Adrian Sierkowski

Visual products has a ken hill rig that might also do the job for you. I have one for my SR3 and it works well.

Most film manufacturers list their stocks characteristics and curves that you can read. Kodak also has stills of original negative date which shows you little bits with their approximate exposure values. A good way to learn about film, overall, is to shoot some stills. It's not EXACTLY the same (being a still and not in motion) but it will give you a good idea of what types of tolerances film has (the porta 400, for example from Kodak, reminds me a good deal of expressions 500T) as well as the amount of information recoverable from misexposure (if you have access to a negative scanner, such as one of the Nikons).

Anytime, and Chris makes a nice point about being able to screw up without much worry. It's definitely a benefit! (oh that first roll of plus-x in the bolex still haunts me!)

Hell, i did it with a 650 mixed with 1/2 CTO and some 216 diffusion on a 1K dimmer moving by hand. IT worked well enough for me. Depends a lot on the scene and what else is there for illumination etc. As they say: TEST!

It is useful, but in the end it comes down to your needs, wants, and expectations. Every school is different in their style and facilities. It is also true that some of the best education can be gotten "on the job." Both paths are valid and both have benefits and drawbacks. In the end you have to sit yourself down and think; what do I want, what do I need, and how do I get there. We can only offer out reasons for going to film school. For myself: I worked as a PA/Grip for a long time when I was in Highschool with my Dad who did Lighting/Camera for local TV and DVD things (a lot of areobics videos and cooking shows.) This got me some experience and knowledge on nomenclature, and how things overall work. BUT, I didn't have experience outside of video, and nothing in narrative, save for a few commercials here and there when I basically pre-rigged sets (did a lot of pre-rigging.) The money was good and the satisfaction of seeing something I worked on on TV, and my name in the credits, was also great. Then it came time for college. I knew I wanted to go because I love learning things (all things.) I went to college not to specifically learn film; though I am in film school and doing well, but moreover to take the other classes which I felt would help me in film (art history, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, history. . basically a smattering of the humanities as well as some Physics (optics and motion and matter etc). No, having gone to film school I have been able to network with other people who, through their internships from film school (i did not take an internship as it conflicted with my other BA i'm working towards), I have been able to pick up professional shoots as a DP here and there in the ultra low budget/no budget area. Could I have gotten here by going through the industry? Sure. I probably could've gotten higher by now (i mean I've been doing stuff on sets for some cash since I was 10!). But, and this is a big BUT, I'd probably not have been as confident behind the camera, nor known as much about the rest of the world had I not gone to college. Maybe I'd've been better off. Maybe not. But in the end I feel I made the right choice. I get to shoot (hell I HAVE to shoot) a lot on the school's dime for equipment. I get to shoot outside of school here and there for money. And who knows, the connections I've made here might carry further. I already know one of the professors here wants to use myself and my camera for a film he's working on. and he gives union rates. So, the moral is: there are many paths to the same destination. Take the one which suites you.

IN terms of exposure, I have brought back a 2 stop underexposed shot of an African American, at night, in a dim limo, to the realm of "usable" in an SD telecine off of 7217, so you should be able to get something at the expense of graniness. 3 stops is probably pushing it too far. As for what happened; if it's your fault, accept it. Everyone F**Ks up sooner or later. we are only human, Accept it, apologize for it, and do your best to figure out what went wrong so it doesn't go wrong again. Hell. I just had a shoot where I got a scratch on the neg on some of the most crucial scenes. But I accepted it was my fault, apologized for it, and worked out ways around it and in the end, got a call back to work on another shoot for them. best of luck

Ironically enough this post sent me out on a hunt for one. Ebay has a few "vintage" ones around and some minoltas. Dunno if i'd trust them; though calibration-wise

While I don't want to think of the math, I can tell you that I have always heard that two 1/2s don't make a full in terms of CTO/CTB. Wives tale; maybe, but it's gotten me this far (not that it's a great distance at all but still)

I woudl be careful about mirros as you get a lot of lights in them and might catch the camera. Could be a problem. Try frosting them if you'd like could be for an interesting effect. The other thing I notices about strobes was that when I was shooting strobe lights on cars-- like the kind police cars use-- for a local rap video, that they weren't in sync with the shutter opening all the time; so just make sure your strobes are firing for the camera, so test them out. I think sticking with the darker colors would be good but be careful where you put the strong blues/whites. Might be nise ot hit the bottles with some whitish-blues but keep the dance floor area "warmer" and use all the rig points you can but I don't know how i feel about a smoke machine. The smoke would lower contrast in the frame and take away some of the "darkness/richness" IMHO. That's my 2 cents, but of course each of us would do the place differently and a lot depends on hoe it works in the overall project. Trust yourself, trust your equipment and do it the way you think it looks best

Also, you might want to loose the red rock for the night shots only as it steals a lot of light (i think around 2 stops) from the camera.

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.