M Joel W

Thanks... my hope is that by shooting with a 360º shutter (1/720) we shouldn't get as much flicker. We'll know soon enough. We have some plug ins to adjust in post. That looks okay... we would be happy with something similar.

I agree with the above... on camera lights can be problematic. (And ring lights are generally used for beauty/glamor and impart an unnatural look that's more hip hop than bar mitzvah.) You also might want to check out cinema5d or dvxuser for that kind of info... However, since my other life is as a C100/5D Mark III owner/op, I have some experience with this stuff. (Professional DPs here generally do much higher end work than us and our questions don't interest them!) I own this: http://www.amazon.co...&pf_rd_i=507846 ...and generally dislike it. It's unreliable and the quality of light is harsh. However, it's very bright and you can switch the color temperature with great control. I don't think it would look very good used at an event, except maybe if you were able to wrap it in black wrap to stop it from spilling and bounce it off the ceiling or otherwise soften it very heavily. I'd just embrace the dark look, though TBH with a fast lens (f1.4) you should be fine at 1250ISO/f1.4/1/30sec shutter/HTP off for virtually any interior event photography, just embrace the darkness past that point and don't push further or you will get an ugly picture. For sound the zoom h4n is the thing to get, though other brands have recorders with superior pre-amps. On-camera pre-amps save a lot of time and can work well, too. The old beachteks were terrible but they have improved. I can't recommend a shotgun (the ME66 seems okay, but not my area of expertise here), but the Sennheiser lavs are wonderful. The $25 cowboy studio shoulder rig is very nice for run-and-gun and balances well with dSLRs.

Boston. Renting the ts3cine. Budget is very tight... nearest Arri FF ballast is in Detroit, or so says Arri. Our current plan is to run the camera with a 360º shutter and dial down the frame rate until flicker is mitigated. Shutter will be 1/720sec, not that bad. Lights are an M40 (or M25) and daylight kinoflos. If we had more money we'd be shooting with a Phantom and proper lights, but we don't... Any advice much appreciated. Director is okay with a little flicker since this is a horror montage cut to dubstep and there will be distress effects applied in post, too. Shutter on camera is global, too, so no artifacts beyond flicker.

I'm shooting a short video on the ts3cine. The location has a ton of natural light and it's a day interior. I'm scouting the location for light levels under various lighting conditions (overcast, full sun) to make sure we have the stop for high speed and that the sun will be out long enough, etc. We're shooting at 750fps/f2.8/ISO800 and of course stopping down as need be if there is more light than is necessary. I want to light primarily with natural light as the space is too big to light with HMIs but we have the option of bringing in whatever HMIs we can drive off an unmodified 6500 EU for fill. We also have two fat men kinoflos for fill, both with daylight bulbs of course. I'm working out my ratios and whatnot on my own but what I am worried about is FLICKER!!!! Which HMIs are appropriate for 750fps? I fear electronic ballast HMIs still won't be fast enough due to subtle flicker and arc wavering. My top choice is the M18, as I think I can run that and two four banks without blowing the gennie up, and I need to be conservative since it's the old ballasts that aren't power factor corrected or whatnot... But I am afraid this will flicker terribly. Anyone have any advice? Any experience using HMIs for high speed? Again 750fps (1/1500 shutter) and an M18 is the current plan.

A camera is Alexa. Shooting at 800 ISO. To prores.

 B camera is either Scarlet or C300. Shooting at 800/850 ISO. External recorder capturing prores.

 The cameras are meant to match and there is time for a grade but no time for a beauty pass to emulate the Alexa's built-in halation simulating filter. I want to put a filter on the B camera to emulate the halation filter on set. Two problems present themselves:

 A filter in front of the lens should be stronger at 200mm than at 18mm. The on-chip filter should not. So I might need a set of varying strengths, and this is a pain constantly switching filters. Will I need varying strengths? How can I tell what strength at 18mm seems like a different strength at 85mm or at 200mm? 

I dislike filters that have large enough particles that they are visible in the bokeh (for this purpose, at least). I want a very fine-patterened filter.

W ould an ultracon set work? What strengths should I buy? Thank you all for your help. Please don't discuss camera systems except tips for matching between them; there's no ideology here, just what I anticipate will be available and fastest in post. Thanks. Though, to be perfectly honest, I quite like the Alexa's halation filter and would be happy to emulate it.

This thread is great. Would like to see the results. Fwiw, I've seen a lot of successful people cheat in minor ways such as these and have no trouble. It's only when you're hurting someone else or misrepresenting yourself so far that you may not deliver to paying clients in the future that it's an issue.

I'm considering buying a C100 and external recorder so I can work as an owner/operator. I already have the lenses. From what I've seen the Alexa has, legitimately, 14 stops or so of DR. The Epic, when I last used it seemed to clip 2.5 stops sooner and had .5 stops more shadow noise. The 5D with HTP had 1 stop more shadow noise than the Alexa and 3 stops less highlight detail, but was very close to the Epic. The Alexa is amazing! I had great results with the F3 in log mode but my lenses are all EF mount, which leaves me the options of C100, C300, BMCC and Scarlet. I won't tolerate shooting raw so the Scarlet and BMCC are out. The C100 and an external recorder seems to be the best affordable option, as much as I hate external recorders. From what I gather, that will put the C100 on par with its big brother. Then I saw this: Okay, so wow. The F3 looks like it's close to the Alexa. Amazing. The C300 is a half stop worse but its fake log gives it over saturated video highlights (yuck). The Epic looks terrible! Apparently a new firmware update improved it a lot. Was the Epic I used that was like a full three stops clippier than the Alexa the old version or the new one? Most importantly, how does the C100 compare with my current camera (which I don't love), the 5D Mark III? For DR exclusively. Thanks!

A lot of professional DPs and gaffers are super critical of the Sekonics and only use Spectras. Apparently the Spectra's incident meter is far more accurate and far superior and the spot meter on the Sekonic dual meters is sensitive to pollution and is really pretty garbage. I couldn't tell from how many Sekonic dual meters I've seen in use, though. And I just love mine, though it gets no use anymore. A used 558 would be fine and cheaper. Or a mid-grade Spectra. Everyone shoots differently, but for film an incident meter seems about all you need. Since digital clips so badly there's some merit to taking out the spot meter from time to time...plus for hard-to-reach places.

Someone I know who would know claims that a popular light for such car commercials is a twinkie light, basically a twinkie-shaped balloon that hangs above the car. If I understand correctly. Otherwise it's an overhead, which accomplishes the same thing. Cars are reflective so you're lighting with specular highlights. That means you can't have an obvious "source" or it reflects. Based on the last shot in this video they used a smaller source than that huge frame pictured below, and one shaped in a more perfect square. Anyhow, it's all the same idea: light with a big soft light and focusing primarily on specular highlights. Lighting with specular highlights (or intentionally avoiding them, as with Khondji's miniature work on Alien Resurrection) is very cool and requires a real skill and mastery. Lighting dark skin can involve this approach; so can lighting glamor commercials and car ads and hair.

If you have the lenses I'd take the 60D any day. Vastly, vastly better if you can light, compose, and avoid its pratfalls (moire, skew, etc.). Just a whole different league. Then again, you'll suffer from having the same dSLR look as everyone else!

The default shutter speed is 1/48 or 180º. You can change it to anything between 360º and something very small.... You're right that this will give you the best motion rendering. I feel like f2-f4 is the "zone" for a lot of 16mm photography (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't shoot it), and that's shallow focus relative to the hvx200. So I'd keep the iris wide open and use ND filters so you get as shallow focus as possible. Mess with the scene files to extend your latitude. And grading will help a lot, though the hvx has nice colors in the first place. You can shoot some still images on film or shoot color checker charts on film and on digital and match them in post by eye and by looking at the vectorscope. And then add a ton of thick film grain, that might be the real trick, but also hard to do tastefully. Also consider dSLRs. They are very nice. The GH2 is sharp and has a smaller sensor than the others. Should give you a 16mm feel if shot and posted well.

Definitely. A lot of the time it's the director's fault for not making things clear enough in the first place. Art film ambiguity is rarely a great merit. But you should learn to work well with actors (read Judith Weston's directing actors to start), learn how to tell a story well (read Story, Save the Cat, etc.), and learn at least the basics of blocking and coverage (there's a DVD series online, but this is kind of a lost art in all honesty, so just watch tons of movies and study blocking and coverage). A technical background helps, too, especially on lower budgeted productions. You want to know at least enough technically that you can call out your crew if they try to dupe you. Or you need to have enough trust not to worry about it. That said, it will be 1000 times harder if you weren't born filthy rich and connected to the industry and aren't young and attractive and willing to sleep with producers.

How long is the director's cut and how long is the current release? It seems there are 216, 222, 227, and 228 minute versions. I've seen this movie twice in 70mm (likely from the same print) but I forget how long it was. If I saw a truncated print I'd like to see the full version. It looked sharper than modern 35mm to me, fwiw, but it was grainy.

Depends what you want to use them for. The Arri kit is versatile but lacks punch and soft lights. A 1k softbox or something would really make that kit useful. Arri fresnels are excellent lights--very durable, nice aesthetically, etc. You can make a makeshift soft light by bouncing the 650 off a piece of beadboard or using diff frames, but you won't ever get much punch for your key with that kit, especially if you have to light for daylight ever. Divas are nice. I prefer the four banks and two banks for narrative use because the quality of light seems better for some reason and they're big and soft, but they are hard to set up and take down quickly. Divas have the advantage of being daylight/tungsten switchable, inherently soft, and with a lot of punch for a soft light that can run off edison power. But how are you going to add hard light and kickers with just two soft lights? Divas are great for commercial and corporate use and you can key with one fill with the other, but they won't let you shape things very much. That lowel kit has both soft and hard sources so in theory it could be best, but I strongly dislike lowel lights and would recommend against them. I'd look to supplement the Arri kit with a 1k softbox, but only because that's similar to the kit I first bought and like. A lot of big productions use cheaper lights, chinese lanterns with skirts, practicals, etc. now that cameras are so light sensitive and dr has been expanded so much on the low end. With a dSLR that can shoot 2000 ISO you can get by with some very small lights and a lot of bounce. It really depends on what you plan to use. So just go with what you've liked in the past, but don't get the lowel! For corporate the divas will get used a lot, for narrative frensels are nice but that kit alone won't get you as far as would be ideal--not enough punch or soft light.

It's been exactly a year so if we refrigerate it now I figure it will still be good in a year, maybe? Or I can try to use it sooner. I'll get a snip test. I don't have a claim on this film yet, but if I get my hands on it it should be almost free for quite a lot of film, which is why I'm interested in the first place. Of course processing won't be free. It's the remains from a feature shot on 35mm and the studio couldn't sell it because it was left out. I might also have some Fuji 64D from a short made under similar circumstances, come to think of it.

You probably know more about this than I do, but I'm interested in the same subject so I'm posting to read others' replies. A few thoughts, anyway: What format are you shooting--I don't think dSLR or Red could handle the blown highlights and you might need more fill to compensate, whereas film or the Alexa could get there and you might need less fill. The flipside of which is that a less grainy medium will allow you to use power windows more aggressively and I find the Alexa and film have more texture in the midtones (whereas the Epic just has tons of noise in the shadows, worse for what it is but perceptually cleaner if you crush the blacks in post). I assume you're using some diffusion on camera, promist maybe? Matching LEDs to tungsten is an imperfect science from what I've seen, but I'm only worked with pretty low end LEDs. If you're lighting through heavy diff, anyway, such as half grid why would you use LEDs rather than fresnels or soft lights; the quality of the light will be impacted by the diff either way to a really significant extent and LEDs won't render color as well. Why not just use a book light if you're looking for a big, shadowless fill? I suppose you could fill selectively with an LED (it's not super hard, but it is easily controlled and directional, so it's got a unique quality of light), but diffusion would cancel that out. You could also just bring in more fill as needed for the CUs if faces don't need to read in the widest shots. The difference probably won't be that big a deal.

Thank you all. I'll see if I can refrigerate it until I use it.

I think it's more a matter of being able to articulate something with a particular voice and mastery of the form than coming up with something "new" and creative. This can mean different things to different directors; just as a great EDM producer might not be able to play guitar but he's still a talented musician, a great director might not work well with actors, might struggle at covering action, might be bad at comedy, might not be able to write well, etc. But that's what's so awesome about movies: their diversity. Spielberg's favorite directors are Lean and Ford. No surprise. Bay's favorite? The Coens. Crazy. Don't think about the movies in terms of concepts. Most of Fincher's best movies are based on books, none are written by Fincher, and they have a lot of traits in common (thematically, most are about a genius manipulator of sorts, be it a serial killer or CEO). This isn't because Fincher thought those would be good movies to make necessarily, but because the studio is more likely to green light pictures that are similar to previous financial successes from a given director. Who can blame them? Benjamin Button was unwatchable. A lot of the story aspects are the terrain of writers and producers. Rather than looking exclusively at what stories directors come up with (although this is very important), consider their other responsibilities: directing actors, blocking, working with the cinematographer, editor, and production designer to create a look and feel, placing the camera and picking lenses and camera motion, etc. This is where are are specific crafts that require a certain level of experience and genius to master--it's not just coming up with an idea, it's executing on it. The director isn't who comes up with the story most of the time, and a lot of narrative commonalities academics ascribe to auteur theory are actually just the work of studios and producers teaming stories up with directors, but the director IS the primary story teller--and any given story can be told a million different ways.

Thanks! If I might not use it for as long as a year, should I store it in a refrigerator or just leave it out in the same conditions? Thankfully this wouldn't be for a commercial project.

I might be able to get my hands on some 5230 and a 35mm camera for less money than they would usually cost to use, but my concern is that the film has been left out for a year in normal temperatures (an office that varies between 40ºF and 90ºF, but is usually more temperate, is my guess). Should I: a) Refrigerate the stock now and take it out when I'm ready to use it (hopefully within a year or two). B ) Not bother. c) Continue to leave it out in the same environment. and if I choose to use it should I: a) Rate it significantly slower (250ISO) and expect major color shifts or B ) Rate it the same and expect it will be very similar to how it was originally or c) Try it out and see what it's like Basically what I'm asking is--how bad will this film be and how should I treat it so it doesn't get worse? Thanks!

Thanks! Sorry for the horrible incoherent writing, btw; don't drink and post, I guess... The cinematography in this movie is really awesome. It looks a lot like the Classical "three point light" offside key look but what they did with it is great and motivated. Panaflasher and smoke to reduce contrast and then ENR to increase it? Amazing that they got this look before DIs. What kind of key:fill ratios are we talking here? Are these set ups actually fairly low contrast then boosted by the ENR? Two things really elude me, how did they achieve this level of contrast, get blue/green tints on the walls, and keep skin tones natural? Did they fill with green gelled lights, is it an art direction thing, a byproduct of ENR, the color of the smoke? And what kind of key lights could you use to get that much contrast while maintaining a soft shape in a bright room? The third frame grab down appears to be lit with a skirted soft source from above (mild raccoon eyes), but the skin tones are correct and the ambience of the room green. Surely these aren't white walls--they were painted off blue? Otherwise, how? Four shots down, is the practical also they key? The vertical kinoflo as a kicker seems like a great idea, but wouldn't it spill? And wouldn't the key spill, too? Most rooms seem to have pretty bright walls and none of the spaces look that big.

He's used this style elsewhere, I think, but I am a pretty big fan of Darius Khondji's technique in Seven... From what I can tell his technique for day exteriors is throwing up a lot off diff (more likely solids) over as much of the onscreen area as possible and using rain machines. I think the movie had a bleach bypass process. I'm more interested in how the interiors were art directed, lit, filmed, and processed. A few grabs (courtesy Brangelina forums): These are kind of shitty. The sickly green hue and rich blacks aren't apparent here. The movie has kind of a teal/warm look that I love (in this case) but I can't figure out how it was achieved. It seems Khondji dimmed the practicals so that they just barely blew out, then lit the talent with warn semi-soft offside keys and slightly cooler kickers. Looks great. Rooms seem to be fogged? Or did he use hazers? And how, then, does he keep the green tint on the rear walls while lighten the talents' skin naturalistically? Did he bounce a teal gelled light off the ceiling? And wouldn't this result in really flat lighting on the white walls, or did art design paint them sickly hues from the get go. The other rumor is that Khondji only uses bounced light. Which would make these set ups seem insane... HelP!

I don't shoot film because I can't afford to; don't be patronizing. My occupation is listed as student and even that's not really true. I took one intro class in school and public access video production and I still want to take more classes some day and hopefully make a living working in video production... Not pretending to be someone I'm not. A few friends of mine have recently shot features, shorts, etc. on film. With lab costs, telecine, etc. the cost was about $100,000 more for a feature on a similar scale to Halloween or something versus the budget for something shot digitally. A 10:1 shooting ratio on 5219 for a 100 minute feature puts you at $60,000 for raw stock as per Kodak's rate in America. Okay, you can get discounts, but then factor in the cost of camera rental, processing, telecine, dailies, timing/DI, etc... I'm sure profitable features have been shot on 35mm for under $100,000 but those are exceptions, not the rule. Particularly not in America where you need a star to sell your script to investors, let alone your movie to distributors. Assuming a normal shooting ratio, unless you're willing to pull in tons of favors to which a first-timer doesn't have access, $100,000 extra to shoot on film (versus cheap digital--high end digital would be somewhere in between) is a reasonable figure. How would set up times not be increased? You have, effectively, half the DoF at a given stop for anamorphic and film is a stop slower than popular digital alternatives; those extra lights don't set themselves up... Don't see why you need to feel like a big man and butt in about how you get to shoot on film--oh good for you. Your claims are still wrong and you have terrible grammar.

Hmm...yes, that would make a lot more sense.

I sent you a PM but you should really hire a producer and DP if you want substantive answers to these questions rather than just semi-anonymous opinions. The cost of additional gear for shooting film rather than video might be as little as $100,000, but the additional crew and potentially slower set up times will mean you'll need a higher budget. Thus the figure I gave above for a very low budget indie shot on 35mm. If you've got the money to shoot film and you love the look, go for it. But you should hire a producer and, eventually, a DP before even thinking about gear. Gear won't be your biggest expense, nor should it be your top priority.