Adrian Sierkowski

Film is definitely a safer option to buy, as hell, I still know people shooting on Bolexes. I think we've probably all spent time with one. Besides that, as was mentioned, digital changes so quickly, it's hard to keep up. But the basics of the film camera have been around for a long long time. Film stocks keep getting better and better. And you'd be amazed what you and a good colorist can accomplish in a transfer! And remember, you can TRUST film. A lot of people don't trust it, I feel. But, so long as you load the camera right, and get close to the right exposure, you'll get an image which can be manipulated later on. Hell, if you can shoot on reversal film, you can probably shoot on anything!

You can achieve a lot of looks through fiddling 'round with FCP and color correction, especially in studio 2. MiniDV is kinda limited though. As for purchases, look for future proof things. Matte boxes and filters (4x4) are $$ and won't suit every shoot. Think about getting lights. I guarantee you that'll be the MOST needed thing on most student shoots in college. Maybe wait and see what you want to be in film? i.e. an editor wouldn't need a matte box just as a DP wouldn't need to DV deck (per say). A lot of the kids I knew/know in film school jumped in without knowing what they wanted to do. Now their equipment gathers dust. Not a good thing IMHO.

I would recommend a loan to buy a camera less likely to be outdated as quickly and one which is more versatile. I saved up for an Arri, and it's near to paying for itself already, which is nice. Maybe look into something a bit higher up in the "HD" world? personally, I dislike the HVX, but that's just me.

It's not so much so about what equipment you use, IMHO, to create/control light but more how light interplays to create moods. Myself, I always find myself looking at how light falls on my hand in different situations just to get an idea. Basically look at the world around you and the art of that world because while the equipment may change the basic principles won't. If you know how it should look, you can manipulate the lighting units you have to make it look that way (within reason, of course)

God, I can't wait! Though I am wishing for something more like a Fuji vidid (but maybe 'round a 320/400 asa) or, as david said, for a 1600 or hell even a good 800 asa native stock. . . Pipe dreams, I know.

I can't speak for the HPX, but I have noticed on the other panasonic cameras i've worked with that they noise up very quickly as you take light away; i.e. don't respond well to under exposure. My advice would be to go with the waveform over the monitor. Don't forget, what you see on the monitor will be effected by what's around it regardless of it's calibration; or so my colorist always tells me. I'd err towards over-exposure aside from under, as you can bring things down in post IMHO, easier than bringing them up

Very true. Hadn't thought of that.

I'm not sure exactly how bad +/-200K would be in truth if it were covering the whole frame.

I'd not argue that it looks bad, though I will admit on the 2nd clip i did notice the absence of grain more so than I felt I should've. That is to say it seemed slightly "unnatural," to me. Though it is exciting to see the RED being used on productions. I'm sure it's going to open up a whole new range of aesthetic choices, and having different tools is never a bad thing!

Film is just well. . . cooler! ok, seriously, I think what it is which makes film "better," and this is going to err on the side of gross generalization and personal experience, is that it is far easier to shoot. Now, I'm sure most people will argue with me on this, and I'm sure this will give away even more of my amature nature, as of now. But, I find that I can shoot film almost anywhere and still render what I would consider a very pleasing image. None of my experience with any digital or video technology has had that same effect. I spend more time lighting for something tape based than I ever would for film. Also, I feel that film is a much more matured technology. The acquisition through to distribution work flow is already well worked out and very malluable in terms of what your needs and abilities are. An example: I just recently shot a short promo piece for a local magazine on S16mm. But this promo was only intended for DVD and the magazine needed it on the "cheap," side. So instead of going all out for a transfer to HD and the like we did a supervised over to DVCAM. About 2 hours after going into the telecine session the client has images they loved, and a day later a DVD master. I do not think I could have had such an easy time with any other format than film. Bear in mind this is my personal opinion and experience. I don't think I'm alone though in affirming that film isn't going anywhere. It will always be a viable and desirable choice for image capture. Whether or not it is the primary choice remains to be seen but don't forget, we still get features on S16mm (28 Weeks Later, for example) and hell, many people still love the look of old 8mm movies.

Ahh memories of filmmaking classes in college!

#1) AFAIK Yes 2) Not sure. But if you back-light it it'll come out fine (same for smoke/rain) 3) I'd use a spot meter and aim it at the buildings, to get a rough idea, keeping in mind that the exposure you get would set a dark blue building to neutral gray same as it would a bright white building. . . so you'd compensate for that. else you could, in theory, do an incident reading under whatever you determine you "key" to be, i.e. a street light, and set that as exposure. my 3 cents.

Best light goes on a scene by scene basis and gives a general correction correlated to what you say the scene should be (i.e. "golden tone") whereas a one light will only transfer the film directly from the neg to tape without anyone looking at it for exposure/color/ect. That's how i always rationalized it. So a best light puts the image into it's "Best Light," read: looks better so as to spend less time later on in your editing correcting "mistakes." Or you can just tell them that a supervised transfer will open up aesthetic possibilities that could not be realized elsewise. Further, it will allow you to present the highest quality image in terms of it's look so as to open the piece up for more marketing due to a heightened production value. At least that's what i say when I'm trying to get a supervised. Works 7 times out of 10. . .

I've always felt it's a matter of taste/opinion on this one. Myself, I don't mind an 85 in front of the lens. It can help a lot, with 500T, in controlling exposure under daylight by adding ND, and the like. I even think there might be some combo 85 polarizing filters out there, but i'm not 100% on that.

As much as I like Nikon Glass for still photography work, I have to say the Ziess are pretty much top of the line. If you're talking the T1.3 super speeds, I would, and this is just my personal preference, go with them as they are proper cine lenses. But that's just me. Also, they should have the right itch gears on them for follow focus etc.

Keep in mind that most of the camera neg stocks today are pretty low contrast, so as to give you the greater latitude, and leave open possibilities for post production workflow. The 16mm stock you shoot now is the same as 35mm stock, just cut differently. The reason it looks so different is because it's gone through so much manipulation both in post and on set, by very talented individuals. Look at 28days later, for example. On my small DVD screen, it's hard for me to tell it was shot on the Canon XL1. Normally, to make things "pop" when I shoot, I expose as i normally would any film, and then slide down the gain later on, to add in more contrast. You loose midtones, so you have to balance it, but even just a little nudge can help. I do that for all the video I shoot, and for the S16mm stuff to (unless it doesn't' work for the project at hand, of course)

Keep in mind, too, that lighting is a big factor as well. Knowing how to control and use light can allow great results from any camera. As my dad used to say, "A camera is just a holder for the film."

In that range, you're basically limited to a no-thrills HVX. You'll need more money for the P2 cards, which can be pricey, and make sure you're post workflow can handle the camera. That's really the only "HD" camera I can think of. Anything cheaper would be HDV and might cause motion problems.

I recommend the Arri Srs for a good camera that'll last for a bit. I have an SR3 and I'm thrilled with her. SO quiet! But an SR2 or 1 will also serve you well Also, the Arri BLs, i hear a nice and can be used to shoot a feature. You might do well to look into an Aaton. They're not my top choice (i guess movie cameras are like still cameras, we all have a brand) but there is nothing wrong with a good LTR54, or 7. You could even go the Elclair route, but I have no experience with them, myself, but I've heard AFAIK good reports. Best of luck!

No transfer at all? IN that case, I dunno what to tell you. I know that you can do it in FCP if you get the blue's pretty isolated and saturated. how are you going to edit it all together? IN camera?

You could use Nd filters, but you're need a lot of them to make it go black black. It might be best just to do it in a color corrector. JUst isolate the sky and drop the blue level down. What's best is it'll keep the cloud white as well. So long as you don't move 'round too much the corrector will work. A pola filter would help pop out clouds more so, and some /nd to begin with would be nice too.

It's my own camera and no insurance. I was doing it all pro-bono. Alas, I'm mostly just p*****d about loosing a nice set of shots to it. Thankfully, it didn't seem to affect other loads on that same mag. But, yeah, murphy's law :(. We might just go in and add more scratches to it all; ya know, make it look intentional. . . or something of the sort. As for rotoscoping. . . I thought of that too; but no time. We'll have to cut 'round that if possible, and pray we have enough coverage from the other angles. Though, with 1600 foot of film, and a 4 min song, I'm sure something can be worked out.

I remember something like that a few months ago. But i don't believe it was 16mm. Rather, i think it was an old fashioned video camera, the Fisher Price PXL-2000, or something similar (Wikipedia) which shot in pixelvision. Was this the clip you mean? Pixelvision Clip

Nope, according to him there wasn't anything he could do. I work with him a lot and we were only doing a transfer to DVCAM, off of his C-Reality, so I'm guessing he was telling the truth?

Thanks for the fast reply. I was thinking of (loathing) having to take every frame into photoshop, but it does seem to be the only way. THanks for the fast reply!