FAQ work-in-progress

[David Mullen ASC]

I've sort of narrowed down the list of Frequently Asked Questions (below). I wanted to stick to what truly are often-asked questions without writing a textbook or reference manual. We can always add to the list (I will probably add more right now....) I'm hoping when finished that it can be key-word searched.

 

Anyone who wants to answer some of these questions, please email me your text to:

davidm2@earthlink.net

It would save me some writing...

I'll reword it probably, but everyone who contributes to the answers will be listed as contributing authors.

 

At the end, are some general articles or lists of info which I can also use some help on. Like I said, email me the answers you write rather than post it here.

 

 

PROPOSED FAQ

 

1. What is a cinematographer? What do they do?

2. What is a skip-bleach / bleach-bypass / ENR process?

3. What is cross-processing?

4. What happens when you push / pull the processing of film?

5. Why do some DP?s overexpose a film stock , i.e. rate it at a slower speed than recommended by the manufacturer? How should I rate a film stock?

6. What is reversal film?

7. What is the difference between the Kodak and Fuji film stocks?

8. How do I get my video to look like film?

9. What is the difference between Mini-DV and DVCAM?

10. What is the connection between focal length and depth of field? Does a 50mm lens on a 16mm camera have the same depth of field as it does on a 35mm camera?

11. What is 3-perf / 2-perf?

12. What does anamorphic mean?

13. As a DP, how do I get an agent? Do I need an agent?

14. Should I rent or own equipment?

15. What is the ASC?

16. What is the name of the union in Hollywood and how do I join?

17. Does DV have more or less resolution than Super-8?

18. How do I blow-up 16mm/Super-16 to 35mm?

19. How do I blow-up Super-8 to 35mm?

20. What is a digital intermediate?

21. How do I transfer my video to film?

22. What are the best lenses made?

23. Should I go to film school? Which one?

24. What are the effects of different shutter angles?

25. How do I shoot a TV set or computer monitor?

26. What is Technicolor?

27. How do I get a 2.35 image when shooting in 16mm/Super-16?

28. What is the difference between Super-35 and anamorphic?

29. What is the difference between hard and soft lighting?

30. Can I shoot tests using movie film in a 35mm still camera? Can I use 35mm still camera film in a movie camera?

31. What are the steps for mastering film for a video release?

32. What are the cost differences between HD and film?

 

Plus:

FILM FORMATS EXPLAINED

VIDEO RECORDING FORMATS EXPLAINED

LIGHTING TERMS & EQUIPMENT EXPLAINED

COMMON FILM CAMERAS USED

COMMON VIDEO CAMERAS USED

SUGGESTED READING LIST

[Mark Allen]

33. Was the Genesis use for Superman?????? ;) okay, just kidding.

 

Actually though - there is no use of the word "telecine" or "color timing" / "color grading" in any of those and it seems like these are things which might come up?

[David Mullen ASC]

Definitions of terms like "telecine", "color timing", etc., since they don't get asked THAT frequently here, might be better defined in a glossary of terms. Question is whether to write one or just provide a link to one (if it exists.)

[Brian Wells]

Definitions of terms like "telecine", "color timing", etc., since they don't get asked THAT frequently here, might be better defined in a glossary of terms.  Question is whether to write one or just provide a link to one (if it exists.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wiki's!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine

[Mark Allen]

Definitions of terms like "telecine", "color timing", etc., since they don't get asked THAT frequently here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I see. I guess I was thinking that I'd seen a lot of discussion about color grading in particular, but I can't really think of what the general question would be about it other than what you have - "How do I make it look like film?"

[Laurent Andrieux]

Another point I'm thinking of is that it would be great if people could correct eventual mistakes made in this thesaurus, "à la wikipedia", since it's not a forum wher people can add answers, thet being a good point, to me, and it's the way it was conceived.

 

For the less, someone who wrote should be able to correct its own text.

 

For instance, I realized afterwards I made a mistake in the title of my contribution, wrting focal lenth instead of focal length, and that doens't look good at all for a section of the quality everybody's looking for..

 

For this precise editing I guess it shouldn't be a problem for Tim to correct it but in a wider way, don't you think it would be a good idea to have the topics being eventually corrected. Some infos can actually change with time, as well...

 

Though David is, as always, doing a great job here, I notice as well, that teher is not so many written topics in the section. I apologize that I promised to post another one about image formats since the end of february and didn't do it yet. Shame on me !

 

I noticed that M. Kim Welch at studentfilmmakers had this problem of too low contributions to an article thesaurus he wanted to set up...

 

Do you think that we should then sort of distribute subjects to people who would like to contribute to the writing to these FAQ's answers so that things go on ?

 

Regards,

[Dominic Case]

Anyone who wants to answer some of these questions, please email me your text to:

davidm2@earthlink.net

It would save me some writing...

I'll reword it probably, but everyone who contributes to the answers will be listed as contributing authors.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OK I'll do 2,3,4,6, 11, 18, 20, 26 and possibly film formats explained.

 

THough I guess those are all ones that you (and I) have answered so many times on these lists that we can proabbly dig them up from the archives.

[John Pytlak RIP]

The Kodak website has an on-line glossary:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...1.4.11.20&lc=en

 

And Technical Information Bulletins:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...1.4.11.22&lc=en

 

And FAQs:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...1.4.11.16&lc=en

 

And basic film technology:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/selecting.shtml

 

And lab operations:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/dealing.shtml

 

And film storage:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...1.4.11.12&lc=en

 

The Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories (ACVL) likewise has lots of good information:

 

http://www.acvl.org/handbook/chap9.htm

 

http://www.acvl.org/manual.htm

 

Projectionist Scott Norwood (who is an active participant on the http://www.film-tech.com Film Handlers Forum) put together a very comprehensive FAQ for rec.arts.movies.tech :

 

http://www.redballoon.net/~snorwood/faq2.html

[Laurent Andrieux]

Thanks Dominic, I missed this paragraph from David's post.

 

Well, yes David that sounds a very good idea.

 

Could you as well have a look at the existing posts and correct them if necessary as well ?

 

(Forgot to recall that my english being approximative, it certainly does need a rewriting)

 

BTW, I think there already is a list of such ideas. Did youDavid have a look at it and include them in this list above ?

 

I thought there were questions about the relationship beetween focal length and perspective as well (that I could write something about actually).

 

I would be glad to keep on contributing to this but you guys should tell me honestly if the language mistakes are or not a too strong problem causing to much rewriting, compared to the eventual actual values of my contributions...

 

Don't you think point 5 could be treated with point 4 ? couldn't be point 19 treated with point 18 ?

 

So these are the points I could begin to do something with :

 

9, 10, 12, 23, 24, 25 (part), 29, and begin something about "VIDEO RECORDING FORMATS EXPLAINED"

 

But truly, it will for sure need addendum and rewriting...

Edited May 2, 2005 by laurent.a

[Laurent Andrieux]

The Kodak website has an on-line glossary:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...1.4.11.20&lc=en

 

And Technical Information Bulletins:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...1.4.11.22&lc=en

 

And FAQs:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...1.4.11.16&lc=en

 

And basic film technology:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/selecting.shtml

 

And lab operations:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/dealing.shtml

 

And film storage:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...1.4.11.12&lc=en

 

The Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories (ACVL) likewise has lots of good information:

 

http://www.acvl.org/handbook/chap9.htm

 

http://www.acvl.org/manual.htm

 

Projectionist Scott Norwood (who is an active participant on the http://www.film-tech.com Film Handlers Forum) put together a very comprehensive FAQ for rec.arts.movies.tech :

 

http://www.redballoon.net/~snorwood/faq2.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

John,

 

Do you think the whole idea is just useless, or do you mean that links could be enough for some questions or that we could use these ressources for writing our own articles ?

[John Pytlak RIP]

John,

 

Do you think the whole idea is just useless, or do you mean that links could be enough for some questions or that we could use these ressources for writing our own articles ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An FAQ can be answered by "hot" links to information. One approach would be to give a very brief answer, and then provide links to sites that have a more detailed explanation. The site that Scott Norwood developed is especially comprehensive, and much of the Kodak site has information that is not commercial in nature.

 

The only risk is if a site is changed such that the link is "dead".

[Greg Gross]

I like David Mullen's list for the FAQ. As student cinematographer(already

working) but still a student, this list would be very helpful for me. I hope

this will be implemented in our forum. Please remember everybody here

does not work,live in LA,Hollywood. I say this for the purpose of informing

all that here in the east I'm not around working cinematographers every

week. This forum has been a very good learning tool for me and I wish to

thank all for their informative posts.

 

Greg Gross

[David Mullen ASC]

Thanks Dominic and Laurent for agreeing to write something. I'm hoping Phil, John Sprung, Mike Most will voluteer to write something... (hint, hint...) If we can spread the work, it won't take long at all.

 

Not to bum anyone out, but I'll probably edit the answers if I feel they can be explained better, or shorter, or longer. I think John's idea of providing a link(s) at the end of each answer is a good one.

 

To get this project completed, I think we have to limit it for now to the questions I suggested (based on everyone's suggestions and what I recall as being commonly asked questions.) After that, the FAQ can be expanded over time.

 

Also, some answers may be improved with some graphics or photos if I can think of what that might be...

[John Pytlak RIP]

Generally, Kodak Entertainment Imaging has been quite open to giving permission to republish any Kodak tutorials or short sections of publications covered by copyright, as long as the content is not changed and proper credit is given. Our publication folks are based in Hollywood (e.g., Bob Gibbons, Judy Doherty) and our Internet webmasters are Rochester based (e.g., Tony Amato). Most websites welcome having links to their content.

[Tim Tyler]

If any FAQ authors and editors need me to secure permission to republish content here in the FAQ, let me know and I'll work on it.

 

Also, let's make sure that any images used in the FAQ are hosted on cinematography.com so we don't have missing image problems in the future.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Well, yes, Tim, please I would be glad my mistakes to be corrected...

[Ilmari Reitmaa]

Also, some answers may be improved with some graphics or photos if I can think of what that might be...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although judging from the FAQ list there won't be all that many equations I still might suggest typesetting them with, say, TeX or something similar and embedding them into the text as GIFs (the result would look something like this). ASCII equations tend to be particularly illegible... I'll be happy to volunteer to do them if needed.

 

Come to think of it, having done a fair amount of typesetting and graphic design in my time, I could typeset the whole FAQ, once completed, as a nice PDF document for printing. How about it?

[David Mullen ASC]

Although judging from the FAQ list there won't be all that many equations I still might suggest typesetting them with, say, TeX or something similar and embedding them into the text as GIFs (the result would look something like this). ASCII equations tend to be particularly illegible... I'll be happy to volunteer to do them if needed.

 

Come to think of it, having done a fair amount of typesetting and graphic design in my time, I could typeset the whole FAQ, once completed, as a nice PDF document for printing. How about it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd rather it not be a PDF that requires you open Adobe Acrobat or something before you can read the document.

 

Look, the first version is NOT going to be a cinematography textbook. It may GROW into one over time but I want to get something out soon even if short at first.

 

As for as typesetting, I used to that for a living too, but if Tim's site can handle some different fonts, that would be nice, yes.