The first time you shot 35mm....

[Matt Pacini]

I was thinking about this while perusing some of the posts about "rent or own".

 

Describe the circumstances surrounding your first use of a 35mm motion picture camera.

I'm particularly interested in hearing from you guys who got hired on a production that rented a Panavision or Arri rig.

Did you panic?

Did you ask for an extra day rental so you could "play" with the camera with nobody looking?

Did you say you had shot 35mm when you really hadn't?

 

The reason I ask, is I think maybe what drives a lot of people to think about buying an old Arri or whatever, is so they can learn how to use the damn thing, without a full crew standing around while you're saying to yourself "hmmm, where's the freakin' ON button on this thing?"

 

MP

[David Mullen ASC]

A DP could get away with lying about 35mm experience if he had extensive 16mm experience -- but a camera assistent couldn't. And if you are shooting with a complete sync-sound modern 35mm package, you'd be hiring a camera assistant. They can tell you where the "on" switch is, they're the ones that are going to thread it, etc.

 

Of course, you should hang out at the prep day before (35mm shoots generally always have at least one day of prep at a rental house.) Get familar with the camera, make sure you ordered the right groundglass, make sure you know the difference between a Full Aperture (Super-35) and Academy / Sound Aperture set-up when ordering the equipment.

 

I shot about a dozen short films in 16mm in film school when a friend of mine got a chance to direct a 35mm short film for Universal Studios as part of a Hispanic Filmmakers Fund or something. He lied to them that I had 35mm experience (they never asked me directly, thank God). But I wasn't too worried. The project was well-funded and I had a full camera crew PLUS an operator for a donated Panaflex package with Primo lenses. One day I had to do some operating when the operator called in sick or something and I did fine. I remember asking DP Tom Richmond for some advice and he was very reassuring. I said "but I don't know how to operate a geared head!" and he said "Neither do I -- just use a fluid head." It was all fine.

 

In fact, they made two shorts that same year and at the screening of the completed works, the DP of the other short, an ASC member, came up to me afterwards and said "how did you get the movie to look that good?" Their shoot had gone much more haphazardly while ours was very well-planned (I storyboarded everything.)

 

I've never had to load a 35mm movie camera in all the fourteen years of shooting 35mm, and I've done about 21 features in 35mm. I stopped loading film when I stopped being a film student.

 

So while it wouldn't hurt to own an old Arri-2C and learn to use it, the truth is that a modern Panaflex or Arricam is so differently engineered that there wouldn't be much similar.

 

And the "on" switch is usually on the operator side in front, or on the back, or both.

[Dominik Muench]

excuse my question if thats stupid, but whats the difference between a super35mm and a sound aperture ? whats the aspect ratio got to do with sound ? apart from the magnetic strip on the side ?

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

If you've shot enough 16mm there isn't any reason to get wigged out over shooting 35. This is when you'll grow to love your AC's. Of course you should do some testing if you're able, especially if you're going to be shooting scope.

 

BTW, a Super35 gate allows an image to be exposed on the area of the negative which is usually left unexposed with a sound aperature. It's left unexposed because that is where a sound track goes on a print. This is why Super35 requires an optical or DI step to anamorphize the image so it can be printed with a soundtrack.

Edited June 21, 2005 by J. Lamar King

[David Mullen ASC]

First of all, most 35mm cameras EXPOSE Full Aperture (Silent / Super-35), although some may have a smaller gate that only exposes Academy Aperture (Sound). But the real question is whether your lens is optically centered for Full or Academy. If it is centered for the sound apertures (Academy / 1.85 / anamorphic) then the Full Aperture area isn't really meant to be used -- there's probably some vignetting, and the groundglass is set-up for you to compose within the Sound aperture anyway.

 

Super-35 doesn't necessarily mean a D.I. or even a conversion to 2.35 anamorphic. TV shows, for example, shoot Super-35 for telecine only. This means they expose and frame across the Full Aperture width, beyond the sound aperture area, and the lens is optically centered for Full Aperture.

 

For theatrical movies, the most common use of Super-35 is to compose for cropping top & bottom to 2.35, and then convert the image (optically or digitally) to 2.35 anamorphic. But some Super-35 movies have been composed for 1.85, in which case you'd have to reduce the image (optically or digitally) to the standard 1.85 format that exists inside the smaller Academy Aperture.

 

In 35mm, Full Aperture is the largest area you can use, with the image extending from sprocket row to sprocket row horizontally, and the top & bottom edges touch the next picture with a very thin frame line separating them. In 4-perf, Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1 and was what was used in the Silent Era. Super-35 is essentially Full Aperture.

 

In 3-perf, Full Aperture is 1.78 : 1 (16x9) which is why 3-perf is popular for TV shows transferring to HD.

 

Then when sound-on-film was invented (Fox Movietone), they used up a strip along the left edge of the print inside the sprocket row for an optical soundtrack. The optical center of the camera lens had to be shifted over. The width of Full Aperture was shaved from 1.33 : 1 to a square-ish 1.20 : 1 more or less. This was called the Movietone Aperture.

 

In 1932, AMPAS suggested that the projector gate that was masking off this soundtrack stripe from appearing on screen also mask a little off of the top & bottom, further shrinking the area used on the print, but making the shape less square, more rectangular, to 1.37 : 1. This is called Academy Aperture. Later, they cropped the top & bottom much more to create the widescreen 1.85 shape (and others like 1.66). This is called Matted Widescreen.

 

There is also Anamorphic Widescreen (CinemaScope).

 

Anyway, a camera can be ordered for Super-35 (Full Aperture) or for regular Academy / 1.85 / anamorphic aperture. Usually the gate is left to expose Full Aperture either way (knowing that a sound print will cover over part of this with the optical track), but the lens center is shifted over depending on which you choose, and a matching groundglass is installed.

 

If you are shooting 35mm for contact printing and projection (not optical printing or D.I.) then your choices for 35mm theatrical projection are the 4-perf 35mm standard 1.85 matted widescreen format using spherical lenses or 35mm anamorphic using anamorphic lenses on the camera. If you shoot in Super-35 but want a projection print eventually with a soundtrack, you'd be stuck doing some sort of conversion to one of these two standard projection format, either using dupes and an optical printer, or a D.I.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

See you learn something new everyday. I thought for contact printing the gate had to block the sound area. Is that not the case?

[David Mullen ASC]

No, the soundtrack area is masked off when making the print; the negative can have picture exposed there, it's just not used.

 

Here are some charts, the first from my Cinematography book, the second is just something I drew of some standard 4-perf 35mm sound aperture framelines:

 

 

 

[Rolfe Klement]

Depends if you are talking about being a DOP on a USD50M project - or where you expect to work -

 

I see many people who are frightened of 35mm or are in awe - but it is pretty easy - but expensive...

 

Owning the kit allows you to know the boundaries of what is and what is not safe for the camera - but playing with shutters, hand cranking, pin hole lenses etc become hard when you are on set shooting high key clean work - but does that fancy kind of stuff on your reel actually get you better jobs?

 

You can call Panavision and Arri and they will allow you to come down and learn the kit - this is designed for AC's though - and is free

 

Depends on size | budget of project as to how much you do or need to do. There are advantages to owning kit - but for financial returns the money would be better placed somewhere else

 

The most advantageous thing in my view is being able to spot good projects and that comes from understanding story, script,

 

and being able to get good projects which is based on relationships with writers, musicians, actors and directors etc

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Dominik Muench]

that made things clearer, thank you. so many confusing numbers :/

[Adam Frisch FSF]

My first encounter w. 35mm was when I shot a short in anamorphic! It was in 1998, I believe, and I had just bought a konvas 2M with Lomo lenses. The camera I picked up in Miami, FL and the lenses I bought from Australia. I jumped right in (perhaps a very male thing) without second thoughts and without being very nervous at all.

 

It went ok, I suppose. I loaded and pulled focus myself, which was no small feat since the eyepiece of the Konvas was horribly dark and impossible to judge focus on. It was lit with practicals and shot on the old grainy Kodak 5296 - the first 500T stock released.

 

I soon realized that however much I enjoyed my little Konvas, it was never going to get me any work. And needing the money, I sold it a couple of years later. I don't regret this at all. If I ever want to own a camera again in the future, I'm going to make sure it's a camera that can be used on professional shoots. I wouldn't mind an Arri BL4s at some point, but it's really not a priority at all.

[timHealy]

I agree with David that if you have shot a lot of 16 the move to 35 is an easy one. As long as you start using dollys as a camera platform and get away from tripods. But during my first 35 mm shoot the thing that I learned the most, which should have been obvious, is the difference in depth of field. I made a few decisions which lowered the amount of light I had - type of lights, gels, filters, etc, until I realized I had very little depth of field. So I started thinking along the lines that it should be obvious that depth of field decreases with a larger format. If a 25mm lens provides a "normal" look in 16mm and 50mm provides the same field of view in 35mm, then inherently a 35mm shoot will have less depth of field than 16mm. Other than that all went well.

 

my 2 cents

 

Tim

[Nate Downes]

I've only ever done 1 35mm shoot, using an ancient Wall camera. I'd worked with 16mm before, so it wasn't all that hard. I've had more issues learning the loading differences between my B&H and my K-3's than between my 16mm's and the Wall.

[Patrick Neary]

despite the added weight and bulk of the equipment, having that larger negative feels liberating compared to shooting 16, like stepping up from 35 to medium format in stills. On jobs, crew management also tends to be more of an issue, or needed skill.

[Nguyen D. Nguyen]

It's hell.

 

Nah, just kidding. Being that I shot 16mm before, shooting my first test roll of 35mm was a bit daunting at first with my arri iic, but it really isn't that different aside from size and weight. Another thing I tended to notice is that when you shoot on 35, knowing there is more at stake, you tend to be a lot more careful and wary working within your limitations.

 

So purely in that sense, with more at stake, you plan better and (not always), your story tends to be better thought out since you feel your investment is higher than, say, getting a miniDV camera where the stock is technically infinite for 10 bucks.

[Rolfe Klement]

and somehow with 35mm the cast seem to know how costly and serious it is without anyone telling them and they tend to work harder and get it right first time, whereas on DV projects they seem to know they can do it hundreds of times - and it all gets soft , mushy and wasted - although John Ward was telling me about "Eyes wide shut" in 35mm - with 52 takes :blink:

 

Although on my first 35mm shoot the UPM had to tell me to stop telling the cast that shooting was costing £3 a second :) but it was self financed

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Stephen Williams]

although John Ward was telling me about "Eyes wide shut" in 35mm -  with 52 takes  :blink:

 

Rolfe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

I think 52 takes with Stanley K is quite restrained!

 

Stephen

[Nguyen D. Nguyen]

Hi,

 

I think 52 takes with Stanley K is quite restrained!

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly my thoughts. I think Kubrick's philosophy was that the more you make an actor go through a take, the more they start to lose themselves in it (but they why not just rehearsals...). I think he currently holds the world record for number-of-takes on a dialogue scene from the Shining.

[Nate Downes]

Stanley also had a habit of forcing actors to integrate themselves into a role. If an actor asked him "how should I do this?" He'd force them to do it every possible way till they said that they had enough.

[Nguyen D. Nguyen]

Stanley also had a habit of forcing actors to integrate themselves into a role.  If an actor asked him "how should I do this?"  He'd force them to do it every possible way till they said that they had enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hope to get to that point someday. I mean, being able to do that many takes without having to worry about the cost of stock too much. I think it was also Kubrick who said that film stock is supposed to be peanuts compared to how much you spend on paying the actors in a major budget.

 

But as for shooting for the first time, it's a wonderful feeling, I must say. Knowing that my arri iic is pumping the same 35mm stock and using the same lenses as high level professional productions, and part of a more than 100 year tradition is quite a thrill. So there was this feeling of "greatness" to it, even if it's just madness on my part, but it gets you motivated to do great things with those rolls of celluloid you have.

 

Thank god for short ends, eh?

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi

i'm loading 35 cams and others for 8 years, pulling focus.... Now i'm starting a DOP work and i'm not afraid by holding a 35.

being camera assistant can help too, to become dop as well as sensitometri, lab process, color corection, composition ect....

[Bob Hayes]

Off Topic Answer.

 

I took your question too literally. But it's a funny story.

 

I operated a 35mm my first day in the film industry. I was hired to load magazines. We were going to film a live birth for a TV movie. There was a DP, and Operator, a First AC, and me Bob Hayes first day as a loader. The doctor said the woman would be in labor for several more hours so the DP and the Operator left for dinner. No sooner had they left then the doctor said the baby was coming. The first AC and I grabbed the cameras and ran into the deliver room. We had IICs. I had never looked through a IIC before and didn?t know how to focus the eye piece. When I looked through it everything was blurry. So I looked at the lens and figured I was 6? away so I set the focus. I was so nervous I could barely stand up. For some reason there was a post in the delivery room where I wanted to stand so I leaned against it to keep the camera steady. The delivery was a twin caesarean and quite bloody. Our footage turned out great but far too bloody for a TV movie. We heard people almost passed out when they screened dailies. So the next week I was back to loading mags. It was a great trial by fire for sure.

[Bob Hayes]

To answer your real question. As a DP or especially as an assistant you have to totally know your camera. Rental houses are usually more then willing to let you come in before your shoot and learn the camera. Practice Threading and building the machine. Even to this day I always re-familiarize myself with the cameras. This is truer with video where the DP needs to be on top of the camera. If I?ve been using the Cine Alta and not the Varicam I?ll spend a day prepping the camera. It just gives me more confidence on the shoot day. Something simple like finding detail in the menu can just kill you if the shoot stops while you hunt through the manual for the location of the setting.

 

As David says as a DP it is less important to know what switch does what on the camera. That?s the assistant?s job. I?m starting to forget a lot of the AC stuff. Last year I had to put a mag on an Arri III and I forgot how the loop goes. I?m still baffled by the released on the leveling rod on a Panavision camera.

 

Lack of knowledge of how a camera works can be a real DP killer. It is what kills a lot of gaffers who want to shoot. Often times your first shooting opportunities are on second unit where you are asked to ?grab? a camera and shoot a drive by. You may not have a first AC or you may have a loader who has never built a camera. An improperly mounted lens or a camera door not closed can send the DP back to film school or the land of Chief Lighting Technician real quick.

[Matt Lazzarini]

The first time I shot 35mm was for a short film in my last year of film school which I just completed. It was a 10 minute short about a haunted barn behind a racetrack that had burned down and been rebuilt. 5 day shoot, long long hours lol

 

Since shooting 35 was and still is a big thing to me, especially since I'm just starting out, I really wanted to do my absolute best. Circumstances unfortunately prevented this completely.

 

Because of a rushed schedule and very limited finances, the stock was thrust upon us rather than me being able to test stocks and choose - basically, whatever we got for free we shot. So I managed to make sure we got a 500T because we were going to be shooting with limited lights, and ended up getting the old Vision 1 stock and the new Vision 2 Expression. The latter I was quite impressed with, though I only had Kodak's promo DVD to base it on.

 

On top of this, the production had been given an award from William F. Whites which allowed us to shoot on 35mm in the first place. We were to be given a 535, fully tricked out with all the goodies I wanted. Then, WFW sold their camera department to Panavision about 3 weeks before shooting was to commence. Oy.

 

So, after much begging, Panavision threw us the old Panaflex (the one they used to shoot the original Star Wars). It was something else. Luckily my 1st AC was very dedicated and mastered its inner workings.

 

Crew trouble arose when my operator flaked out of the gig and most of my grips either got sick or also flaked out. Last minute everything, basically.

 

I had the least amount of planning on this film, because the director also chose to be the producer, and so gave me his shot list two days before the shoot. I hope in the future he leaves the producing aspect to someone else ;)

 

Half of the film stock we had was old, very old. It failed the fog test, and I wasn't given time to check the test to see how it would look. So basically when shooting that stock I forced myself to play it safe, not knowing how much I could push the stock either way.

 

Was it frustrating? Hell yes. Was it a pain? Hell yes. Was it fun? Hell yes.

 

There are definately shots in the film I'm quite proud of, even if I found the haunted barn sequence too blue for my liking (but it was the director's wishes - his favorite film being 'Aliens', you can see where I'm going with this).

 

And there are definately shots in the film that I wish I never shot, and those are the ones where the least planning occured, including an office scene where I wasn't even shown the location prior to two hours before shooting. Though I think the Lab in this case screwed up the scene even more because I had two HMI's with half CTO on them blasting through a window and it turned out a lot bluer than I believe it should have. But that's the price you pay when you get a super discounted rate for processing/transfer.

 

There are whispers that we may do a feature version of this short early next year; I do hope so, though this experience was definately a learning one. I will never go into a project without demanding as much prep time as possible, and then asking for more. If the feature is doable, we'll probably go down to S16 or HD.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I don't think there's any greater difference between shooting 16 and 35 than there is between HD and SD video.

 

This does rather highlight that everyone here seems to have all their materials paid for, though, because that's where the real difference is!

 

Phil

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

I don't think there's any greater difference between shooting 16 and 35 than there is between HD and SD video.

 

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

The biggest difference is weight, I can handhold an A Minina, or video camera all day but for 35mm a few minutes at a time is enough! Ok I've never tried an Arricam light but most 35mm rigs with lens, film, mattbox are 28lbs plus.

 

As for the best results 35mm is the easy option!

 

Stephen