking about kit] And if you don't think so, please tell me why you believe Red, Arri, Panavision, Canon, DSLR's, or BMCC are the only ones to hold that distinction in your opinion. [Asking about rival cameras, if you think the AF100 is not up to the task]

Thanks!

And note the thread title;

Can you shoot a major film with the AF100...yes or no?

Pay attention;

I said you "seem" to be commenting whether the OP's film was worth the time to make, not that you "are", my opinion maybe mistaken but im not "making anything up". His post is pretty specific to equipment needs when using the AF100 or why should he use a rival camera, i did say that he has his DP and Producer hat on, i don't hear him asking if he will capture great performances, or if the AF100 will work with his script or if he can maintain actors on the third line while achieving flat space or if his Content is all that matters. Thats a Director, they do not care of the camera, they care about the film, the performances and the look. Thats why they hire a DP to consult with in regards to camera choices and you know what it usually comes from a discussion on the type of film being shot.

Pay attention, this thread is asking, "Can you shoot a major film with the AF100...yes or no?"


"Do you think you can make competitive, sellable, potentially theatric releases with the Panasonic AF100?". This is one line from his post, again read the whole post and the thread title and why not check out his other thread with a video of his kit and asking if he has everything. He references the camera directly each time and asks if not why would he need an ARRI, Red etc etc, your post about content and "few - if any - people reading this board will have anywhere near such success and subsequent career" doesn't answer any of this and i found part of it a little offensive and off topic. It sounded just like the typical Yoda rubbish you sometimes get on here when asking very specific questions, a sharing of wisdom in a fairly arrogant way, "its not the car, its the driver", "its not the camera, its the script", "content, content, content", all very good points that generally reduce us the DPs and operators to the third wheel but there not asked for, most of us here are camera operators/DPs that may branch into Directing but you wont find many if any actual feature film Directors lurking on the AF100 "Camera" boards of DVXuser. Again, the guy is not asking if his movie is up to scratch or whether he can shoot it or if he will achieve success. He wants to know if the kit he has can shoot it, this is pretty obviously from the few threads he started on here and the level of competency in his directors showreel and the actual fact that he "directly" asked.

So pay attention.

 

[EndCredits]

Good lord. Put the bickering in a PM if you have to but it adds nothing to a public thread.

 

[XSVpro]

Agreed.

 

[OldCorpse]

Agreed.

If you agree, then why did you start this? Too bad you attacked another poster then. Great derail you created here, just as I predicted. You worry about your advice, and I'll worry about mine. It is not your job to tell anyone what they are allowed to post. I answered the OP's question - he had more than one, but I picked that one, and it is my right to do so. I answered accurately; if you disagree substantively with my assessment, address that. Otherwise don't tell me - or anyone - what they are allowed to post. You added nothing to this thread by attacking me. Accordingly, this will be my last post to you in this thread. Stop policing other members of this site - it is not your job.