Eric Steelberg ASC

DI and movie finished. In the end, while I still think it's a much better print stock for my tastes, I decided not to go with Fuji. We started the DI with a Kodak LUT in the room. I ordered a Fuji test using the Kodak LUT (not a good way to compare but they were having problems loading a Fuji LUT into the room) and due to a week of problems with Deluxe not being able to hit EFilm's AIMs, I didn't get to see the Fuji test print until a week after I ordered it. By then we were locked into using the Kodak LUT since we had already colored most of the film using it. Still, I held hope and ran a couple more tests and looked at the Fuji alongside the Kodak. It was clear that Kodak was going to be far more accurate to the DI (obviously) but the Fuji wasn't bad...but it would have taken about a week or more worth of timing at Deluxe to match the color...and time we didn't have. I also did the DI for the trailer the day after we finished the film's DI. That was fun. First time I've done that. But of course the room we did the trailer in was newer so it could do 2k in real time with corrections vs the room we used for the DI where we were stuck with 1k proxies and needing to render every time we wanted to see a real time playback of a correction. Huge waste of time. As it happens they upgraded that room to 2k real time the day after we finished last week. Ah, my luck. We finally finished the answer print at Deluxe late on Thursday night..actually Friday AM...due to more incredibly infuriating problems with Deluxe's quality control. The print(s) were shipped to Telluride for a 'secret preview' screening yesterday. Here are a couple of early reviews: Cinematical and Variety A couple things I've learned/taken from this experience...film prints more or less suck and I can't wait for digital distribution. The added grain and contrast, especially from IP/INs are depressing. The projector weave, dirt, scratches, density flicker, reduction in resolution, and soft frame edges are incredibly annoying. What's interesting is that most of that has ever bothered me before in other films...but seeing it now on mine...I can't stand it. Waiting (days) for the lab to get a print that hit AIMs and have the entire film reprinted because of a dirty assembly bench with adding reel changeovers does not instill confidence. They way it is now, the studio is not ordering a DCI for JUNO. Apparently Searchlight has never done one although THE DARJEELING LIMITED may be the first. There will be a DCI for our trailer which is to be shown before DARJEELING. I can only hope enough buzz for JUNO develops so the studio decides to braden the release and maybe order an DCI. JUNO officially premieres at Toronto next Saturday. I'll be there. Can't wait.

Not quite that style... I was referring more to the lower contrast and large soft keys...some mixed temperatures...augmented and shaped natural light where possible...

Well I got my DI. Doing it as we speak. In fact I'm typing this from a dark room at EFilm. Going really well...we're in week 2. We should be done by Friday with the recording to film over the weekend. We're lusing a lookup table for Vision, but I'm pushing to print on Fuji 13DI because to my eye it is so much better looking than the Kodak. It is less saturated but SO much finer grained and much more beautiful blacks. I think we will be able to 'fake' more saturation when we time the print at Deluxe. I used Fuji for the prints of QUINCEANERA and was very happy with those. The film will be premiering in Toronto in a couple of weeks and is slated for release on December 14th. Trailer should be out soon.

below..

Neither. Take the money and use it to live off of as cheaply as you can in Los Angeles while working every production job you can find, for money or for free, getting in as many doors and making as many connections as possible. If your patient, passionate, and ask questions you'll be amazed how much you can learn and how fast you can achieve your goals.

I have had noise issues before especially when the camera has been running for a long time and hot, but nothing exactly like the example you posted. I had strange banding once and camera had to be sent back to Japan to have the chips replaced. But that was much more severe than yours.

Really nice looking stills. I'd suggest trying the Reala. It's a little grainier but it has more contrast than the tungsten negs. What is the premise of the project you are going to be shooting? I'm curious what you're applying the this look to.

Underexposing a little and printing up will help. And yes, of course you can play with versions of ACE or ENR depending on the lab you're using. What has been done before, which I did on a commercial once, is to make a b&w print of the entire film and do an optical to blend color and b&w negs, controlling the saturation somewhat. I wouldn't recommend it though as it's not very cost effective and hard to find the skill at a lab to do it properly. The best thing I can suggest is to choose the lab for your film, tell them what you want to do, and shoot some tests. Labs are more than willing to help develop looks with DPs. Once you have a 'look' you like, then work with your makeup artist and costumer and test different kinds of red lipstick and clothes.

Hey David, Can you use AAA travel insurance? I think you may be able to. Or what I'd do is have production cover you. I did a big travel job once and the production covered all my equipment, did the paperwork and everything.

Really, really good. I think the light and composition had a lot of emotion in it and the camera work seems dynamic. I'd love to see the entire thing. Well done. Very impressed.

Check the order/specs you filled out for the post house and talk to your sales rep. They should just dub the DVcam to Mini if they indeed made the mistake. If they won't, your best bet it taking your tape to a dubhouse and getting a MiniDv dub of it. Should cost no more than about $40.

I wonder if I can plug it into my VHS deck... and if the wife will just let me put the Spirit next to the crib...

They didn't send me the packet...trying to get someone on the phone to resend it. I thought Haskell's film was well done and passionate and I agree with most of what he says. While he is one of the best cinematographers I know of, I wonder if he has the business acumen and even keel to work with a large organization in getting things done. I would like to see him remain on the board but I think we need strong negotiator up top.

Really? Funny, I heard the exact same thing in '96 when the VX-1000 came out and introduced MiniDV, then more recently when the DVX100 came out. The only thing more cheaper technology seems to bring is more crap on the internet. I have no problem with the higher cost of current HD and film. It forces filmmakers to create a story good enough to raise interest and money to afford to make it with what's out there right now. So what now? We get to see 4k first drafts. Can't wait. By the way 'smaller audience' and 'popular' do not compliment one another. I think hollywood is just fine having the larger audience. Every day the sun rises, new technology will appear and someone somewhere will proclaim a revolution. People will always have an inherent need to see stories told in a dark theater will hundreds of strangers. And to access those masses you need to work within, not outside the system. The only true revolution I could see is if everyone buying a RED actually took that money and paid good writers to develop and pen their ideas. Then we'd see a ton of good films. THAT would be something impressive. Shoot them on minidv...no one would give a poop if they were good...including Hollywood.

Film making has never been limited to the rich or select few...but it has been limited to the resourceful and creative.

Well spoken Jim.

Stills look great. To be fair guys...if these were stills for a new film stock people would be just as excited. Anyone know what glass was used?

I'm not a RED fanboy, but sorry, your comment is far from true. How do you know, you've tried? I'm curious as to your reasons behind your statements. There have been many successful films shot in 1080 or less and distributed widely, many making a healthy profit on their investment. Also, 99% of an audience does not know when they are deciding to see a movie what format is was shot on. So the idea that people are going to pass on a theatrical film just because it's HD is ridiculous. It didn't seem to affect Star Wars, Blair Witch, Borat, or Click. FYI..you know that 1080 resolution is less than a couple hundred pixels difference from 2k, yes?

Hey Frank, I dont think it matters if straight to dvd, especially since these days most things on HD will end up on some flavor of HD DVD eventually. Honestly, I've carried the primes and never used them. There are HD zooms so good that unless a minor amount of breathing bothers you, and only then with large racks, I see little use for the primes...in the kind of shooting I do. Sure they are a bit sharper, but as far as I can see the added sharpness can only be seen on an MTF bench and not a scene with a moving camera, cuts, wides, closeups, etc. I also found that the couple times I did put up a prime I had to use the sharpmax to re-backfocus which always took an extra minute. In my experience directors love being able to 'find' that right size quickly and a zoom gives them that opportunity. For me, if I'm going Zeiss, I'd carry the two digizooms and nothing else...if you can afford it. Actually even if not Zeiss I'd still do that, but maybe use the big Fujinon as a single lens. So to answer your questions, yes I have waited on camera for BF, but it's only abot twice as long as switching a film lens so I don'd consider it a measurable wait unless you do a TON of lens changes during the day, then it adds up. But if that's the case use a zoom and save that extra time to tweak lighting. And yes, I have seem shots I could 'grab' with a zoom but didn't or missed it due to having a prime on. With run and gun a zoom is the only way to go. On 'Quinceanera' I had 1 lens for the entire movie because it was going to be a fast down and dirty shoot.. That's it. Whole film on 1 zoom. And it did pretty well and looked great when filmed out. The question I have for you...if you are comfortable with a zoom and got this job off of work you've shot with zooms, why are you trying something new? If you can afford to bring the primes in addition for use in handheld, steadicam, or tight places, then do it. Other wise stick to what you know will work for you. Good luck! Oh and by the way kudos on 'El Viaje' in AC the award. Can't wait to see it.

Yes, I found it did reduce the amount of back focusing required.

THANK YOU FOR SAYING IT STEPHEN.

One of the companies promoting the film now has an interview online with Matthew Perry and some behind the scenes video in case anyone is interested. It can be found here: http://www.movieset.com/numb

Wait...what the hell? Dan Sasaki left Panavision?! When the hell did that happen?

Good luck Jarin. I agree with 16 being quicker to light but you may be sobbing the production in other ways to pay for it. They only have so much money so if 16 costs more they may steal from other areas importnat to your job like locations, art dept, etc. Keep the big picture in mind. I had just a little less than that with 'Quinceanera" and I made the decision to stick with HD after they showed me the 16 budget and I realized I was going to loose manpower and other things I wanted. Let us know how it goes!

Alright, I stink at keeping a production diary. I'm back in LA. We wrapped a week ago. I feel really good about the film. Everyone has been talking about how pleased they are with the footage so that makes me happy. My afterthoughts... Printed dailies were invaluable. I never had them on a feature prior to this and now don't know how I could ever do another without them. I didn't even need to print that much...maybe the equivalent to 3000' a week...just to check contrast and density. Dailies are so important to have looking good. I used a DSLR to take shots of my setups and send the photos to the colorist nightly. Save for a few instances, the dailies came back very well matched. I never relied on the camera to make my decisions on set, but it was reassuring to have stills to send in. I think I'm going to have the opportunity for a DI. I've spent years doing commercials and I am used to the precision and consistency digital grading provides. If I had to print photo-chemically I know it would come out great, but if I have the option of more control over the final image, then I'll take it. Now comes the part where I look at all the footage saying "I wish I would have done this, oh I could have done that..."