Eric Steelberg ASC

I don't like him either. But I don't think his film should be censored..it plays into his 'consipracy.'

That's generally my feeling. I've shot it and like it, but I do think it takes an extra 10% time wise to light and check the scopes and it still doesn't have the texture and depth film has. The problem with HD now is that it was developed without the input of the people who care most about image aquisition and just dumped hig res chips in a standard ENG body as assumed widespread acceptance and instant success. When Kodak develops new stocks, they get feedback from clients asking what they want then do much testing before releasing the final product. This has worked well for a long, long time and is one of the reasons their product is still superior. But when people hear 'film DPs' poo-pooing HD, they assume they're luddites instead of listening to their feelings about the format. I still don't know why the guy above is still hawking this Landmark theater stuff again. I sure as hell am not going to try to sell a production HD with a theoretical and unproven distribution route.

It's such a pain having to discuss costs in order to sell your format of choice. Now we need to add producing skills to our already long list of skills. I too use the line that if they want it to look like film, they need to shoot film. If they want it to look like really amazing video, they need to shoot hi def.

I'm sure this is bound to spark many passionate opinions. I'm not trying to find out which people think is better because each is appropriate in different circumstances. What I am more interested in is hearing how other DPs discuss the two options with productions who are trying to decide between the two. I frequently go into meetings for features and am asked what I think of each format. I usually end up telling them film is the best choice for their project, but not always. What do you guys say?

website not done yet, until then I offer you some older shorts...if you're bored and have some extra time. Each title is a link. In God We Trust Gulp Jane It's Not Unusual Dot.com

Both of those films had their imagery made using digital intermediate, although Paul Cameron (dp Man On Fire) likes to push film and sometimes cross process in addition to shooting Fuji Velvia reversal.

Maybe, but those filmmakers aren't making films for business purposes they are making them to be in the movies too. Bottom line, if your script is good enough, you should be able to get money to do it right and not have to resort to consumer equipment and a crew of 'weekend filmmakers.' I hate people who don't actually work in the business repeating what they've read in articles and manufacturer's brochures.

Who wants to pay $10 to see something shot on miniDV projected on a 60' screen at less than 2k resolution? Who wants to do their own distribution and marketing for the screenings? How much of each ticket will they give you and how much does it cost to put into a large theater? People get way to excited way to early about new technology. I should remind you that Microsoft has previously had nothing to do with the film business and what they say or claim should be taken with a large grain of salt. They are jumping the gun, and frankly, trying desperately to catch up to Apple and their MPEG codecs...a company who has been intimately a part of film production for many many years.

There's a big difference. After wanting to shoot a straight to video feature on the SDX900, I convinced the director and producer to go super 16 and post in HD and it looks fantastic. Shot the whole thing on the 500 Vision 2 and they are happy they spent a little extra money doing it.

What the hell are you talking about? Whoever said a DI would let good DPs forgo good lighting? You need to think more about what you're saying, especailly since all the DPs currently promoting DIs are Oscar winners and nominees. You sound like the filmmakers who said HD is great because you don't have to light it. Any DP that's on a production that can actually afford a DI WON'T be lazy. And before you critcize Kodak too much more realize that the very reason you don't like DIs is because of their 100 years of research and improvement, making film what it is today.

Anyone heard if the Beijing Film Group is still around and doing 3 color separations?

I'm not in the 600 but I've been working jobs, mostly commercials, for a long time that have been paying my P&W to the union and them taking their 1% of the paycheck. What I want to know is if the P&W is set aside for when I do join or does it go into their coffers. If that is true do I not begin accumulating P&W until I'm 'in'? :huh:

Hmm. Maybe it wasn't JDC they were talking about then. Or it was and they don't know what they're talking about...probably the latter. Anamorphic S4s would be interesting. I wonder if they'd still retain the spherical's awesome resolution and contrast at T*2. Again, unions benefit the industry all around. David: I thought being an active member (industry experience roster) qualified one for benefits, no? I hate the people at contract services.

I shot a feature last year in Super 16 which is finishing post now. I did the whole thing with 7218 and nobody can believe it's 16, especially 500asa 16. My rep at Kodak really came through and wanted the project to go film more than I did so she was able to get the production a great deal that would have been a shame to pass up. The alternative was an SDX900 the producers had put on hold, of which there were going to be none in LA until 4 days before production. I have since been using an SDX900 alongside 35 and 16 for a documentary and think it's an amazing camera, definitely the best there is in standard def. With the new Vision 2 sticks available, super 16 is an incredible and affordable option for low budget productions and looks great when posted in HD.

Well said Mitch. I completely agree, especially about the film school part. I would add that now getting started it is probaly better to go DV as opposed to 16 only because by the time they're working, there will be more HD stuff, unfortunately, and it will be an easier transition than from film.

The interest on those kind of projects IS usually the equipment and they could care less who it's attached to. They want to hire you with it, but won't pay you a rental fee for the camera and will want it to be a part of your rate. AND they also try to find guys with their own gear so they won't have to pay insurance. So when you're out in the desert shooting and the DVX100 goes down cause dirt flew into the heads, you get stuck with the bill. Bottom line is that if you own equipment, you have to be prepared to offer it as a better alternative to a rental house but still need to act like a rental house business wise.

Despite it's quirks, the anamorphic format is still the ultimate in HD, save for 65mm. I was talking to one of the ACs that was on Collateral who said they were having alot of problems using that camera in a real world situation, part of which led to the departure of the original DP well into the shoot. Aparently Mann is known for being extremely hard on his DPs. And yes, he does like to take advantage of different formats, even within a film if he thinks even 1 shot can benefit from it, such as the night exterior HD stuff in the beginning of Ali. It'll be interesting to see. The best print I've ever seen was of True Lies, which was Super 35, on opening night at the Mann Village in Westwood. Absolutely flawless.

Maybe they felt as heavy as the Primos because they were on the front of an LT. Anyway they're huge. And if the Vs are supposed to have less barrel distortion than the Cs, I'd hate to see the Cs. It was such a problem that we had agency people asking of the curvature was going to look the same 'on film.' The director, who is also a DP sometimes, begged me to try out these lenses though I had been pushing for Super35. A couple of Brits kept talking about this one uber anamorphic set of lenses that Joe Dunton (?) made that is supposed to technically be the best anamorphs in the world. Any one know about this?

I've used the DVX100 quite a few times and more recently the A model which has some improvements. A production actually had me used it to shoot a day of 2nd unit for a CBS pilot which had been shot on 35. They bumped it to 24 frame HD and were very impressed. I think the best standard def camera is the SDX-900, the second best being the DVX-100. Good camera. One of the nice features is that it provides a numerical readout on the screen for focus and zoom which has proved very helpful for me since there is no focus distance marked on the lens.

When used with sun data from a progam like Sunpath, it's an invaluable tool.

Its a great way to start. Most of my ACs went through the program. You'll learn a TON much faster than you would any other way. I always go out of Woodland Hills and it's a great place to meet people too. In fact my marketing rep started out many many years ago there in S&R.

We had lots of edge distortion where we shouldn't on the 40, 50, and even a little on the 60! A couple of the longer lengths were the older series and the rest were the new. And they're all BIG...like the Primo Anamorphics.

The 435ES is my favorite. It's got the bullet proof construction of the III plus all the advancements in USEFUL electronics and viewfinder optics. I'm a Panavision guy. Have been from the begining. It has little to do with their equipment, which is great, and more to do with the outstanding personal attention I receive from my reps. They treat the 'newest' DPs with the same respect and attention as the 'big' DPs. Their equipmet cosmetically isn't usually as good as that from other houses because it gets used so much, but I've never had a camera go down. They're really well made and many of my ACs like them because they also make their own accesories and brackets so everything fits. If they don't have what you need, they'll make it there. For some reason every Moviecam I've taken out of Clairmont has broken down within a few days. The 535A is a nice camera, a huge pig though. I Europe I use Arri who is great. In just used a Arricam LT from them on a recent job and was very impressed with it. Loved the optics. (wish I could say the same for the Hawk anamorphics we tried) I do have a soft spot for the first camera I ever rolled film through, an Eclair NPR which was used to film Jane Fonda in Vietnam. My pride and joy is a Kodak Model A, a 1922 handcrank job which Kodak used to introduce the 16mm format. Mine is the 2nd oldest in known existence I've just learned.

This is true, however if I ever find that I'm in that situation, all you have to do is re-rate the ASA on your meter higher to be able to get a reading your meter can display, then do simple math. There are few lenses that give good performance that wide open though, except the S4s.

I don't know anyone who uses footcandles except for film teachers. And lighting ratios are only useful as a teaching tool. Again, no one really uses them. If you DID want to use ratios when doing a job, using Fstops is not hard so long as you know each full stop is twice as much light as the previous.