Timothy David Orme

A still photo of this technique might look okay, if done properly, but in general I think it looks as fake as it is. I have a friend who does this all the time: masks out the subject, then creates a blurred layer beneath it. Generally it looks really bizarre once it's set in motion (and yes, he does move the mask with the subject), almost dreamlike. It's a good technique for what it is, but it doesn't look like 'natural' depth of field to me.

So I understand everything but this taking lens bit. I'm not sure what's the 'front' of the adapter. Is the taking lens the 35mm lens, or the lens on the Canon digital camera?

Are you saying the Letus can shoot a max 5.6 on the 35mm lens? Why would that be?

Sure, but don't most people try to light for a particular iris setting for the entire movie? And isn't there a certain range where the focus is best?

Here's what we have at this point: 28mm 2.8 50mm 1.8 35-105mm 3.5 and a 135mm 3.5. I think we have a good enough selection of lenses. (We were thinking about getting the 85mm 1.8, but I think we've decided we can do without.) Our main concern now is determining what aperture to shoot at or how we might determine what that is.

Hello all, We've been doing some tests with the Letus and it's all starting to come together nicely. Is there a certain aperture people tend to use/like to stay around when working with these 35mm adapters, or is it just about getting enough light for most people? Tim.

Also, he's found a 85mm 1.8 for like $170, so I might get that for us too, especially for interiors.

Thanks for your help. He tried that last night and got the 28mm to work just fine. So, it looks like we'll have 1 28mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8, and a 35-105mm 3.5. It's not the ideal setup, but I think it'll do. Now we're just going to have to run some more tests to learn the limitations of using an awkward unit like that with a glidecam, dolly, jib, etc. Should be a good shoot.

I'm actually not sure if it's the extreme or not. And he does have a 28mm 2.8 that we were planning on using, but when we tested it yesterday we noticed it was vignetting way too much. Maybe there's a way we can fix that. So, I don't know a lot about 35mm focal lengths and lenses because I've never shot 35mm. But from what I understand, 85mm is the 'standard' closeup, portrait style shot. Does that apply to film or is it different?

The other lenses are 3.5. It just seems like we'd need to do a lot of lighting inside, based off the test we ran tonight. Maybe I'm wrong?

So, I'm getting ready to shoot a short film this summer, and a friend of mine offered to let me shoot on his Canon with his Letus 35mm adapter. The only problem is, the only lens he has that's fast enough to really shoot interiors (without a million lights) is a 50mm. I'm wondering how amateur it'd look and how much it'd really be worth shooting something with a 35mm adapter if I can only use a 50mm lens?

Right, but once the footage is captured onto a hard drive, is what I'm meaning.

I'm looking at shooting a short film on a Varicam this summer, and I wanted to see how big of an external hard drive I'm going to get. How big of a file does the Varicam create? Thanks, Tim.

That's good to know. As I said, the festivals I've been to only project miniDV, which looks almost blurry on the big screen. Thanks for your help. Tim.

Sure, I understand that. What I'm more curious about, though, is how it might look at a festival, and if those dollars will necessarily translate into a better picture.

I've been making short film for a few years, and have showed them at very small festivals in town. Everything I've shot has been on miniDV, and that's been pretty fine, because with the projetors they use at the local festivals, something shot on miniDV and something shot on a Varicam look almost identical (I've seen examples). For my next project, I'm considering shooting HD. Renting a Varicam or maybe even a RED. But, I don't want to spend the money for an HD image, if it's going to be projected to look just like miniDV. Are any festivals out there projecting HD? What would the advantages be of shooting on a better camera? I'm sure there'd be a little more latitude, but is that all? Thanks for your help. I want to make a quality product, but not to spend money that doesn't get on the screen.

Great. I thought those were some of the ways of working around/through it, but I wanted to clarify. Also, I didn't know that's what latitude meant, so thanks for that information also.

I'm going to warn you, this may be a dumb question. Every time I shoot something on miniDV, or even when I'm working on beta, there seems to be no way to get the windows from being so blown out. I just don't have that much light to put inside. What are some ways of counteracting this, or dealling with it. I've heard of people 'treating' the windows somehow. What does that consist of? Thanks, Tim.

As I mentioned in my last post, I don't really want to learn sound. That's not my goal. My goal is to have the highest quality production I can, on a limited budget. I don't mind buying equipment, but I only want to buy it if it's going to be something that I'm going to keep long enough to justify buying and not just renting. You seem to know a lot about audio, James, and I wonder if you think what I'm trying to do is a reasonable thing? I mean, either way I'm going to find someone else to do the audio recording and mixing. I'm just providing them tools. And working in Boise, Idaho, there isn't much to rent around here. Actually, there's nothing local. So, if you think this would be a good investment for someone in my position, I'd like to know. If you think I should take another route, I'm up for the advice. I'm not looking at going out and spending the money today. Not until I understand what it is I'm getting into (on at least a broad level, not on a sound technician's level). Thanks, Tim.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. And I was sort of expecting someone to post a response in that regard. I do realize the importance of those things, and you're completely right in that I don't want to learn 'sound' myself. There's too much there to learn, considering everything else I already need to work on. Having said that, I do want our production values to increase with every picture. So, from what I have heard, going from 16 to 24-bit sound (even with the same mics and the same professional sound mixer) would be an improvement. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know that, and what's a better option. If I'm right (and I realize there are degrees here), I'd like to get a good, economic but efficient 24-bit sound recorder that will hopefully last me a while.

I'm looking to move up from recording sound directly into my DVX and onto something a little higher quality. I've looked at things like the Edirol R-4, and a few others, but I really don't know what's good. I'm not looking to spend $10,000, but I'm not looking for a $300 H4 either. (Obviously, right, if I've been looking atht Edirol R-4). I shoot short films and feature length documentaries, so I'm looking for something that will hopefully one day find the big screen, and the closer I can get to that quality the better. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I shoot with a Yashica $10 super8 on auto exposure all the time and get decent footage. It's not going to win any awards and I'm not going to boast about it, but it's a visible picture and nobody ever comments on it being over or underexposed, so it does well enough. Mine shifts exposure automatically though, so pans and things tend to have a flicker to them, but for what I'm using my camera for (down and dirty documentary footage), I kind of like that.

Yeah, I'm really as not concerned with seeing dailies, as I am making sure I don't store it too long before developing.

I'm currently working on a documentary, parts of which will be shot digitally, parts of which will be shot on film. I have about 55minutes worth of super 8mm film, but I'm not going to be shooting it all in one day. I was wondering if I waited to get it all developed until I'd shot it all, if that would be a bad thing. How long can I wait to get it developed? I've always just sent the film straight out. Thanks, Tim.

Hey Adam, Have you ever gotten a package deal at spectra film? I'm curious how good their transfer is.