Mike Dunn

Don't shoot 60i on a camera if 24P is an option (whether or not it gets recorded to 1080i), not for a film-out to 24 fps film.

 

The main reason people shoot 60i in order to get slow-motion is that they don't have a choice, the camera doesn't do 60P. 60i converted to 60 fps slow-motion doesn't look too bad, despite losing half your vertical resolution.

 

Now comparing 1920 x 1080 60i converted to 60 fps (essentially working & uprezzing with a 1920 x 540 pixel frame shot 60 times a second) versus using 1280 x 720 60P mode, well, it's not a big difference, better vertical resolution with 1280/60P over de-interlaced 1080/60i, but worse horizontal -- it's really a wash and just depends on your post set-up which is easier to work with.

 

--

 

As for adaptors to get a shallow depth of field, I'd test anything intended for cinema release. There is a softening to take into account. Most people using 2/3" CCD cameras would rather just use faster lenses (T/2 and wider) to reduce depth of field, which gives them the benefit of more exposure as well. 2/3" CCD photography has the equivalent of 2.5 stops more depth of field, so working at a T/2 is like shooting 35mm at an T/4-5.6 split, which is not the end of the world, especially on longer lenses.

 

It's really for the 1/3" CCD cameras where the adaptors come in handy to get rid of that excessively deep-focus look.

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!

Hal, I can see your point. But a dolly, a camera slider, or a jib arm built for more than just "experimental" filmmaking, won't be made from EMT and a discarded knife block. I'm sure the equipment you have built for youself reflects proper design and materials choices.

 

Yes, I am within an hour of many rental houses in NYC and even closer to those in New Jersey. But a rental house would have to be much farther away before it would become more economical to build a doorway dolly instead of renting one for $100 per day. Those that wish to argue that point, probably don't realize the cost of the tubular steel for the frame, the wheels, bearings, steering tie rods, plywood, fasteners, etc. Not to mention the fabrication and welding skill and equipment needed.

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!

Kodak continues to spend millions of dollars annually on motion-picture film R&D. Kodak is also investing in "hybrid" and digital technology for motion pictures. 2005 set a record for Kodak motion-picture film volumes, but you don't "rest on your laurels".

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?

The prints used a silver retention process like ENR. The negative was a mix of Fuji and Kodak, with Classic Soft diffusion filters, occasionally a few nets.

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!