Javier Calderon

Anyone have any idea?

Hello, folks. I am mixing, effecting, equing, mastering, etc, etc a documentary feature that someone I know asked me to work on. Although I have mixed and mastered many projects before - songs, short and feature films, etc - this is actually one of the first times someone's actually offered to PAY me for it. They don't know what to pay me, and I don't know what to charge them. Given that I am willing to give this person the "bottom dollar student rate discount", I would like to assess how much that should actually be. What is the standard rate that a "first timer" should charge for mixing and mastering a feature length documentary? Thank you very much in advance, everyone, for the help and responses, Javier Calderon

Ahhh, Michael. Thanks for the response. Many things I didn't think about/consider.

Well, I guess the topic title says it all (or at least enough). I just started doing some research into this technology, and have to say that I'm impressed with how well it makes some of the video footage look. What happens if you slap one of these suckers on a 16mm body? I mean, I understand one might have to do some modifications to the camera to make it accept such an adapter, but has anyone tried this? Is this even possible? I mean I'm sure it is . . . but I just figured if it made video footage look this much better, imagine what it could potentially do to 16mm footage. Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions, or pointers on this topic would be greatly apprecaited. Javier Calderon

Man, the lighting - and cinematography in general - for "Fake Empire" was awesome. I KNOW that wasn't natural lighting, but I'd be interested in what your setup for that was. It seemed simple, but very, very effective. Very effective use of deep contrasts between your lights and darks. And the look of it was very . . . 16ish, if I could say that. I mean, I imagine blown up to the size of a regular tv screen or larger, one might begin to discern that it's 8 (perhaps), but in this size it looks great. Very deep, rich colors. I mean I've seen some of the work of director Guy Maddin, and I think that style is pretty darn cool and very imaginative . . . But, of his own admission, it LOOKS like 8mm. Some of the stuff you shot on 8mm . . . looks like 16mm. Makes one almost consider attempting a feature shoot on it. :)

Wow, man. Looked through the blog. Really, really good stuff on there. Bravo.

Thank you, Dan. The French recommendation I've heard before. The Kinoptik v the Angenieux, however, I have not, so that's good to know. Could you, perhaps, give a brief (or long :) ) explanation as to why? Thanks

Yes, Adrian. I've taken a look at VP before. They certainly look like they have solid, pro gear . . . They seem a tad bit out of my present price range, however.

Thank you, Saulie, for the input. Very appreciated, quite valuable information and assessment.

No, no . . . it's a very appreciated opinion. Really. I had been vying toward the ACL II for a while, and a decent portion of the research that I had done up to this point seemed to corroborate this assessment. The new info that I happened across today, however, again, threw a serious curve ball at me. Your input, if accurate enough (which, I believe it is), seems to put a better perspective on the situation. It IS possible to come across the "LTR for less than an ACL" scenario, but it may not be all that likely. The more likely possibility is 2K for an ACL, and extra 3K for the service and conversion to super 16. I live in LA, so the famed Optical Electro house here would probably be the place I go to. Heck . . . if I just happen to come across a deal like Tim had last year, however, I might simply jump on that one . . . Just finished w/one feature, and I'm getting ready to begin the next . . . Gotta write the dang script first though before I spend too much on the camera . . . Don't want to put the cart before the horse (much as I have to some extent already). :)

Whaaaaat!?!? Okay, Tim . . . I know you already said prices fluctuate, etc . . . but . . . man . . . forget the question I was about to ask . . . I have to compose myself and pick my jaw up off the floor first . . .

Sheesh. I just did a quick peek on ebay, and the LTRs on there are easilly going for well over two times as much as the most expensive ACLs . . . Did the person I originally quoted know something I don't?

Wo! Wait a minute. I've been under the impression for a WHILE now that, price wise, the Eclair ACL II is pretty much the best sync sound camera out there. However, I just ran across a post (on another site) that says: "Given prices, I'd get an Aaton LTR -- it will cost less, it's a much much better camera, and it's designed from the start for S16. It will probably cost no more than buying and converting an ACL." Is this true? it will cost LESS?? What is the price we're talking about here? How much for an S16 ACL II. Like . . . 5-7K base price . . . right? Does that mean that one can purchase an Aaton LTR for around that price? Is it already S16? And how loud is the LTR? The ACL is what . . . like around 30-40dB? or less? What about the LTR? I feel like I may have just been thrown a real curve ball here. Any help and info on this would be greatly appreciated.

And this is NOT the longest thread, actually. I just red some of a thread about the RED One camera that has over 134 posts . . . :rolleyes:

Man . . . Did I mention that I love this forum? I'm finally done with my first feature film, by the way . . . If anyone wants to take a look at it, just send me or email me an address where I can send a copy of the film to, and I'd be more than happy to mail one. Believe it or not, this is NOT a shameless plug. I'm actually simply sincerely extending an opportunity for anyone who might even be remotely interested to see what part of all this hubub has been about. :) And no, there's no weird catch either. I'm not charging for this. It's all on me. I'm not some spammer or stalker that'll keep your address and sell it to the highest bidder. Again, 1) this is (I think) THE longest post that's ever occurred on this website, and given that the reason I started the thread is because I was interested in a particular dilemma as it pertained not only my future as a film maker, but as it was related to the film that I just finished, I thought I'd, again, give people the opportunity to see the movie itself. And no. I don't want to put it online - at least not yet. I'd prefer someone have the opportunity to see it in its best possible presentation/form. Also 2) I can't say that I wouldn't at all be interested in what people actually THINK about the movie itself, you know? It'd be cool to hear from some of the people on here what they even think of it. Anyway, again, feel more than free to send me an address I could mail the movie to, and I certainly shall. :) Javier

Michael just addressed in a pretty accurate - if not indicative - manner my sentiments exactly. Granted I probably couldn't have explained myself quite as articulately or technically as he did . . . but, again, no matter how many times, by how many people (regardless of their level of knowledge, expertise or experience) I hear that 1) video will replace film, and/or 2) you really "can't" tell the difference between video and film . . . I get the "maybe I'm just crazy or stupid" feeling at that point because I don't feel I have ever NOT been able to tell the difference between film and video. One can tell the difference on still image capture, and one can REALLY tell the difference when the camera starts moving or panning. One can either be consciously aware of the technical differences, etc, or one can, as Michael mentioned "feel" the difference between the mediums.

Ha. Just read some of your links on production, Rafael. It answered a bit of the questions I had there. Very cool. :)

Hey thanks for sharing and posting the link, Rafael. That was one long final shot! Impressive! No cuts . . . just rollin'. Your exteriors looked pretty darn natural (a good thing). I'm very interested to know the particulars of your shoot in terms of budget, shooting ratio, amount of film used etc. Contact me directly if you wish and let me know. :) JavierC1972@Netscape.net Good work, Javier

Man . . . Just finished color correcting my DV feature and WOW . . . you can really begin to see the differences between video and film when you start doing THIS particular process. Granted our footage - even for DV - was far from pristine (heck, even far from adequate at times), but when trying to push or crush colors - blacks, lights, etc - whew . . . it really left some nasty effects at times. Oh well, though . . . it is what it is, so I had to go with it. And I'm, of course, not sure if indeed color correcting film would allow for more flexibility in manipulating the colors since, as we all know at this point, I haven't shot using film (yet), but I can't imagine it would be worse than video.

Thank you for your input, Keneu. I was thinking a slight bit more about this the other day, and came upon the following personal rubric regarding film and video. In film, the ends justify the means. In other words, the difficulty and cost that is entailed in the production is justified by the fact that the end result - the footage, the picture - tends to look the way it does. In video, it's the exact opposite: The means justify the ends. The end result has, up to this point, tended to look far inferior to film, but the fact that it costs a lot less to produce those images, along with various other tangible conveniences, justify the significant cut in quality that most have to make when shooting on this medium.

Wow. I'm gone from this forum for a week and I come back and there's a monster sitting here waiting for me! :lol: Honestly I can't even BEGIN to respond to all the varied, helpful, intelligent, thought through comments made by everyone since my last major post on here. I'll shoot straight from my gut and simply say that I very much appreciate everyone's contributions. I am an artist. What that exactly means I'm not going to worry about too much because - regardless of whether I am in full understanding of what it DOES mean or not - well . . . I am still that very thing nontheless. As such, I have ultimately made the decision to pursue those ends in the medium of film making. I act, I write, I paint, I play many different instruments, I compose scores, I direct, produce, edit, and generally do whatever it takes to make those visions (not infrequently nightmarish) make the transition from my imagination to some sort of tangible, external medium. This forum and the knowledgable folks on it are an appreciated avenue of perspective and information. Again, thanks. It IS true. I would indeed prefer to shoot on film. David is correct. However, I am aware that there is a lot I do not know - much I would benefit from learning about - and because I am very well aware that many things I THOUGHT I wanted to do turned out to be things I really DIDN'T want to do (or shouldn't do) but only found out that I really didn't want to do them AFTER some serious cud-chewing, personal researching, and (yes) getting different perspectives - often certain very technical perspectives that I may not have even considered (like some of the ones on this very forum) - I felt it would not be a bad idea to ask a question or two on this forum and see what kind of help would occur. Often has it been that I was sided in one particular direction only to find out that I was headed toward a dead end - but ONLY after simply NOT giving in to my initial proclivity and, instead, continuing to "knead the dough" of my initial interest, so to speak. Yes, it's looking more like I may very well shoot my next feature on film. Does that mean that this forum was a waste of time because I may have been bent that way from the very beginning? Absolutely not. I have gained invaluable information from everyone on here in terms of what to expect. It is information that has fleshed out my previous, very feeble knowledge on film. I am still in embryonic stages regarding shooting on film - I admit that now just as I did in the initial question that started this multi paged thread - but the more information I acrue prior to even BEGINNING my next feature . . . the better off I'll be when I actually start shooting . . . right? So much more I can say, of course . . . but enough for now. Martin and Tye, I will indeed call you both, gentlemen. I must, must, must complete these final stages on this film, however. Everyone keep a sleepy eye open this year (or next, for that matter) for my film! It's called "The God Project" and I hope to get at least some sort of minimal distribution for it. Then you guys (and gals) can see what on earth this crazy cinematography.com poster is about! :) Again, as posted earlier in this thread, here's a youtube link on a quick teaser trailer for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5W81h7hVBk Thanks all. Have a productive 2008.

"THE JVC HD200 along with a HZ-CA13U PL mount lens adapter is probably the best thing on the market. Here is an extensive article on it's remarkable abilities with this camera." Thanks for the article, Walter. Pretty extensive stuff. I'll take a closer look at it in the very near future. Juggling quite a bit of work at present. :) Javier

Yeah. Thanks, Chris. I just saw this item last night. Put it in my "watch this item" bin. :) It does look good. The price on it might be a little out of my present range, but 1) it is super 16, and 2) it's coming w/the sound equipment as well, so I can understand the reason for the $7K buy it now price. It does look like a pretty decent setup, but the fact that it only has 2 1/2 hours left on the auction (as of this writing anyway) AND it has zero bids, is an indication that the price is probably also considered a little steep by more folks than just me. Everybody's probably also broke from already buying all their Christmas gifts. :)

Well, Walter . . . to tell you the truth I'm not COMPLETELY counting out the possibility of still maybe shooting the next feature on HD. What with all the people I've come across that are screaming at me "Shoot HD!!!" I don't imagine that EVERYONE is completely incorrect in their perspective. The majority of the people that are telling me this have vastly more experience than I in film, so I defer to them to a decent extent anyway. The convenience, the ease of immediate viewage, etc . . . all definite selling points . . . I keep telling myself that if from now until the moment I am going to begin production on the next feature, I happen to see some HD footage that is even close or comparable to film, then I might very well be sold. That hasn't happened yet though - by a loooong shot too. Not even close. It's almost like . . . Well . . . as I'm thinking about this dynamic right now, I'm not sure that video will EVER look like film. It's almost like apples and oranges. This, of course, is not to say that someday (possibly even soon) that HD or some other, more advance video technology, will completely replace film as "THE" professional film making medium (again, there are indeed a LOT of advantages to shooting on video) but I think that if/when that happens . . . the footage itself will STILL look different. Not necessarily worse . . . just different. It seems that HD is getting clearer, sharper, cleaner with the advances in technology . . . all those things . . . This is not a bad thing; but that intangible aesthetic that film images are responsible for seems a very, very unique something or other almost bordering on a type of occult magic that even the most developed HD cameras simply haven't been able to even touch. Granted I might eat my words with Finscher's upcoming "Benjamin Button" movie that, I think, was entirely shot on HD, but even flagship HD representations like Apocalypto LOOKED like HD - not film - in a few scenes. I had no idea the film was shot on HD prior to seeing it, and realized that it was during my watching it. Anyway . . . I'm rambling . . . just some random thoughts is all . . . :)

Wo, Ole. This sounds almost too good to be true! A 16mm camera that's a "little louder" than an ACL but a lot quiter than the others mentioned that costs about a grand?? Somebody else PLEASE chime in because this is definitely throwing some new light upon the "ACL is the way to go" direction I was going toward. Not that I don't believe you, Ole, as it seems that you are speaking from direct personal experience, but, again, I'm not at all familiar with the camera you're referring to, so I'd like - as they say in medical circles - a second opinion if possible. All the same, thank you sooo much for referring me to your email address for the added information. I shall be emailing you shortly. :) Javier