Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/25/19 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    I think what people are forgetting about is the budget and working on union shows. Rental houses charge out the ass for modern equipment on those big shows. Where for older stuff, someone like Panavision will give a "free" camera body or two, if they rent lenses that aren't rented for digital, which at Panvision they have lots of lenses that digital people don't like. So they probably got two quotes from Panavision and the digital was more than the film by an astronomical number. By the way, this is something that's happened to me with Panavision as well, so I get it. In terms of the crew, DIT"s on non-union shows are $500/day. Some of the Union guys I know charge $1000 labor and $500 for their kit PER DAY. Then you also need a video village wrangling team, which is not as necessary on a film show. So cost savings in labor on a union show, could be around $2-3k a day easily. Then you deal with storage and this is a big deal. Everyone inflates the pricing of hard drives, it's just what they do. So a DIT will come in and charge 2x what an actual hard drive costs. They'll also need A LOT of drives on location. Since film is processed and then stored at the lab or post house directly, there really is no need for shuttle drives, which again for you and me is a very little cost difference, but for a huge show where everyone is charging exorbitant amounts of money for everything, I can see there being a pretty heavy cost difference. Finally, you actually work faster with film. I don't care how disciplined you are, with digital nothing stops you from rolling the camera all the time. With film, you need to be far more disciplined because you will waste time on every reload. So you're constantly working to make sure you've rehearsed and are getting what you need right away, rather than shooting until you run out of cards or time. On smaller films, this discipline already exists. On big union shows, it does not. This alone, saves the production a lot of money and can reduce schedule time. Yes the cost of film is expensive, but Kodak does offer pretty incredible deals to a studio shooting a feature. When Mindel calls up his kodak rep, they aren't charging him full boat. Where Fotokem may charge full boat for their services, reality is that most films do a telecine anyway, which is cheap. They'll then only scan the scenes from the final cut to scan, which saves a great deal of money. Post winds up being a lot cheaper as well because the images coming off the scanner are pretty damn perfect already, with wide dynamic range and generally higher resolution than normal digital capture. Yes, we all know on low budget shows, we can get deals on all of this equipment and the cost to shoot film would be much greater. However, even my math shows the difference between shooting on an Arri Alexa in 4k vs shooting on 3 perf 35mm, with a 4k finish is around $68,000 USD with a 10:1 ratio and 90 minute movie. $68,000 is not a lot of money, in fact it's nearly a no-brainer to shoot on film when the costs are that inconsequential. Sure on a big show they may shoot 30:1, which would bring the cost up to a little bit north of $200k. However, that's nothing for a $30M production.
  2. 3 points
    Roger has special reasons why he does not like film. He is a perfectionist and shooting film gives him a lot of stress because he's worried if the dalies will look good. So the moment Arri (his camera company of choice) had a camera that worked, he switched and will not look back. If you hear him talk about film, his issues are MOSTLY his own issues, rather than a systemic issue. Considering nobody else has the issues he has with film stock and processing, it's clear he's just upset with his own issues.
  3. 3 points
    Leonardo Da Vinci observed this and wrote: "The shadows of bodies generated by the redness of the sun near the horizon are always blue: and this is because of the11th [proposition of the book on light and shadow], where it is said: the surface of any opaque object partakes the color of its object. Therefore, since the white-ness of the wall is deprived of any color at all, it is tinged with the color of its objects, which are, in this instance, the sun and the sky, because the sun reddens toward evening and the sky appears blue; and where on this wall the shadow does not see the sun, it will be seen by the sky, because of the 8th [proposition of the book] on shadows, which says: no luminous body ever sees the shadows that it generates; therefore, the derivative shadow will project on the white wall with a blue color, because of the above-mentioned 11th [proposition], and the shadow seen by the redness of the sun will partake its red color."
  4. 3 points
    You have to imagine sitting in a real room as the sun is setting and then going into twilight to understand the colors of the sun and the sky and how that transforms the room. The sun gets more orange but weaker as it sets so the ambience from the blue sky gets stronger in relation.
  5. 3 points
    I think there’s a difference between being a DP on a specific project, and being a DP as something you do for a living. It’s both a description and an honorific. When I was an assistant, the DP position was something to be achieved through hard work and experience, not by buying a camera. There are many ‘dps’ on this site who are evidently very inexperienced. We all had to start somewhere, but when you use the term DP to describe anyone with a camera, it renders it meaningless.
  6. 2 points
    If you like grain , then use BW stock. Color film does not produce the same grain structure as BW film. You can add digital grain to color converted to BW, but it is not organic and is more like a grain screen that is the same all over the image. For BW panchromatic shooting you can get by with a yellow, orange and red filter. Unless you need a green for foliage or skin tones. I like the orange filter as an all rounder. This was shot with an orange filter on a monochrome sensor.
  7. 2 points
    The "30P" is probably really "29.97"fps for US TVs. But the more important question is what is the best frame rate for your distribution? For web distribution, just about any of the "standard" frame rates will play back fine on computers or phones or tablets. Though, I've found issues with 25fps on vimeo playing back correctly on my US Panasonic TV through the Roku/Vimeo app. In general, for world wide distribution, for cinema, streaming, and TV broadcast, it's best to originate at 24fps or maybe 23.98fps if necessary. 24fps can be sped up to 25fps for distribution in 50 hz countries easily. 3:2 pulldown can also be added to obtain 30fps or 60i for US TV broadcast. Cinema distribution is 24fps world wide. Conversely, if you need to convert from 30fps to 24fps it is difficult to get smooth motion due to the dropped frames. Hence the recommendation to originate at 24fps.
  8. 2 points
    I have found a very rare picture in the BBC vaults .. now semi retired, I often spend afternoons at Ealing with a nice cup of tea down in the vaults.. Ronnie is an old mate and has given me a key.. in 1954 the the head of outside broadcast .. Sir Norman Moncrief - Sackville.. decided upon the radical plan, that sound recordists should be able to stand up.. and these early rigs were made in the BBc,s own workshops in Wolverhampton .. the idea was quickly given the Spanish Archer under strong protest from the Imperial Sound Recordists Guild .. intriguing non the less Im sure you will agree..
  9. 2 points
    Still its a bit of a straw man argument, film is cheaper because on expensive shows Panavision and Union DIT's over charge for digital gear. I guess its possible to argue that digital is more expensive on the grounds that big budget productions don't budget carefully ( and of course we know they don't). But on a modest production, with a good PM thats shopped around to source all the staff and equipment - as Tylers own figures show film costs more. If there was minimal price impact of shooting on film vs digital, we'd all be doing it a lot more
  10. 2 points
    Lighting Cameraman was also used for TV drama.. docs with drama reconstruction, type shoots.. as opposed to DoP which was seen as the title for movie camera people.. It was what the high end TV camera people would call themselves .. but without presuming to be called a Dir of photography ..as this was the more lofty title of those who were working in the film industry .. All changed now.. but I still find it weird that people with very little experience will call them selves DoP..shooting a "feature film" .. on the crappiest of shoots.. could just be Im being an old fart.. but I think people should earn that title .. it doesn't come in the A7 box ..after you shoot your mate on a skate board for YouTube ..
  11. 1 point
    It takes more skill to make an indie film than a big budget studio picture. Where a Hollywood production can throw money at a problem, an indie production must work smart. I have started this thread as a place where we can share indie tricks-of-the-trade for realizing big budget production values on a modest budget. Or, as Phil Rhodes so eloquently put it in a recent thread “by the application of hard-won and exquisitely-realized skill.” Posts to this thread should not herald DIY lights, nor lighting a set with practicals alone. The emphasis should be on FILM CRAFT using a basic tool kit that can be carried in a 18’ rental box (say a 3-5 Ton Grip & Electric Pkg.) and powered off the wall or off of putt-putts (no diesel tow plants.) With the newest camera systems that are capable of a fourteen stop exposure range and ASA sensitivities of 1600 without grain you shouldn’t need anything more to get decent production values if you know what you are doing and willing to work hard. I will start it off by re-posting here my post from the thread “Night Lighting - Balloon VS Dino/Wendy's” (http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=70842.) This thread is for those productions for which $1500 for a balloon light or a generator to power a Wendy light is simply not in the budget and they have to figure out how to accomplish the same look for a lot less. For example, I would say the smart indie alternative would be shoot his wide establishing shots dusk-for-night and only his close coverage night-for-night. Dusk-for-night, is an important technique for indie filmmakers to learn because it is a means of obtaining expensive looking production values for very little money. Dusk-for-night uses the fading daylight as an ambient fill to gain a base line exposure in wide establishing shots without using a big source like a balloon light. Typically it is intercut with closer framing shot night-for-night to create a realistic night scene. The advantage to shooting dusk-for-night over day-for-night (the other low budget alternative to expensive night-for-night cinematography on a large scale) is that if you are shooting a house or city street you can incorporate set practicals like window or porch light, car headlights, or even streetlights or raking moonlight in a wide establishing shot. But in order to get the balance right between your lamp light and the fading daylight requires the right location and careful planning. For example, the key to success in shooting the house pictured below dusk-for-night is choosing the right location. To get the subtle separation of the night sky and trees from a dark horizon, you don’t want to shoot into the after glow of the setting sun. Instead you want to find a location where you will be shooting into the darker eastern sky. With dusk-for-night, you have maybe a thirty-minute window of opportunity after the sun has set to shoot the wide master before the natural ambient light fades completely so you have to have everything planned out, rehearsed, and ready to go. In order to get the balance right between the practicals and the ambient dusk light in the limited time you have to shoot the establishing shot, you have to start with larger fixtures and be prepared to reduce their intensity quickly. For instance if you want the glow of an interior practical light raking the lace curtains in a window, start with a PH213 in the practical and 2k Fresnel raking the lace curtain. Wait until the ambient dusk level outside has fallen to the point where the balance between the natural light and your lamp light looks realistic and then roll. To get a second take, open the camera aperture a half stop and drop a single in the 2k head, dim down the PH213, and wait again until the ambient dusk level outside has again fallen to the point where it looks realistic and then roll. If you continue in this fashion with nets after you have exhausted your scrims, and a PH212 when the dimmed PH213 starts to look too warm, you will be able to get multiple takes out of the diminishing dusk light. Likewise with a streetlight or moonlight raking across the front of the house. To create a moon dapple on the front of a house against a night sky, you will need a good sized HMI set on a high oblique angle so that it will rake across the front of the house. Break it up with a branch-a-loris and wait. When the ambient level of the dusk sky has fallen to the point where it looks realistic against the moonlit house and the practical lit interior - roll. You can even add a car pulling up to the house, but you have to be prepared and have enough manpower standing by to dim the practicals, net the lights, and scrim the car’s head lights very quickly. The final touch is to use a graduated ND filter on the lens to darken the sky and balance the camera between daylight and tungsten so that the ambient dusk light filling the shadows is cool and the practicals and tungsten lights motivated by them remain warm but not too warm. Once dusk is past, you shoot the close coverage night-for-night when a package consisting of what you can run on a portable generator will suffice. If you parallel two of the Honda EU7000is generators for 120A output, you will be able to use a 6k HMI for your moonlight at dusk on top of a sizeable tungsten package to light the interior of a house to a high level to match the daylight. For example, the scene below takes place in the middle of a near vacant parking lot of an all night convenience store. The establishing shot of the brightly lit convenience store situated in a wide-open expanse of a empty parking lot at night was shot dusk-for-night because the production didn’t have the resources to light up the parking lot and building to separate it from the night sky. Close coverage was then shot night-for-night with nothing more than a single modified 7500W Honda EU6500is and a small tungsten package of 1ks and 650w Fresnels. Left: Close coverage shot night-for-night. Center: Transformer/Distro provides 60A/120V circuit from Honda EU6500 and compensates for voltage drop over long cable run to set. Right: Operating the Honda EU6500 from behind the grip truck at a distance was all the blimping required to record clean audio tracks. With no building or other sound barrier within a reasonable distance to block the sound of the generator, Gaffer Aaron MacLaughlin put it behind their grip truck as far from set as possible. This was only possible because he used a transformer to step down the 240V output of the generator, and in the process compensate for the voltage drop they experienced over the 500’ cable run to set. Operating the Honda EU6500 from behind the grip truck at a distance was all the blimping required to record clean audio tracks. Guy Holt, Gaffer, Screenlight and Grip, Lighting rental and sales in Boston.
  12. 1 point
    great shots of the best 16mm camera system....Aaton!
  13. 1 point
    Personal taste is of course personal taste. My previous comments were a bit blunt.
  14. 1 point
    Good day, Madison Young Your post is very informative and I see that you have obsession with those LUTs. However there is a chance that those LUTs are custom made and it is impossible to purchase them. In your position the easiest solution would be to purchase LUTs from the company that uses them. However there is a high chance that they would refuse that or you shooting conditions would make those LUTs impossible to use. But there is another way to follow. Not go for the LUT, but go for the look instead. As far as I saw on the videos there is a high contrast with blown shadows and highlights. It is possible to replicate those grades and create a LUT based on this data with a bit of tweaking here and there. I could help you with that as I am working as a colorist. Recreation of the look from a reference is something that I do almost on a daily basis. Get in touch and we see what we can do with this LUT investigation.
  15. 1 point
    For realism, just think about how our creator lights day exteriors. A large bluish soft light that covers the entire ceiling, plus one big hard source that just a little bit less blue (the sun). Recreate this on stage and you'll have it! The challenging thing here is the very large, broad skylight emulation. This either requires many many smaller units of soft light, or a very large white textile to either bounce off of, or light through. I was once on a stage a few years ago where they used about 150 large kino flow units (4x8) to create the sky light, and then they had various "sun" sources pre rigged to create the sunlight. It was very effective and realistic. Tungsten or daylight fixtures, it doesn't matter.
  16. 1 point
    Yuck - bit too magenta for my taste. I wouldn't hold those LUT's (or whatever) as great examples of grading. The photography is good (maybe your responding to that), but for me the colour correction is working against the footage.
  17. 1 point
    Well Heart Shaped Box is pretty stylised as well, def feels like its a studio. Which is fine if thats the look your going for. There are other films that have built exterior sets indoors and made them look like day light more convincingly. e.g Sleepy Hollow, Labyrinth etc... I would stick to tungsten film. The result of using tungsten lights on tungsten films vs daylight lights on daylight film - should be roughly similar colour wise (thats the point). 200T or 500T are much more workable lightingwise. It would be very hard to get the light level bright enough for 50D. When you look at period films shot on slow speed stocks (wizzard of oz etc...) the lighting looks really fake because they are having to punch in so much hard light to get exposure
  18. 1 point
    you need to mimic the sky ambience with a large cold soft source and then make a believable sunlight to light the subjects and background. I believe that star trek shot is lit at least partially with spacelights but you can use lots of different techniques to get approximately the same end result. I have for example done sky ambience in a small studio by rigging the largest overhead frame I can over the subjects and then filling the frame with cold light sources like hmi or gelled tungsten etc. Then making the "sunlight" with diffused or raw tungsten fresnels or hmi par depending on what is needed. It is also possible to bounce the "sky ambience" instead of lighting through a diffusion frame if bouncing is easier or cheaper etc. For example using white molton or cheap white paper etc. for making a very large surface for bouncing cold light. How large a set you'll want to light for daylight look and what units etc. are available for you? You will want to observe a little how the real outdoor daylight behaves to be able to mimic it better in studio. Though the soft cold ambience + harder warmer brighter direct light is usually a good starting point and you just need to fiddle the ratios and colour temperature differences to sell it to the audience 🙂
  19. 1 point
    Well, you don't need a LUT to get this effect. A simple way, if you're working in an editing app, would be make a duplicate copy of the shot and place it over the shot on a 2nd video track. Next, convert the duplicate clip to B&W. Then color the black and white image to match skin tone so that's it's a sort of sepia colored b&w image. Then, finally, change the opacity of the sepia/b&w image to a low percentage so that just a little bit of it shows. This will have the effect of reducing the saturation of every color except the skin tones. Adjust the opacity of this duplicate layer until you like the effect and done!
  20. 1 point
    No you can change the frame rate.. usually 24/25/30/50/60p.. even 100/120 at certain REC settings.. ie HD not 4K.. the A7III also has S&Q (slow and Quick) to "burn in " slo mo or time lapse .. 30p is not" normal" for the rest of the world .. only the US.. and the few other 60Hz countries ..
  21. 1 point
    ⬆️ this And a bit of haze. The location makes the shot. If you look closely at the reflection on the floor, there is a reflection spot that is brighter than the sky. An 18K straight through the windows aimed slightly frame left would be the usual suspect.
  22. 1 point
    Thanks for all the comments...appreciate the positivity.....Watch the piece here Password: violence
  23. 1 point
    Gordon Willis will forever remain my number 1. A maverick.
  24. 1 point
    Hello, Rectilux-BOLEX-MOLLER 16-32 x1.5…VERY RARE !!! Combo Rectilux / BOLEX MOLLER-16-32 x1.5 So far the best way to get a true anamorphic ratio for the Cinemascope (2:66), without the constraints of a double focus. Your lens remains over the infinite and the Focuses only with Rectilux without adding diopter ring. The flares and especially the depth of field are magical, natural, impossible to replicate in post-production. You get a spectacular cinema image. The Bolex-Moller is of high quality (superior to Lomos, and other Iscoramas Letus or SLR Magic ...). All connoisseurs know that the Bolex-Moller is a benchmark of quality ... the x1.5 16-32 is now highly sought after. It becomes very, very rare! Mine is in immaculate condition, with no trace of wear, no dust or fungus. Comes installed, went with the Rectilux. The Rectilux is like new, (referenced / number "7") to which was added a 0.8 gear ring for your follow focus. I bought it from fellow Chris deshoux almost three years ago. I struggled alot to find one since it's extremely rare. Again, it is in pristine condition, if you want pictures, pm me. price : 3500 euros + shipping. or Best offer. cheers
  25. 1 point
    Thanks Mark, that was the detail I was looking for cheers Robert
  26. 1 point
    thats great, Im quite used to working through German technical drawings (translator gets heavily used) many thanks for your help email is rmccormick174@gmail.com we transfer is quite good at sending files, I use it a lot best. Robert
  27. 1 point
    Hey Tyler, yes this new footage is to go with the other footage I bored you all with last time.....the Governor's Residence Banquet hall was unavailable for filming as the roof had to be taken off for replacement so the whole thing was delayed for me for like 6 months......still, i insisted I had to film in there to elevate the final product as we can see Gibraltar Crystal product in use in Gibraltar's most famous (one of) buildings and tourists....especially Americans...love anything to do with British Royal family and all the rest of it...... oh and yes I know the candles went a bit wonky on the stills I attached earlier as I did my dolly track move up the 8m long table......I was shooting ONE 100ft roll of 250D in there and was at literally 1:1 ratio get it right and move on to next shot....the film discipline so to speak as I see it when there are no 'people' in there
  28. 1 point
    Pretty sure this was the run 'n' gun camera crew that sound recordist was working with:
  29. 1 point
    Intent: This post seeks to inform both historical, technical, and specific Cooke Lenses used on certain films of personal interest for the purposes of future projects. Thus, the numerous questions are to attain a starting by based of an accurate “frame of reference” when moving forward in choosing lenses to create a baseline image. In addition, when referring to “the Look” of a particular film, it goes without saying that filters, diffusion, LUTs, color palette, production design, HMU, films stocks and processing, affected the look of these films... so let’s avoid that divergent discussion. After extensive research of the three sources below, attaining answers to my questions have been spotty at best. Sources: http://www.musitelli.com/site/files/Cooke_Histoy_Book_by_FDTimes.pdf https://www.cookeoptics.com/t/history.html http://cookeoptics.tv/cooketv.nsf/b/index.html These five films span cinema history using various shooting formats and lensing systems (of which I am seeking information on) to which created stunning visual presentations. Let begin: The Wizard of Oz (1939)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/the-wizard-of-oz-1939 I think it’s safe to say that this masterpiece was shot on the Cooke Telecentric lenses for Technicolor… INFO: “It became evident the provision of a beam-splitting prism behind the objective in the Technicolor 3-strip camera made it impossible to use the wide angle objectives available at that time. The problem was to provide a lens of short focal length and wide relative aperture having the long back focal distance necessary to clear the prism whilst maintaining the high standard of definition expected from a Cooke lens. The most notable feature of these lenses, however, is the inclusion in the 30mm design of what might be called the inverse telephoto principle, whereby the back focal length is considerably longer than the equivalent focal length.” Q1) Will these lenses work on modern digital sensors. (Alexa, Red, Panavision DXL2) and/or film cameras using modern film stocks?? I want to find and use them. Either or viable shooting format will work for me… Q2) Why have these lenses seemingly disappeared?? They are referred to as, “Special Cooke Speed-Panchro Lenses” with an amazing F 1.3! There are numerous rental houses with rehoused Cooke Panchro’s but I have never seen a set of the Techinicolor Panchros. I’d be willing to even buy a set of these lenses and rehouse them… yet how could countless sets have dropped out of circulation?! Does anyone know of a rental house in the US (or seller) with the original Technicolor Cooke Panchros? Q3) In researching photos of these lenses, I have also discovered what are known as the Cooke anastigmat for technicolor lenses BUT at f2…. Are these it but a later model or are or they something else? Admittedly, I do not understand or know what “Anastigmat” means. http://www.kevincameras.com/gallery/v/movie_len/cooke/technicolor/ Casablanca (1942)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/casablanca-1942 I am presuming this film was shot on the Cooke Speed Panchros Series I since the Series II came out three years later in 1945. As referenced above. The Panchros have had a resurgence with combining rehoused Series II/III into a single rental/purchasable set. According to the sources, Series I are uncoated and rehoused versions of the Cooke Series O f2.0 OPIC lenses introduced in 1925. The Pancros were officially released in 1930. The Cooke Speed Panchro f/2.0 Series I were offered in 11 focal lengths: 24, 28, 32, 35, 40, 47, 50, 58, 75, 100 and 108 mm Q1) Does anyone know of a rental house with a set purely of Series 1?? I have yet to find this option or even see test footage of the original series I. Same goes with a set of Series O OPIC lenses: these could also be rehoused into a set with PL mounts. Where have these original Series O and I lenses disappeared to?? The 1945 Series 2 came in 6 focal lengths: 18, 25, 32, 40, 50 and 75mm. The Cooke Speed Panchros Series III came out in 1954 with specifically the 18 & 25mm having a faster f1.7, and larger image size to cover Vistavision. Source: “Both the 18 and 25 were of reverse telephoto construction and also released in the mid-1950s” Q2) In other words, it appears these two focal lengths for FF VistaVision use the same design principle as the Technicolor Special Cooke Speed Panchros… So did we just confirm the question above that the Technicolor Panchro’s are compatible with modern cameras? Also, do the rest of series III, or even series I, II and technicolor/Series O’s have the ability to cover the 8 perf 35mm neg and/or a digital 8k FFVV sensor??? Source: “In 1960, Director of Photography Russell Metty, ASC, used Cooke lenses with a Delrama anamorphic adapter to film "Spartacus" in Technirama. The 35mm negative was converted via Panavision printer lenses to a 70mm print.” Q3) So what it the delrama that provided the x1.5 squeeze which was in combination with a set of spherical FF VV Cooke lenses?? If so, then what were these original VV Cooke lenses??? Q3) Why would rental houses be combining Series II/III to create a single set? This seems haphazard when at least the series III 18 and 25mm have a totally different image magnification/coverage area compared to rest. Please confirm and/or correct the assumption that these two lenses will capture and different look/feel to the rest. I haven’t located a source revealing the rest of the series III were released in a larger matching FF VV capture size as well… so then generally speaking, do the Series II/III’s have an indistinguishable look to? Source: The newly released Cooke Panchro/i Classic, T2.2 “recreates the same look and feel of the original, with the advantage of modern glass, mounted for today’s cameras.” Q4) Regarding coverage/image magnification and overall look, are these new Panchro/i’s most akin the Series I, II, or III? Source: “By 1955, nearly every 35mm film camera in use throughout the world was equipped with Cooke Panchro, Speed Panchro or Super Speed Panchro lenses.” Q5) My goodness what is happening— convoluted Branding issues?? When did only Cooke Panchro and then a Super Speed Panchro come in? Okay, when physically holding them in your hand, what names are actually etched into the front barrel of the lenses of the three series… or are there in fact five series? Heheh Rebel Without a Cause (1955)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048545/technical?ref_=tt_dt_specA new era! It was shot in CinemaScope at 2.55, yet I cannot find any information as to which brand/make and model of lenses were used – not sure if even Cooke’s or something else. All I can gather is this film, like East of Eden, were ‘presented’ in anamorphic. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048028/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec But… you can tell the lenses (or perhaps the anamorphic adapter utilized) are much different between the two films. The latter, Rebel, has far less edge distortions. Q1) Were these first ‘Anamorphic’ CinemaScope films using actual anamorphic lenses or something like a “Delrama anamorphic adapter” attached to spherical lenses? If so, were they attached in front or behind? Plus, with these adaptors, focus had to be pulled simultaneously on both at the same speed?? Q2) I would love to use whatever the actual lenses were on “Rebel” on a modern camera BUT if it were not a real anamorphic, then I suppose that’s out of the question. Therefore, are the one or two first ever released adaptor-free anamorphic lenses for 35mm film coverage— And therefore, the first one from Cooke? Sound of Music (1965)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059742/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/the-sound-of-music-1965 A new era: This was shot on large format 65mm film. This film is touted in both webpages and videos as being shot on Cooke lenses... https://www.cookeoptics.com/t/filmed-with-cooke.html http://cookeoptics.tv/b/spotlight-f**k--the-numbers-geoff-boyle-spotlight.html Q1) So why has it never publicized which stunning set of Cooke’s were used? In fact, there is NO HISTORY on any of these three sources regarding FF, anamorphic, or large format Cooke image capture lenses from 1950-70s. I’m doubting in 1965 they were using some sort extender adaptors for large format? Which large format spherical primes and/or zooms were used for this 70mm film? Shotonwhat does state it used the Todd-AO camera aperture and anamorphic camera aperture. This seem like a contradiction… like 2001 Space Odyssey and Lawrence of Arabia (which used the Super Panavision 70 camera format… which is the same) I am pretty sure this film did not use anamorphic lenses Q2). This brings me to my most amateur question but which may or may not factcheck my hunch: Do the vintage anamorphics from the 60s/70s have the ability to cover the entire 5 perf 70mm film format? If so, are these x2 squeeze lenses still squeezing x2 or is it reduced to 1.5 (like when using 35mm 8 perf FF VV) or reduced x1.3? If the squeezed are reduced… how so? Apocalypse Now (1979)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/apocalypse-now-1979 I believe this film was shot with Cooke lenses as is referenced in these Cooke produced videos and Shotonwhat lists as Technovision lenses with an anamorphic camera lens aperture. http://cookeoptics.tv/b/masterclass-John-Mathieson-choosing-lenses-1.html I’m fairly certain Apocalypse was shot using the Cooke Xtal Express Lenses. Please confirm. Q1) This begs the question, what the heck are the Cooke Xtal Express made by Technovision and what are is the Cooke anamorphic set of which they modified to create these? Q2) This does suggest Cooke did have an anamorphic series during the period in question, So what were the different series/makes/models available and why have then gone unspoken of and missing from circulation to rental houses today? Q3) I read these were the favorite lenses of Vittorio Storaro, were made and/or converted by Joe Dunton at Technovision, but now the Panavision Paris gobbled them up and are the sole rental house for these sets—Hopefully not true. Where can one rent these in the US? Conclusion: There you have it: The murky and forgotten history of Cooke lenses in the eyes of today’s emerging filmmakers in the digital era. As a Cooke enthusiast, filmmaker and consumer wanting to get hands on the glass used in these five films – Please do help! Use of these lenses (Technicolor Panchros, Panchro series I, original CinemaScope anamorphics, original 70mm large format spherical Cookes, and the 1970s anamorphics like the Xtal Express) will guide in the ability to weave classic looks into the current and future image capture formats. Let the discussion begin...
  30. 1 point
    Hi Robert, the "Super Speed Baltars" aren't related with B&L nor the "Standard" or Super Baltars. They have very different mechanics and the look is different too. The "Standard" Baltars are said to be derived from Zeiss Biogon designs and are harder looking than the Super Baltars, but more prone to flare due to their primitive coatings. They also vignette a lot in a quite noticiable way, even though they cover Super 35. The Super Baltars are 30 years apart and are softer and less prone to flares, but they flare very nicely if a light hits the lens. The "Super Speed Baltars" are more modern lenses than the Supers (about 10 years) and have a soft, but very clean look. Somehow they remind me of Cooke S4's, even though Canon K35 would be the obvious reference for them. They don't flare as much as the Super Baltars and don't vignette at all in Super 35. So they just were nicknamed "Super Speed Baltars" because when they were released they were no other high speed lenses available for the Mitchell BNCR cameras, and most probably were used together with them. Some people used them for sure for high speed product shoots, as these were among the only lenses (K35's, Kowas and Super Baltars were the other) available for the Mitchell S35R MKII camera, which saw good use until the Arri 435 was released in the late 90's. So, just to be clear, the "Mitchell Hi Speeds", "F&B CECO Hi Speeds", "Mobile Optics Hi Speeds", etc. nicknamed "Super Speed Baltars" are completely unrelated to B&L and their two series of film lenses, but were used together with them and with the same BNCR mount Mitchell cameras, so that's how they got their nickname. The Mitchell Hi Speeds were initially the only fully functional high speed prime lenses for BNCR cameras, as the Zeiss T1.4 "B Speeds" -triangular iris version- came out circa 1975 in Arri Bayonet mounts and the Panavision Ultra Speeds were and still are PV mounted. There was an ad in the "American Cinematographer" (March 1976) issue of "Barry Lyndon" for the Canon "High Speed Aspheric Lenses" (later known as K35's) but only for the 24-35-55-85mm lenses. Most serials of K35's that I've seen are from the late 70's or even early 80's, so they probably weren't a wide available option for BNCR cameras until then, though Haskell Wexler, who had a very good relationship with Ed Di Giulio of Cinema Products, the company that sold the Canons in the USA, made a comment comparing the K35's and Mitchell Hi Speeds in the "American Cinematographer" issue covering the shoot of "Bound for Glory" (sorry, I forgot which number, but must be from late 1976 or early 1977). The 18mm Canon T2.8 was the companion lens of the 25-120mm T2.8 K35 "Macro Zoom" lens, which was already available I think before 1975. The 18mm K35 T1.5 I think it's just a 24mm T1.5 with an aspheron to get a wider angle of view (and it's closer to be a 20mm than a 18mm and "only" covers Super 35). As for VistaVision or FF Bausch & Lomb lenses, you should get in touch with Mr. Brian Caldwell of Caldwell Photographic. He's manufacturing new lens cells for both the "Standard" and Super Baltars, so you can bring the cells to your favourite rehousing company and have new lenses that match the old ones nicely. He has confirmed in Reduser that he's looking into new wide-angle Super Baltars with FF35 coverage. The Mitchell Hi Speeds cover the Alexa LF Open Gate without problem (you just have to frame to 1.78:1 and even the 28mm covers it). I have a full set including the 18mm and a 24mm (the only ones I've ever seen) and they all can be used with FF35 HD cameras, though they probably would benefit from new front rings of a wider diameter (currently 95mm) to avoid seeing the front of the lens with the widest lenses. It was not a problem in Super 35 and the common 95mm front helped 1AC a lot. The original Baltars have been forgotten lenses for decades, and thus, became unknown. They had seen hardly any use since the introduction of the reflex Mitchell cameras circa 1965. The "Standard" Baltars were in BNC mount and were designed for non mirror / non reflex cameras, so Mitchell came out for with the BNC-Reflex mount with new cameras and modified most older ones to allow the reflex viewing system- that's when the Super Baltars came out with their BNCR mounts and made the "Standard" Baltars obsolete. I had a hard time finding a rehousing company redoing it for modern HD cameras, because the wides are very hard to do as they prone a lot and remain close to the OLPF/sensor. Even with the rehousing, you still can't use them on film cameras with a mirror or HD cameras with reflex type viewing systems as the Alexa Studio or the Sony F65. But their look is very nice on HD and offer lots of personality and the so-called "film look".
  31. 1 point
    I really like dialogue driven stories so I found this to be quite interesting. I especially liked the dialogue from Izzy. The actress did a good job sounding natural. I did not like Ethan's cadence. It made him sound like a creep which made me wonder why Izzy entertained him. The explanation could be that he spoke that way due to his predicament. But then the question becomes: wouldn't Izzy realize he's acting strange? Ethan and Izzy's relationship is somewhat unclear. At first it seems like he's friendzoned but then he reveals that he has compromising photos of her which implies there is a sexual history between them. Of course, the situation could be that they did have a sexual past that Ethan is still hung up on, but it didn't feel like the dialogue showed that. Perhaps including that they fooled around once in the past during the conversation would make the photos Ethan has appear less to come out of left field. A lot is left unanswered in this short (which is fine) but the first question I asked myself upon seen the twist ending was: These guys broke into Ethan's house (who also has an alarm), so that they can break into Izzy's house without tripping her alarm? There are a hundred different explanations for why they would do this, but I figured you'd like to know what reaction you're getting to the big reveal. It was shot well for the found footage/webcam format. Unfortunately, you're limited to what the webcam sees so there isn't an opportunity for anything visually striking. Hope to see more of your work down the line!
  32. 1 point
    I just came across this thread. We own a full set of these and know a bit of their history. The Super Speed Baltars are a nickname indeed. These are 1970's lenses that had Kenji Suematsu (who also designed the Uniq Optics series of lenses) involved in their development. I had a chat once with him and he told me the lenses were manufactured for a wide variety of clients, including the Mitchell Camera Corporation, and several camera rental houses such as Mobile, Cinemobile, F&B Ceco... so the lenses were branded after them, unlike common sets of lenses that have a name regardless of who's renting out them. The most common name was "MITCHELL HI SPEED LENSES", but there are also F&B CECO Hi Speeds, Mobile Optics Hi Speeds... they were or are the same japanese still lenses (Nikon and/or Canon) fully rehoused in BNCR mount. The rehousing itself is still good enough to be used in professional shoots with remote focus devices if you take some care with the torque. The Hi Speeds were in a F&B CECO catalogue from 1974, and I've seen sets from at least other brand with a 74 as the first two digits of the serial number, so they are from the early seventies. At that time, there were no other High Speed lenses for cinematography (maybe some simple remounted lenses, not a full rehousing, as the ones that you can see at the Kubrick exhibition) so this Hi Speed lenses were used mostly with Super Baltars and Kowa sphericals on BNCR mounted cameras, and thus the nickname "Super Speed Baltar". Bear in mind the Panavision Ultra Speeds, Canon K35 and Zeiss B Speeds won an Academy Award in 1977, so they were released sometime later than this Hi Speeds. They might have been developed for low-light photography, but since they were made from 24x36 stills glass, they were also used a lot by VFX houses such as ILM (Suematsu confirmed me this) and maybe some other post houses that adopted VistaVision for VFX work such as Apogee, etc. Leo Anthony Vale once posted in this forum that the advertised price for the Mitchell Hi Speed set in BNCR mount (28mm T1.8 - 35mm T1.3 - 55mm T1.1 - 85mm T1.7) around 1975 was 7995 USD:
  33. 1 point
    Not really. He bitched and moaned about shooting "Hail Caesar" on 35mm, but that was a while ago. The Coen's probably will never use him again considering how much he hates film and they love it for their feature productions.
  34. 1 point
    Now do it again, and this time shift things around by a few pixels each time. When the 8x8 pixel DCT blocks don't line up, it all falls apart much more quickly.
  35. 1 point
    In my experience, you're on the right track. Personally, I would opt for a tungsten fixture and change your white balance to about 4000K in camera to achieve this look, but if you're stuck with the HMI then you might try some minus green (aka magenta) gel as well as the CTO. Sunlight tends to shift towards this end of the spectrum as it is nearing the horizon. I would keep a pizza box or beadboard on hand for tight shots. One of my favorite ways to replicate this is a little 1 stop Cyan (Rosco #4330) on a soft fixture bounced into a ceiling or other white surface (beadboard, silk, muslin, etc.) to bring up the room just a touch and add those blue-ish tones. Good luck with the project and be sure to post screens!
  36. 1 point
    I think most of the small budget doc makers will be perfectly happy with whatever camera they have possibility to use as long as they can get decent sound quality on interviews. Having bad sound quality sucks in any type of production no matter how small budget and makes a great difference. The image quality in most docs is like, as long as you can see SOMETHING it can be tolerated if you need the camera budget for other more important things like transportation or food. Or audio gear :P
  37. 1 point
    The Canon C series cameras are not good for doc, hand holding all the time just doesn't work. I really prefer the ENG style cameras. My first choice would be Arri Amira of course. It's a great package that you're already very familiar with. I've used for ENG stuff and even though it is heavy, I don't find it any heavier than what I've used in previous lives. I have used the Sony F5/F55 for doc stuff and it's a very decent competitor. I haven't touched the new Panasonic offerings, but nothing they make is exciting, they're sticking with the Canon C series and Sony FS7 size cameras, which are kinda meh in terms of size/balance. It's far better for the camera to be perfectly balanced on your shoulder, rather than front heavy (canon c series, Panasonic EVA-1), which is also where the Sony excels. My go-to lens for the F5/F55 is a Nikon 19-90. It's not very heavy and it does your wide end with no vignetting very well, plus at F2.9, it's not horrible on stop. Of course focal length is your only issue, but unless your shooting nature/animals, you probably won't need much longer.
  38. 1 point
    I thought so too. I've even done 2 version of this video: with and without last shots!
  39. 1 point
    I'm not convinced Tyler. Yes, often, a film project is more expensive. But "ALWAYS" as you put it in capitals, no I don't agree at all. As I said above, in some cases it may be about the same cost and who knows sometimes cost less. I'm talking shooting 2 perf with affordable lenses don't forget. Sure, it's a low-budget indie way to be a filmmaker but all I'm saying is that it's not "ALWAYS". Remember, only a sith deals in absolutes. Just joking mate. ("mate" in Australia = "friend").
  40. 1 point
    I am not arguing against film or that it's not worthwhile. Just that to shoot film cheaper then digital you tend to have to jump through some hoops. E.g short ends, very low shooting ratio, very expensive digital. I know of a filmmaker shooting films on tiny budgets with 16mm. But it's DIY processed 16mm on a 2:1 shooting ratio. It's possible to make a good film this way. But it's pretty non standard. So yes film can be done cheaper and maybe digital can be expensive too. What I am against are these blanket statements that go out on this forum of "film is cheaper" without qualifying them. Because 9 times out of 10 it's not
  41. 1 point
    OP, just how it is. $$ runs the world, not art. CA was taken down over $$, with cheap illegal labor. Brexit was stopped over $$. Scorsese ruined the end of Taxi Driver, desaturating the blood over $$. Why was Trump stopped from closing down the border to Mexico...that is right $$. England lost the Colonies back in the 1780's over $$...the Stamp Tax. That is one of the big benefits of working underground. You don't care one thing about profit other than do you have the $$ to do a project. Of course, filmmaking is even worse than still photography for sucking down $$. One way or another it always boils down to $$ when doing art. If I could draw I could be in biz with a used napkin and a pencil. And if grandma had balls she would be grandpa. Just gotta suck it up and do the best we can in the world we got.
  42. 1 point
    If you're clever, know what you're doing, and put in the research, for independent filmmakers making short films, I do think that for approximately equal quality, that 35mm film using your own gear possibly works out the same price or approximately so as hiring an Alexa and all the other kit from a rental house. All things considered. Post and everything. Or put it this way, at worst, film wouldn't be much more in cost, and if you're really into film you won't care about such a small cost difference. You know, artists complain about the cost of paint. They always did. Oils cost more but who cares - just paint less and do a great job on what you do produce. But I've never worked it out exactly, the film/digital cost difference for short films. I do know there's just no way I would buy high-end digital gear. I'd only do that if I could work with it and make the money back reasonably quickly.
  43. 1 point
    Something to note. If its a $20 polarizer then youll likely see a color shift as you turn it (usually warmer). So be sure to set it and leave it for consistency.
  44. 1 point
    Asbestos? Don't shoot there period.
  45. 1 point
    https://www.kodak.com/motion/Blog/Blog_Post/?contentId=4295008512 Dan Mindel on the budgeting for "The Cloverfield Paradox" “We priced the production for digital versus analog film, and the Paramount executives were convinced it was going to be cheaper for us to shoot it digitally. We estimated that we would shoot between 10 to 15,000 ft of 35mm per day. The overall figure for shooting on film actually came out $150,000 cheaper than digital. This was in part due to the fact that film cameras and film lenses are a fraction of the cost of the digital equivalents, which are rented at top dollar. Additionally, with film you don’t have the expense of a DIT or data storage on set. It was a really good exercise in economics and demonstrated that film production can be perfectly reasonable financially.”
  46. 1 point
    The SUPER shallow DOF is throwing me off more than the lighting . Inadvertently make shots look like green screen.
  47. 1 point
    Big difference between low-dose hand luggage and checked luggage. Depends on how 'visible' the contents were in the scanner. If you hide the films in a lead bag, the operator will turn up the dose. I always recommend to ship by Fedex or similar. We recently did a test with the help of Fedex and after eight passes, the increase in D-Min was less than 0.02 (densitometer tolerance). It all depends on the settings of the x-ray machine.
  48. 1 point
    They talk analog renaissance, well, Jeff Clarke did, and don’t keep promises at the same time, worse than Film Ferrania. No new Super-8 camera since the announcement more than three years ago. Prices to simply forget about film. No new Super-8 projector. Analog renaissance? The hens behind the barn go laughing. Move to a different film format. Super-8 is an ugly plastic throw-away thing from the sixties. Enjoy the older open concept of film on spools, of all-metal machinery that can be kept running.
  49. 1 point
    There are no easy answers here, but if you consider that sometimes movies are an art form, not just a product for mass consumption, then not every choice has to be determined by what the audience cares about or notices -- sometimes it is enough for the artist to care about something and then hope there is a receptive audience for their particular vision. I don't think when David Lynch or Andrei Tarkovsky made a movie, they spent much of their time wondering what clients and consumers were asking for. It goes way beyond choice of shooting format, after all if you build a set and sew costumes, you have to make decisions on color schemes, textures, etc. that go way beyond a typical viewer's ability to care or notice. I think to some extent, audiences don't care because they don't have to, they expect the filmmakers to care. The skills needed to make any complex product are beyond the average consumer, but the consumer hopes that someone cares about the details. So if you hire artists to make something, anything, then one shouldn't be surprised that these artists have certain tastes for how things are done. And some artists are sensitive to the origination medium. I mean, would anyone be surprised if painters had opinions about working in oils versus acrylics, or sculptors working in marble versus wood?
  50. 1 point
    All things being considered, that means there could be at least 50 sets of these special Technicolor Cooke Panchros that were made - That's a pretty good number. So does anyone know where they all ran off to? Could this be a case of Technicolor having controlled (and still do control) circulation and they're all sitting in a a bunch of pelican cases in a backroom storage unit at technicolor in LA? Heck, this could be like how the Panavision Panatar lenses were dusted off and grabbed from the back-corner and are not the hottest lenses around. If not a controlled circulation, there must be some owners or rental houses out there with these available to filmmakers... Regardless, can someone still confirm if telecentric lenses with beam splitting prisms are compatible with modern single chip digital sensors in the first place anyway? Furthermore, I have seen word, though have yet to see a rental page of a set, of Vintage Cooke double speed Pancro 1.3X Are these actually them but simply remounted and rebranded? What are theses things? There are also the so called "Cooke Double Speed Panchros"... but the f stop rating doesn't seem to be faster then any other given Series II/III Panchros.... https://www.truelens.co.uk/cooke-double-speed-panchro Hmm... first off, lets confirm if Apocalypse Now was shot with Xtal Express lenses because that film doesn't show any signs of close up mumps or distortions on the edge of the frames making characters look thinner. I would have presumed if Panavision had corrected these problems with their own all-in-one anamorphic lenses in 1958, than by the mid 1970s, Hollywood still would not be using adapters to achieve the x2 squeeze? But if so, i'm assuming then it was a set of spherical Panchro series III... but then combined with what adapter ~ What make/model and was it front or rear? I have come across these Technovision lenses for rent... Are these the Xtal Express ~ What the heck or these?? http://www.d-visionitalia.com/en/rental/lenses/anamorphic/ http://www.d-visionitalia.com/en/rental/lenses/anamorphic-zoom/ Ohhh?? So this goes back to the question of what was the name of the first available series of Panavision lenses that did correct these mumps in 1958? --- A needed clarification: when referring to the spherical taking lens method does this refer also to the use of adapters which required duel focus pulling OR was it were these the first of their kind (for lack of a better term) all-in-one anamorphic lens systems of their kind that where rebuilt/rehoused from the ground up? From my panavision research, it appears the C series are the oldest they list on their website for rental but they came out a decade later in 1968. https://www.panavision.com/products/c-series-anamorphic-prime-lenses-0 What are the B series? Panavisions website doesn't even list them. And hey, if there is a series B and C... wouldn't that imply there is an initial A series???
×
×
  • Create New...