Mike Dunn

Hi David, I just wanted to clarify something for myself in regards to depth of field characteristics. I read on another forum that Super 16 is similar to cameras with 2/3" chips. Is this correct and does it apply to both HD and SD? Also, you mentioned that working at a T2 is like shooting 35mm at a 4/5.6 split in regards to depth of field. Does this scale slide up and down as well? Shooting on video at a T4 is like shooting 35mm at say a T8 or thereabouts? Thanks!

Hey, why did the rock climber climb the mountain? Because it was there. People do this not only to get a quick "production value" shot off, but also because it's fun to come up with cheap ways to get that shot. I guess there's some funny bragging rights involved too. Gotta stay sane somehow. I didn't want to shell out the bucks to get a crane or jib so I built a 3 foot high saw horse, threw a 2x10x10 on it, put sand bags on one end and sat on the other end with the camera. Boom. Crane shot. I'll send some pix later.

I'm going to shoot a short film with the SDX out in the desert (so light loss isn't really a concern for this situation), but I want the benefits of the adapter and 35mm lenses. I've used the P+S and Redrock on a DVX before, but not the MovieTube. How does that rate and what do most people recommend for the SDX? Thanks!

So you can get the full 35mm prime lens look (shallow DOF, etc.) with a set of primes without using any sort of adapter? How does that work? I thought you always had to have some sort of spinning ground glass element like the P+S Technik for the camera to focus on.

That's what I figured about the hard matte. About an hour after I wrote that I realized how impractical that was. Good to know about the 80% safety marker though. That sounds like the best way when it's hand held. Also for shooting in the desert. I'm afraid there might be too much glare out there to be able to see the LCD properly...even with a hood. Thanks for the tip!

Hey gang, I've used the SDX900 several times and have shot it using the 4:3 and 16:9 options and have always had killer results. Recently a producer asked me if we could shoot in 16:9, but actually frame it for 2:35. After informing him that we'd lose information at the top and bottom (he didn't care, he just liked the effect) I said I could just tape off a 2:35 frame for him on the monitor. However, I haven't figured out how to set it up for myself to see through the viewfinder. Obviously I can't do anything internally with the camera. Has anybody else done this? Did you use a hard matte over the lens? Thanks for the help!

Thanks, but what is the hybrid thing all about?

This is a question for DP's that shoot DV, HDV and/or HD. Do you guys and gals prefer to use light meters and if so, do you use footcandles as a general reference or do you use the T or F stop reference? I work with some studio lighting designers that do everything with a light meter, but in the field I find using a light meter less useful. Any thoughts?

Thanks for the quick feedback David! Seems like he uses a similar technique on most of his Spielberg movies, but this one stood out the most. Off topic, a friend just told me that Kodak has stopped spending any money on film R&D. Have you heard about this?

Just watched War of the Worlds again and am wondering what Janusz did to get the look of that film. Seems like he just loads up the camera with diffusion filters and overexposes. Does anybody know any more info on this? Is there a bleach bypass involved? It's been a number of years since I shot anything on film so I'm a little out of practice with it. Thanks!

Great website and reels. The electronica/dance pop in the commercial reel is a bit odd, however. But it's a really nice collection of shots. The narrative reel is impressive too, but I would maybe show a little more editing "flair" with it. You can show off nice shots and still give it a little more energy through more rapid cutting. For whatever that's worth. Nice job!