Hal Smith

"Fixing it in post" is not an option with a DSLR. How much film experience do you have? The best mindset for shooting with a 7D is to pretend you've got it loaded up with a color reversal motion picture film like 5285 or its identical still film, Ektachrome E100VS. There's not much room for creating a look or for correcting acquistion screwups in post shooting with either a 7D or Ektachrome. The closer you are to the look you want when shooting, the better your final product is going to look. Shane Hurlbut, ASC's blog is a great read for learning what's involved in professional level shooting and post production with a 5D or 7D. Hurlblog

The first step is to get a copy of Tomlinson Holman's "Sound for Film and Television, Third Edition" (ISBN 978-0-240-81330-1) and read it cover to cover. Tomlinson's initials are the "TH" in THX.

I'm differing in opinion where the term "reversal" came from...you're absolutely right about the density reversal that happens. Once again I mourn our loss of John Pytlak, this was the kind of discussion he'd wade into with precisely the correct answer(s) from his long experience on the technical/engineering side at Kodak.

I usually learn from, not disagree with, you David on anything having to do with film but I beg to differ. The "reversal" description comes from one of the processing steps. Back in my youth when (silly me) I actually processed B&W Super-8 reversal film I had shot, the second exposure to light was called the reversal step. The first exposure came in the camera and the second came after I had developed the intial negative on the surface of the film and was exposing it to plain white light, thus printing it to a lower level of light sensitive emulsion creating a latent positive image. After that, I bleached the top layer negative off and developed the second image, giving me a positive projection print (after washing, fixing, etc). I got pretty good at it though I had a reticulation problem (my films tended to look like they had been shot though an old fashioned tile bathroom floor) which many years later I learned was because I had little, or no, temperature control. The reticulation actually gave a quite artistic look to my work but I was more interested in creating realistic looking films of miniatures. Years later a guy named George Lucas came along and stole my techniques making a little film called "Star Wars" (not really but it makes a good story :D ). PS: The fact that reversal film is really just negative film with perhaps a thicker emulsion layer is why you can cross process it as a negative. The nature of the reversal process is also why if you want a REALLY different look, you can reversal process a negative film.

I'm planning on giving my junker Arri 2B to the local educational TV station for a prop on their Saturday evening "Movie Club" program. It's a classic movie program that, as of this year, is in HD. Nothing like watching "Casablanca" on a 58" plasma in HD! They've got one of those eBay "prop" cameras but it looks like poop compared to a real camera. I need a lens in Arri Standard Mount for it. Anything that looks like a complete lens and mount on the camera will do. I've got lenses for my 2C but all of them are much too good to give away for a prop camera. I've been haunting eBay for some time for a cheap lens but nothing's showed up yet. Shoot me a PM if you've got something I can use.

He writes about some of the lens and camera perspective choices he made in "12 Angry Men" in his book, "Making Movies". I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Sidney's art.

I can only assume that anyone bitching that Natalie used a dance double never saw "Singin' in the Rain". Hollywood's used skilled doubles for everyone in every imaginable circumstance since its earliest days. Natalie did a pretty good job of faking professional ballet dancing but it took a real dancer to perform the parts requiring years of training and practice. Can I also assume that there are people out there complaining that Leonard DiCaprio didn't really fly the planes in "The Aviator"? I just noticed Phil made my very point back in March...

7285 AKA 100D has a latitude of 7 stops. Shooting outdoors in the sun often requires a lot more latitude than 7 stops. Either use fill or accept the fact that you have to choose to blow out the highlights or lose detail in the shadows. Bouncing light off a piece of foam core or styrofoam sheet is a good way of filling out in the sun. The big boys fly huge butterflies overhead to tame the sun but that requires a lot of crew and rigging to pull off successfully (and safely!). You can get used to the requirements of shooting 7285 by buying some Ektachrome E100VS 35mm still film, it's exactly the same emulsion as 7285. A spot meter is helpful in evaluating exposure requirements out in the sun because you can meter highlights, midtones, and shadows individually to see what's the overall exposure range you're dealing with. Here's a link to the sensitometric chart for 7285 in stops, not log exposure: EK100D Sensitivity

Yes. Another parallel subject is the accurate capturing of skin tone, prop, costume, and set colors under lighting with poor spectra like many LED's. That very subject was tested in depth by the Academy. Very talented designers were shocked to discover just how bad the end to end system's reproduction of colors was when projected on screen. Why was the reproduction so bad? Because with serious holes in the lighting's spectra there were pigments in the subject's lit that were all practical purposes invisible to the lighting. If the reproduction system can't reproduce a true violet...It ain't gonna be there. Now talented designers can fudge the colors used so that the end product looks like something people might call violet, but if you compared that violet against the original the difference would be absolutely obvious. Back to my example of lighting a black actor with a true, close to monochromatic, violet (thanks to Congo Blue gel, MSR/HMI discharge lamps, and some additional help from my Cyberlight's built-in dichroic filters). The appearance of that combination on stage was something no one in the audience had ever seen, to the extent that it was startling to some people.

Since we're getting insulting: Read up on color science and gamut. If a color is NOT in the reproduction gamut of the end to end system you're using, be it Vision print film, LCD/Plasma/CRT, Crayon, oil paint, finger paint, whatever you're not going to see the true color. Violet is at the extreme end of what the eye can perceive, and just as you and I can't see ultraviolet because it's too high in frequency, 99% of the reproduction systems out there can't reproduce a true violet. They just don't have the ability to display that high of a frequency (AKA short wavelength). An analogy would be the human eye versus infra-red capture media. They can see IR, we can't. IR is outside of our eye's capture gamut. You can record IR on film or sensor and then reproduce it within the visible wavelength spectrum of the eye...but that doesn't mean you're directly perceiving IR. Similarly, you can record true violet on film and then reproduce it as a shade of blue or purple...but you're NOT displaying a true violet.

Outstanding!

As Brian pointed out: If any color's shade and saturation levels are outside the gamut of a given reproduction system, then those colors CANNOT be reproduced accurately. Film may be sensitive to violet but printed or displayed it will reproduce violet as a shade of blue or purple, not violet. Have you noticed that rainbows don't look right reproduced on film and video? That's because rainbows contain colors that are outside of their reproduction gamuts. If you want to test this information: Get some Rosco #59 gel, the original Congo Blue, now called Indigo. Use it to gel an HMI running without it's UV glass (obviously keep the light away from people and animals). Run a film and/or video test. Now view the results on a display or screen, it won't look anything like your eye saw it because much of the blue/violet energy in Congo Blue is below 420nm and therefore not faithully reproduced by film and video systems because their blue spectrum color is above 420nm. I lit the Ice Storm scene in a production of "Driving Miss Daisy" with R59 in front of my Cyberlights. It actually scared audience members when HOKE comes in through the kitchen because he literally appeared out of nowhere. Apparently the eye's response to a true indigo is somewhat of a step response, either you see something...or you don't, nothing in between. As a result, HOKE appeared as if he had been sent onto the stage by a Star Trek Transporter. Did I know that was going to be the effect of that lighting? No. Did I take full credit for my real time VFX? You betcha!

There's a recent thread on cml listing film formats and video cameras used on specific television and cable shows. A couple of posts explain why RED's are rarely used on them. Why? Because the post workflow is a PITA to deal with if you want 1080 HD deliverables.

If you're going to stock lighting gear, have two or three Source Four ellipsoidal's on board the truck with a selection of lens barrels. Later model 750 watt S4's have been going for around $250 on eBay and extra lens barrels (with various focal length lenses) usually bring about $100 or so. S4's are incredibly versatile and have been getting increasingly popular in film/video circles in recent years.

My personal preference is the 7D for its more professional operating features but the 60D is an excellent camera if you're on a budget. If you're shooting for hire, you may find Producers want 5D and 7D's just because they're familiar with those models and have used them before.

All that information is at: http://www.photozone.de/dslr_reviews

Except to your kids.

Thanks! I'll look into it.

Ten or fifteen minutes of Hathayoga in the morning can work wonders to improve endurance. Getting your joints and muscles limber shortly after awakening helps all your body systems to work with, not against, each other. I find the sticking to the vegetarian end of the diet spectrum also helps. I'm by no means a strict vegetarian, I eat beef, chicken, and fish for protein but only in moderation. I try to avoid fast food at all costs, I'll stop at a Walmart and buy some Greek yogurt, whole wheat something, fruit, and maybe some sardines or kippers before I let some corporation attempt to poison me.

Actually it was good enough that I couldn't think of a suitable comeback.

I haven't used CineStyle myself but have read a lot about it over on cml. It was designed to improve options for color correction. What you see is NOT what you want to get straight out of the camera, but an image more suitable for post-processing. I personally prefer the approach of getting it in camera. The Canon Neutral and Faithful styles with HTP off and with minor tweaks to sharpness and saturation please my eye. I shot a lot of color reversal years ago and I'm perfectly comfortable working with a camera that requires tight control of lighting contrast and exposure. I think in terms of a zone system with six or seven stops of latitude with my 7D. I've used the camera's histogram some but my Pentax spotmeter and Spectra IV-A are my buddies. Now if someone were to come up with a picture style that nailed the Kodachrome look, I'd be all over it!

You do know where the royal style "Defender of the Faith" title comes from? Awarded to King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X. I understand Rome and Henry had a slight falling out at a later date.

Travelling in a black Zamboni I assume?

Start here: Traditional Animation

ICECO (AKA MTE, Kinneaman) in Miami has a 16mm Type "C" for sale. They just might be able to sell you a copy of the manual. They've had 35mm "C"s listed in the past so they may have a full set of B&H docs stashed away somewhere. ICECO.