Phil Connolly

Some people use "Ultra 16" which widens the frame between the perfs. It has the advantage of being an easier camera modification, without recentering the lens mount, while giving you a wider image without cropping. I don't it's that popular beyond hobbyists, I've never met anyone thats shot in the format. Its increasingly pointless because affordable super 16 cameras are readily available, so why risk precious camera/filmstock on some homebrew Ultra 16 conversion. If you have a older reg 16mm camera, you could just crop down standard 4:3 to get a wider image. With slow stocks the image can look nice (e.g Tigerland) and you don't have to resort to camera surgery.

Well now that your a contributor to the "flagship" film podcast, your in an even more powerful position. I'm keen to see how you get on with the FX9. I've got an FS7 at work, that needs updating in the next year or so and FX9 is certainly on my radar.

I don't know at times I feel "film" is given excessive reverence, sure some nice looking movies have been shot on celluloid, but it's not as if it has the monopoly on aesthetically pleasing images. The choice to shoot on film has a specific impact on budget, workflow and look - but its not any more magical than that. Everyday on a film set 1000's of creative decisions are made, that have a bigger impact on the outcome of the finished film, then the choice to shoot on neg vs digital. Colour correction choices have a bigger impact in the look of a finished film then the baseline differences between film and digital. In some cases the decision to shoot on film comprises the final result. We've all seem "Film" Films where too much of the budget ran through the camera or the shooting ratio was too low forcing "mistakes" to be left in. Sure as a director I entertain the idea of shooting on film, I like the aesthetic. But my responsibility is to get the best performances, covered in the best way and end up with rushes that can cut together properly. Shooting film on a low ratio or spending too much budget on the camera department - potentially jeopardises my ability to tell the story in the best way with the resources available. (and before you say plan better, rehearse better nail it on take one.... I guess you've never been on a drama set, low budget reality doesn't work like that). Directors that are "blah blah blah film" usually have their priorities wrong. But if you have the resources to do film without compromising and can afford a decent ratio with a talented experienced cast and crew...sure why not

That's true but dont forget to greet Jason Isaac's. Is this the same soho drinking establishment that you'll always find Brian Tuffano Bsc in the bar ranting about aspect ratios? Last time I went, I bumped into the late Nik Powell. It got messy which is a shame because he said he was going to lend me a Z1, allowing me to become a 'full member of the club'. But everyone got distracted by David Puttnam singing his rude "Sea Shanties" while glaring at Chris Nolan (again) and I guess Nik hid in the lift with Stephen Fry and then it was too late. I have a mint Arri 535 that I am going to rip out the film movement and replace with the guts of my aunties DVX100, hopefully that will bring me upto date.

Robin, so not only are you in the Digital elite, you have to rub our faces in it. Sure I'd love to shoot FF digital but I'm stuck with 35mm celluloid because its all I can afford..... sure you've made it, but have a bit of humility and send the elevator back down to us little "film-heads"

Childrens films for "adults"

2 XLR inputs can be fine if your just doing a simple interview/doc shoot. Drama productions benefit from more mics you might have a couple of Booms and Lav's on several people. Even a simple scene would benefit from 4 or 5 mics. Sure it's possible to cover the audio on a drama with 1 or 2 mics, but its more difficult and you might miss things requiring more ADR. The other option is to add a mixer to a 2 Channel recorder, which allow you to use more mics. Its workable but it gives you less options in post to separate out the tracks. For entry level stuff and doc work a cheap zoom is fine. But on a drama shoot leveling up to something like the Sound Devices Mix Pre 6 (or 3 at a pinch) will give you more flexibility, better sound and they have built in limiters which can save a take if the audio peaks

I do miss DVD's commentaries, shame they aren't replicated on streaming platforms. I do remember Steven Soderbergh commentaries used to be good (e.g the Limey and Traffic), he served as the DOP on those films and discussed the cinematography in a decent amount of technical detail. He's also just generally interesting articulate. Soderbergh did a masterclass at the NFTS when I was a student there, it was one of the best classes I ever attended. He's a great film tutor.

Mark Jenkin made a (40min) short called "Bronchos House" a few years before in the same process. Personally I liked Broncho's house more (it's a bit stranger). The interesting thing about both films is how form follows function. Jenkins limited resources forced the films into their unique shape. The jaring cuts due to the lack of coverage. A lot of the strange edits came from shooting random shots at the end of each roll, to avoid wasting stock. These unplanned 3 -5sec images were then used to fill holes in the edit. The 90 min film only had 4 and half hours of rushes. I do find the story of "Baits" production really inspiring, that someone could make such a strange film in a very homebrew way and find an audience. This interview with Dario Linares goes into a lot of detail about the project: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9jaW5lbWF0b2xvZ2lzdHMucG9kYmVhbi5jb20vZmVlZC54bWw&episode=Y2luZW1hdG9sb2dpc3RzLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2VwOTEtYXQtZmlsbXN0b2NrLXdpdGgtbWFyay1qZW5raW4tNGE5ZjBhZmIyYjgwNTkyZDBhNmZjOTdkY2Y3Y2YwZDY&hl=en-GB&ved=2ahUKEwjXsqz1jqTnAhVJTxUIHRFvA2EQjrkEegQICxAG&ep=6

Kinoton closed a few years ago, they struggled with the transition to digital

All projectors cause/risk some wear and tear to some degree. But some are better then others. For instance Kinoton E series projectors are much more gentle on film https://www.sprocketschool.org/wiki/Kinoton_FP_30_E

I have everything crossed for "Big Shark"

I guess the other option on FX9 is to stick to S35 mode for run and gun when you need a CINE/ENG zoom. I'm seriously considering getting an FX9 and partnering it with a set of Canon CNE Primes we already have. Think it will make a really nice package for budget drama shoots and teaching workshops. Would like to consider a zoom down the line, if prices fall and there are more options, but for my teaching purposes primes are fine.

I think the move to $100million+ fare also plays into the cinema of attractions. People will come to a cinema to see specticle, robots, superheros... These large canvas films have a slight in build protection from piracy, in that you'd want to see star wars on a big screen rather then downloading. I guess they crunched the numbers and found the $100million + works often enough. Maybe CAT's will break even after 30 years of midnight double-bill screenings with "The Room"

Platters have the advantage over long play reel to reel systems in they don't need rewinding. But they can jam and damage film in more catastrophic ways if the tensions wrong. Either by the film wrapping round the brain. Or even dumping the whole print on the floor - it its not being watched Phil R, wasn't it the case prints were shipped in the UK on cores? so would need to be put on a split reel to use? I believe the BFI won't allow their archive prints to be joined and ran on long play systems, change overs only. However its possible to argue long play systems are less damaging on film overall, because the film is handled less. On a change over system, each individual roll is manually threaded - giving the projectionist 5 or 6 opportunities to mess up during the screening of a film. If the print is screened multiple times, the leaders of each roll are going to be handled multiple times. On a platter/long play system its built up once and threaded once per screening. Back in the days of archive rep prints on 35mm you could usually spot that a change over was due because the last minute or so of the reel would get extra dirty and scratched (on optical audio you could hear the change overs coming) - i guess from handling. On the popular rep titles in the UK at least (Bladerunner, Fargo, Cinema Paradiso, Once a time in america, citizen kane etc...), had horrendously bad 35mm prints in circulation with missing frames at the reels, either from platters or bad changeovers. The main UK 35mm print of Bladerunner (dir cut) in the late 90's/early 00's rep circuit was the strongest advertisement for digital projection you would ever see. Actually, the projectionist at the Cine lumiere in South Kensington 12 years ago, was the best advertisement for digital projection: Every change-over, 3 to 5 seconds late Every change-over threaded out of frame Audio sometimes switched over on change overs on time, but not always Program should always start out of focus Miss matched projector bulbs with different colour temps/brightness - visible on changeovers. Film tails out on screen

I think Alexa's success has been its a nice look out the box and easy to dial in. Also they made one sensor and stuck with it - giving it time to gain traction as people get used to it. Red on the other hand has released a bunch of different size types of sensor in the same period and now even have custom optical low pass filters. You may have lots of flexibility in post, but it can take longer to dial the look in. Once your getting great results with a particular set up red release a new camera/sensor and your back to square one. Alexa is the continuity camera and a standard that people are familiar with. It's the same with lots of things in audio is the Shure SM58 the best vocal mic? Certainly not, but its ubiquitous, hard wearing, good enough and known quantity hence most bands still use them. I think we are at a point where digital is "good enough" and the speed of development could afford to slow down. I don't understand the RED approach of making "Obsolescence Obsolete" by updating their camera tech every 2 years. People pick Arri because its a safer investment, they are less likely to drop a new camera 6 months after you spent £40k on your current model. We are getting to point where most professional Digital cameras of the last 5 years are "good enough" - so maybe the need to upgrade will be less pressured, unless Netflix and Co jump on the 8k bandwagon.

I guess it's more a demand thing. FF stills zooms exist and are affordable, so maybe those designs could be adapted into affordable FF cine zooms. It is looking like more and more camera manufacturers are going beyond super 35. Especially with the Sony FX9, C500 cameras that are going to need affordable FF zooms for TV doco work. If the FX9 is as successful as the FS7, people are going to want glass. Len's seem to lag behind cameras, affordable cinestyle S35mm lenses only started to show up few years into the RED/DSLR revolution

The old IMAX documentary films kept pans slow enough but Hollywood faster camera moves are shown up on the big screen. I do remember some pans in "Everest" looked juddery - but on a 30m screen the subject was moving about 2-3m between each frame drawing attention to the frame rate. But I guess 1917 gets round the IMAX edit pace issue ?

Crew can cost more then equipment hire. Getting the number/experience of crew right will typically have the biggest impact on the production. Losing time because there's not enough people to do a unit move/rig or fluffed take due to less experienced ops - can push a shoot into overtime easily.

I don't think there is a set method that works. It's also important to be realistic - nothing worse than films that spend 50% of the budget on film stock or fancy lenses leaving nothing for cast, art and costume. Personally I would ask up front about the films actual budget, producers may be coy about this. But it's better to have an honest conversation about cash up front. Of course producers might low ball you etc.. but the good ones should have a fair figure in mind Then you can, be realistic in your resource requests and no waste as much time. Depending on the project it's probably realistic to spend maybe 10- 20% of the total budget on the camera dept (including kit hire, personnel etc...) So if you know what the producers can actually afford, then you know what's realistic and can make a judgement about pushing for more when really needed. It really depends on the production, you will have examples of well funded productions where the producers want to cut further corners in the camera dept because they profit from spending as little as possible. And, you will encounter passion projects where there is barely enough money to cover the basics. Going into the project you need to know which of those types of projects it is - some projects you should push for more stuff and others you have to (creatively) make do with what they have.

2.39:1 scope is the same width as DCI 2k of 4K. So if your framing for 2.39:1 you'd typically shoot in a 1.89:1 mode. The extra room at the top and bottom of the recorded frame is useful for reframing, hiding tracking markers, spotting the boom and giving you flexibility to make a pan and scan 16:9 It's rare to make a 1.89:1 deliverable, but it's a good ratio to shoot in when you crop to other aspect ratios. The point of 1.89:1 is that its in between 2.39:1 and 1.85:1. It cinema cameras for instance had a 2.39:1 shaped sensor, you'd need a massive crop to get to 16:9. Digital cinema projectors have the same shape 1.89:1 sensors - so crop at either the sides or the top and bottom for different aspect ratios

I believe the "User Box" setting should allow a 2:1 frameline - but don't have the FS7 to hand to test. Or if you shoot DCI 4K, its native aspect ratio is 1.89:1 which as Aapo states is pretty close and you could get away with a minor crop off the bottom of the frame. You could get away by eyeballing. I've shot on 16:9 manytimes for 2.35:1 delivery and been able to arrive at acceptable framing by guessing. The difference between 1.9:1 and 2:1 is going to be very minor and if you crop from the bottom rather then top and bottom your not going to mess up your headroom. Or just use masking tape on the top and bottom of the viewfinder screen, to make a 2:1 framing reference.. easy peasy, Cut it neatly enough and you can still probably use the loupe. You should get a bit of paper and draw a 2:1 rectangle on it. Point the camera at the rectangle till the left and right edges just touch you edge of frame. The top and bottom lines of your rectangle are now the bit you want to mask off. So with masking tape cover the top and bottom of the screen using the lines of your reference rectangle as reference. Record a bit of the rectangle chart so you can use it in post to line up your 2:1 letter box. A lot of field monitors have built in 2:1 framelines or custom framelines. Or you can do the masking tape approach the same way by filming your homemade chart for reference.

If you need a moving cat shadow, might make sense to film the cat first and project the "shadow" with a video projector.Then you have complete control of the cat movement/timing etc..

Might have to squeeze a cheeky matinee of 1917 in this week. That Deakins chap looks like he knows what he's doing

Gondry is the master of this sort of thing: