Jump to content




Photo

Director Christopher Nolan on his preference for using motion picture film.


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Nicholas Kovats

Nicholas Kovats
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 452 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm

Posted 07 October 2014 - 08:43 AM

Christopher Nolan on his preference for using motion picture film. His forthcoming film "Interstellar" is about to be pre-released on 15-perf 70mm (IMAX), 5-perf 70mm and 4 perf 35mm on Nov. 5, i.e

"For the last 10 years, I've felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I've never understood why. It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven't seen that reason yet."

 

Read more at http://www.hitfix.co...lriuEZM4BYj2.99

 

The 'hitfix' article references the original quote extracted from a lengthly interview with the Directors Guild of America (DGA), i.e.http://www.dga.org/c...pher-nolan.aspx


Edited by Nicholas Kovats, 07 October 2014 - 08:43 AM.

  • 3




#2 GregBest

GregBest
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Director
  • West Des Moines, Iowa, USA

Posted 17 October 2014 - 09:50 PM

I'll be direct:  I come from the side of "advancement is good", so bring on the digital.  There is NOTHING WRONG with film to me, and many wonderful things from its workflow that assisted in making better movies like improved acting via cost of getting takes right, 10 minute spools forcing breaks, etc, but like he said, "it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years".... isn't it about time for some growth?  Even as a child, I don't think I ever >LIKED< 24 frames per second watching movies... it felt like that was just the way things were done: all burred and smeary.  Now that we have the means and the costs are down, isn't it time to ratchet up the quality because we can?  If digital is really so much more expensive, why is Hollywood doing so much of it?  It is growing exponentially every year, and film camera makers are retooling, and film manufacturing plants are closing...

 

Nolan makes great movies, I respect his talents tons, and LOVE his movies.  But, any of his movies could have been just as good filmed digitally.  You can still site the cost of getting takes right, and still only load 10 minutes of RAM if you want, it was the writing and story that makes them great, not film.

 

Film was film for 100 years because it was the only option.  Now, there are new options and people are driving them to new heights.  I'm on board with higher frames rates - I don't care if it doesn't look like the old days.... I'm ready for the new days pushed by people like Douglas Trumbull http://douglastrumbull.com/videos , James Cameron http://www.firstshow...nema-at-60-fps/ , and Peter Jackson http://screenrant.co...ps-controversy/ 

 

I'm not anti-film, not hating, I guess I have no feeling one way or the other having grown up enjoying nothing but real film until digital dropped in, not wanting to start the old senseless DIGI VS FILM thing, I just feel change is coming, and I enjoy changes when they are good.  And I'm used to being the only one in the room on this side of the fence.  These changes always happen and there is always kicking and screaming during the transition.  CDs DO sound better than vinyl - that is a PHYSICS truth, personal preferences aside, but there is still vinyl around (and coming back when the niche market yelps profitability), and people went to MP3s leaving CDs behind, but there are still CDs.  People will consume digital movies without thinking twice, but film will still stick around.  Actually, most do movies digitall now:  netflix over the net, on phones, pads, computers etc

 

Nothing changing is stagnation, and that isn't good.


Edited by GregBest, 17 October 2014 - 09:50 PM.

  • -1

#3 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 18 October 2014 - 10:33 AM

yes GregBest agree...but the point Mr.Nolan making is that when he can still give the best of quality in the current day of the world shooting film....why should he try digital which has not given anything 'better' than the film in the current scenario. what he is saying is that he has not seen a good enough reason to change from film. this i agree ..from a cinematographer's point of view...one who has to operate the camera...literally live with the camera on ur shoulder ...squeezing the eye into. apart from the quality in terms of 4k ..6k...pixels and pigments.....theres so much bonding happens with the camera we operate to create those stories and emotions. i have handled film cameras arri 435 for seven of my feature films...and have handled digital cameras from 5D to red epic to arri alexa xt for the recent 2 feature films. am afraid i could not bond with the digital cameras....not because i have closed mind..but they have 'not yet arrived'....to create the bond with the cinematographer..in the making of films. 

the concept of even looking thro the viewfinder has gone with on coming on board monitors. the whole organic flow of 'composition' has been killed by this. okayyy...even if i get to look thro the viewfinder...the optics of the digital cameras viewfinders are not yet arrived to give the same feel through a arri 435. what i am seeing with my naked eye is not what i see through the viewfinder...whereas that was the case with film cameras. and the ergonomics of the digital cameras and the weight distribution of the same with batteries and stuff is so cumbersome for handheld shots. film cameras felt so much part of you when doing handheld shots. that is no more the case with the current digital cameras. 

yaa...the digital cameras now are good....but 'not yet arrived' !! they are still in the process. since this is a piece of equipment to create art and move emotions.....it has to work at sooo many levels beyond some technical specs and economic values! 


  • 1

#4 GregBest

GregBest
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Director
  • West Des Moines, Iowa, USA

Posted 18 October 2014 - 11:50 AM

good points as well Rajavel.  I do believe film will be around for a long time - probably forever - and Mr. Nolan certainly doesn't need to change his ways, but I do see the movie/film industry going digital exactly the same way the audio world did two decades ago:   lots of push back, lots of frustration, lots of BAD audio mixes as they slowly figured out how to do it right.... just growing pains.  Digital recorded audio revolutionized quality, and reduced prices more than 10x, and provided a huge growth of creativity tools (FX, track counts etc) that simply could not exist in the analog world (how the increase of creative tools caused the DECREASE of creativity is a whole other topic!)  I see the same transition happening now, in the exact same way.  And there is nothing wrong with either way.  Both options will continue to exist - there are still companies that can make your vinyl record - but digital will arrive some day, same way CDs did, then MP3 (not that we love those, just an example).

 

I see the "Arrival" thing as an interesting dichotomy:  ARRIVED for WHOM?  Film makers or the VIEWERS?  For viewers, it has long since arrived, nobody notices or minds either way.... they just pay and enjoy the movie.  Film makers will never be happy because there will always be something better coming along.  The best we got now, is good enough until next week, when something better comes along.   :)

 

I just saw something PUNNY:   ARRIved      well it was funny to me.   :)   I got -2 for my perspective and opinion?   hmmmm.... making a rep fast here, I see  :D


Edited by GregBest, 18 October 2014 - 11:51 AM.

  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2371 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 October 2014 - 12:34 PM

I've recently been buying BluRay's of remastered classic roadshow movies and watching them on my HD projector. The experience has totally changed my perception of cinema in the most frustrating of ways. See, back in the 50's we had surround sound, 70mm anamorphic projection, early versions of stadium seating and most importantly, amazing films made without the use of post production visual effects. Patton and 2001: A Space Odyssey, were two of the last 70mm roadshow films produced. After that, cinema in my view fell apart, partially due to the influence of television. So instead of film companies making more roadshow style movies, they basically stopped developing new and better technologies to attract people into the cinema. They focused on storytelling and forgot about all the technology. Just watch any 35mm film shot in the 70's, The French Connection is a great example, awesome movie… but its MONO! Yet in 1957, cinema's were FULL of movies not just in Stereo, but full surround sound! 

 

I personally feel film technology has been neglected for decades. It almost seems as if 2001: A Space Odyssey was the pinnacle of that technology and everything to come after it was a regression back to a simpler time. We never solved the issues with registration in projectors. It wasn't until the early 80's when stereo finally made it back to cinema's and not until the 90's digital audio made the big leap. Heck, even IMAX wasn't fully developed until the last 15 years or so with the addition of digital audio and better projectors. 

 

The problem in my eyes is very simple… why should I go to the cinema when I can wait 6 months and watch that new movie on my HD projector from a BluRay source in the comfort of my own house? There isn't much of a difference between 1920X1080 and 2048x1080… why should I pay $16 + $8 for popcorn, to watch a movie in the cinema for an extra 128 pixels? What guys like Christopher Nolan are doing is fantastic and I really hope more people jump on board and I truly wish for someone to finally break the mould and make an entire film in the full-frame IMAX format. People forget 15 perf 65mm is 18k resolution. Digital cinema will never get near that number, even with the best technologies today, we struggle to produce and distribute 4k cinema, most digital cinema is 2k. Plus and this is the most important plus, you can't watch an IMAX film at home! It's actually impossible because there is no way to get a high enough quality source to your house. Even if someone handed you the keys to a 4k projector and 4k source, where do you find a wall big enough to project it so you can get the IMAX experience at your own home? It just isn't feasible, it just doesn't work. What Christopher Nolan has done is go back to the days where the theater delivers quality better then anything you can get at home. For the first time since BluRay's were introduced, we now have a reason to head out to the cinema, IMAX is our savior, it is our current generation's "70mm roadshow" film and that's what excites people. They wish to see the best, they want an experience and frankly, if that means we have some registration issues, so be it. 


  • 3

#6 GregBest

GregBest
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Director
  • West Des Moines, Iowa, USA

Posted 18 October 2014 - 01:33 PM

Bravo!!  I, too, would LOVE IT if all films were IMAX!  That would be amazing.  But, movies do have to make money to keep being made (sadly) and IMAX can't take over since the masses won't pay.  You and I will gladly pay for that experience - I'm driving 280 miles to KC to catch Intersellar at an IMAX on release day to show my support, maybe I'll go twice - because we love that grand experience.  But, the people that fund movies, general audiences seem to pay for sequals, and regurgitated blue people in 3D and remakes over and over and over.  Projection and theaters are setup to profit   ...oh, and show some entertainment too   :D

 

So, what can WE do to turn the tide since, I believe, most general audiences won't see the need for $16 tickets because the format is different?  And there is no reversing the "I'll wait a month for this brand new movie to be on Netflick" trend.  I don't know what the answer is.

 

Ima LOVE "Intersellar" because: a) sci-fi  &  2) Nolan.  The format never factored in to my interest, but I will see it in the best form I possibly can, because I can afford to:  $50 gas, $18 ticket?   :)


Edited by GregBest, 18 October 2014 - 01:36 PM.

  • 0

#7 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 18 October 2014 - 02:45 PM

I've recently been buying BluRay's of remastered classic roadshow movies and watching them on my HD projector. The experience has totally changed my perception of cinema in the most frustrating of ways. See, back in the 50's we had surround sound, 70mm anamorphic projection, early versions of stadium seating and most importantly, amazing films made without the use of post production visual effects. Patton and 2001: A Space Odyssey, were two of the last 70mm roadshow films produced. After that, cinema in my view fell apart, partially due to the influence of television. So instead of film companies making more roadshow style movies, they basically stopped developing new and better technologies to attract people into the cinema. They focused on storytelling and forgot about all the technology. Just watch any 35mm film shot in the 70's, The French Connection is a great example, awesome movie… but its MONO! Yet in 1957, cinema's were FULL of movies not just in Stereo, but full surround sound!

 

I don't know if you are aware of it, but you probably can blame Tom Laughlin for the demize of the 'limited distribution' and the 'road show' programs.

 

Tom Laughlin went 'independent' in the late 60's, and eventually put out a very successful film, "Billy Jack"(1971). There were several studios (the only way to get a 'real' film made in the day, and they had pulled out at various points, eventually Laughlin finished his film, and distributed it to theaters directly... it died... He then worked on rereleasing, and in 1973 it was a 'major' out of the 'blue' success.

 

In his second "Billy Jack" film, "The Trial of Billy Jack"(1974) he 'opened wide', with major TV ads nationwide, and 'in theaters everywhere'... well at least far more than usual for the era. The film was a financial success...

 

In 1975 a second 'small story' film opened using the same strategy of wide and supporting advertising, and again it was 'bottled lighting'... it was "Jaws"(1975).

 

This showed the trend which has not stopped to this day, of wide and super wide film releases, massive ad campaigning, etc.

 

But back to the olden days...

 

In San Diego in the 60's there were 2 'cinerama' venues, while there were probably about 50 single screen theaters scattered throughout the county. There were also probably about 5 drive-in theaters, and in the downtown area, there were about 10 theaters, 3 showed 'quality' new releases, and about 7 showed varying levels down to 'grind house' material. (hard core X-rated material stil was not 'legal' until the late 60's...).

 

Releases of new films in those days often were in 100's, and the films then made their way around the country. Not in 'road show' style just that's when a place like "El Centro" California could schedule showing one of the available prints... like 6 months or maybe a year after the initial release...

 

The 'road show' presentations were sort of a 'competition' with perhaps TV, to give 'motion pictures' a more art look than ordinary 'films'... The road shows almost never went outside the major cities, so people in the 'sticks' only saw the 35mm prints, or the 'much cut' versions of some of these films. (I first saw "Lawrence of Arabia" in a theater in El Centro about a year after it was released... as it was still being shown around the country at the time...).

 

As for my personal first experience of 'cinerama'... I attended a showing of "Grand Prix"(1966) and because of the sellout crowd, the only seats available were in the front row... I got motion sick beause of the camera technique... and exited the showing to puke...

 

I did see "2001: A Space Odessey"(1968) on the 'cinerama' screen, but from my previous experience I sat in the back row... which sort of lessens the 'full visual' space effect.

 

The theater I preferred to watch films in, was a small theater that had perhaps a 20' wide screen, seated about 100, and at the time showed 'foreign' as well as some Hollywood films (before Landmark theaters started up and begain the 'arthouse' type showings...).

 

There were also 25 and 50 cent theaters in the downtown area which had the benefit of showing films from  about 8 am till 3 AM... shutting down for 5 hours to clear out the bums and debris...

 

In most cases, none of the films I have ever seen in theaters were 'first run prints'... before the super wide distributions, most of the prints had been 'well worked' before they got to theaters I saw them in.

 

In a word, I have no fond recollection of watching pristine celluloid... below is an example of the 'quality' that was usually to be had...

 

http://youtu.be/a3QufuTR_7M

 

There's good reason why Tarantino and Rodriguez used that in their 'grind house' extravaganza.

 

I have yet to see a 'digital' presentation reach the same level of crappy... ok... we went to a showing of the 3d "Wizard of Oz"(1939) restoration... and the sound was whacked from the lips... told the manager... go rain checks...

 

I would also mention that for the Wife, who is hard of hearing, the digital change over has also allowed for 90% of the films to be supplied with captions, which even as recently as 5 years ago, was not the case, and we would travel perhaps 100 miles to see a showing in a theater that had a 'open caption' presentation...

 

Anyway, for me, I have no need to see anything 'film'...

 

As for why go to a theater rather than watch at home... one could ask why go to church if one has a Bible at home... for the shared experience... and since I'm not religiously inclined... perhaps theater attendence is as close to ritual as I come...


Edited by John E Clark, 18 October 2014 - 02:48 PM.

  • 0

#8 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2371 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 October 2014 - 02:41 AM

Interesting John… didn't know about the ad campaign stuff being the catalyst, but it makes sense. However, I was much more referring to large-format cinema, rather then simply 35mm roadshow movies. The description of horrible projection in cinema's stems from the 35mm days of low-budget cinema, I'm not very old, but I do recall seeing movies in mono and having dirty prints as well. However, it doesn't seem in years prior that 70mm road show cinema's had the same low-quality presentations. It seems, they had things kinda figured out and the failure was ditching large format in favor of standard 35mm, where film stocks of the time were still pretty bad compared to anything I've ever used. I've seen non-restored prints of 70mm and 35mm films from the same vintage and its staggering how horrible the 35mm prints look compared to the 70mm prints. 

 

Being a fan of 70mm, just the sound of the underlying "hiss" as the magnetic soundtrack starts, is comforting. No optical pop's and clicks or compression noises from older 35mm prints. No cleanliness of digital audio either. The room isn't completely silent, as the projector chews through film like its going out of style. My favorite spot to watch an Omnimax film is right over the projector hole, so I can feel it vibrate the chair for the entire movie… I have yet to visit a cinema and NOT peer into the projection booth prior or post screening, like a curious 5 year old wanting to figure out how cinema is made. The "magic" for me is in the moving image, not some fake digital hollow representation of 1's and zero's. Celluloid and all the nuances which allow it to come alive are what has stimulated me for my entire life and to loose that, is to loose a huge part of who I am. I can hold it, I can move it forwards and backwards with ease and project it onto anything I want without the need of electronics of any kind. 

 

My parents use to be avid cinema goer's and they haven't gone on their own in years. When I ask why, I generally get the same answers; why bother? They have each other for company, they can invite friends over if they wish to see a movie in a group. But for my technically advanced father, he could care less about seeing the same image on a big screen he can get at home on his BluRay player. He doesn't want to bother with the crowds of people at cinemaplexes, the parking, the walking, dealing with lines, concessions, horrible seats, etc. Theaters haven't really changed, they upped the quality of presentation but only to the same level we can get at home. 

 

For cinema to truly stay alive, they need to offer a different experience. The Cinerama dome in L.A., perfect example. Huge screen, beautiful theater and fantastic presentation. Honestly though, it's still not enough, it's not enough to draw people out of their houses and into the cinema's. There has to be another reason and outside of children/teen's, nobody wants 3D… so what's the next big thing? Maybe Christopher Nolan had an idea… ;) 


  • 0

#9 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 19 October 2014 - 04:26 AM

Just last night I returned home from a screening which on my arrival turned out to be in 3D. There was no indication in the advance publicity that it would be in 3D and the whole thing was an absolute abomination. The film actually had subtitles which you had to read in 3D. I got the hang of it about 10 or 15 minutes in but I missed a lot of the early dialogue.

 

I don't see how stuff like this was a step forward. It actually looks worse again than a normal digital projection. A lot of the time the projection actually looked better with the glasses off. Two hours of that, it was really awful.

 

None of this stuff is an improvement it's all just heavily marketed. I totally respect Christopher Nolan for saying it like it is and being prepared to say all this stuff against the grain. He seems like a man of integrity for that.

 

As to Vinyl and CD. Some things certainly sound better on CD but I'm not sure that is the case with digital cinema yet. I suspect that in the future people are going to find ways of making digital video work better or to play to its strengths. I thought Francis Ha worked really well visually and Inland Empire looked a lot better on DVD than it did as a 35mm print and those are the only 2 examples I can point to right away of digital cinematography that worked well in the right context.

 

and for the Vinyl vs CD thing and undermining your premium experience I can only say to the music industry "How is that working out for you now?"

 

Freya


Edited by Freya Black, 19 October 2014 - 04:28 AM.

  • 1

#10 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 19 October 2014 - 01:41 PM


For cinema to truly stay alive, they need to offer a different experience. The Cinerama dome in L.A., perfect example. Huge screen, beautiful theater and fantastic presentation. Honestly though, it's still not enough, it's not enough to draw people out of their houses and into the cinema's. There has to be another reason and outside of children/teen's, nobody wants 3D… so what's the next big thing? Maybe Christopher Nolan had an idea… ;)

 

I presume you are speaking of Film film theaters rather than 'digital everywhere'...

 

I think what will happen is what happened in the olden days were a small set of prints were made and they traveled around. But the venues will be the 'arthouse' type venues, like the "New Beverly" that was recently mentioned in the news, where Tarantino has taken a more active role in maintain the house as a Film film house.

 

These theaters may get up to that 'premium' price of $50-75 a seat... it should come with at least beer and pretzels...


  • 0

#11 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2371 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 October 2014 - 03:31 PM

 

I presume you are speaking of Film film theaters rather than 'digital everywhere'...

 

I think what will happen is what happened in the olden days were a small set of prints were made and they traveled around. But the venues will be the 'arthouse' type venues, like the "New Beverly" that was recently mentioned in the news, where Tarantino has taken a more active role in maintain the house as a Film film house.

 

These theaters may get up to that 'premium' price of $50-75 a seat... it should come with at least beer and pretzels...

 

Yea, exactly… stuff shot on film and projected on large-format film, not 35mm. I have absolutely zero desire to bring back the 35mm projection days, I think digital cinema works fine to feed the masses. 

 

Maybe the future will be roadshow releases like what Nolan is doing with Interstellar. Maybe the whole concept of showing a film two or three weeks earlier  in special theaters, large format style, will be a new fad. I just hope Nolan has played his cards right and not only made an amazing movie, but also makes a shit tun of money to prove that 3D and digital cinema is not the only way to travel. 

 

In my book… if you can't get capture it with the lens and on celluloid, then it shouldn't be up on screen to begin with! Yes, movies like "Gravity" are amazing, demonstrating how powerful visual effects and truly be. However, today's audiences expect bigger and better, which leads the filmmakers to outdo one another interns of effects, instead of focusing on stories. "Gravity" didn't even have a story! It was one big action scene and the trouble is, that's what people wish to see today and my hope is we can continue to make cinema in the future which doesn't require 500 artists in post production to make the vision come to reality. 2001: A Space Odyssey holds up pretty good and with some minor tweaks to some wide shots done photochemically using today's motion tracking animation rigs, we could make it even more realistic. All through the use of fantastic story telling and some ingenuity! 


  • 0

#12 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 20 October 2014 - 11:01 AM

For me certain sized framing, and by extension, sizes of 'negative', tend to be for certain subjects, and how they are presented...

 

So, for me 70mm is the appropriate format for Epics, 'Big Stories', etc. Speaking of Nolan... I would not think 70mm is an appropriate (subjective evaluation...) for a story like "Memento"(2000). Similarly for Aronofsky's early works... "Pi"(1998) and "Requiem for a Dream"(2000) heck, even "Black Swan"(2010) is not a 70mm subject...

 

I think the 'digital' revolution may give rise to a 'New Wave' like era of 'small story films', shot with even more minimal crews than those of the 60's... I would also hope that there's a return of the 'small theater' venues, where a theater doesn't have to seat 500-1000 or have 20 projection rooms running to make a profitable business.

 

On a good day I may accept 3-D presentations, but for the most part having seen several films in both 3-D and 2-D, I have preferred the 2-D, especially in the area of image quality... if one of the charges against digital projection is 'grey' blacks... then 3-D tends to have even muddier blacks than the 2-D version...


Edited by John E Clark, 20 October 2014 - 11:04 AM.

  • 1

#13 Bruce Greene

Bruce Greene
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 393 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 October 2014 - 07:27 PM

Another issue with 3d projection is that at many venues the screen brightness (after putting on the glasses) is 1/4 normal screen brightness. Sometimes, even less. What is gained in stereoptic dimension may be negated by the dimensionality lost in in image intensity and contrast...
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

Tai Audio

Glidecam

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Pro 8mm

CineLab

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Pro 8mm

Willys Widgets

Zylight

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Abel Cine

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Visual Products