Danny Lachman

I'm just curious - I've always expected the production to pay for everything - is this wrong to think so? So far on all my Indy picture ACing I've never had to pay a dime. but then I've only worked on about 3 features.

Sorry to mention this if it already had, but I just worked on a film with Stephan Bender who played superman as a boy - I was talking to his dad on set, and he told me that they only used the genesis for a few of the special effects shots - and that it was like 95% film camera usage. Is this new info for you guys... it certainly suprised me.

Does anyone know of some other films shot on Aaton cameras besides emperor/march of the penguins - The reason I'm curious is because I'd like rent the movies to see the footage, Aaton's seem to give me the general impression that they are for a lot of independent film making - but I have nothing to base that on other than my own intuition. And what's up with the cat on the shoulder thing? Are they really that ergonomic?

I was hoping to be the one to say that I saw the fuji film boxes! I felt like such an insider when I watched it because of that. The film I just got done working on called "Dream Boy" was shot using a lot of 500 and 250D Eterna and it looked awesome in the dailies.

You should look into a 35mm adapter because using regular 35mm lenses directly on the XL camera won't really let you exploit the lenses - with a RedRockMicro for example - you get pretty minimal change in the angle of view of the lenses. say a 24mm with 84 degrees on 35mm would go to about a 75mm angle on the Redrock so you still get to go pretty wide. Unlike using it directly on the camera like someone else already said. My personal selection of lenses goes as follows: 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, and 70-210mm nikkors. I probably could use either a 28 or 35mm lens too but I don't have one. My suggestion: Go with 28mm, 50mm, and 105mm - that's pretty standard in the candid still photographer business.

It really sounds like my film probably is coming out sharp - I just need to invest in myown machine - it'll cost less in the long run. I'm now glad I've saved all my negatives! The only way I'll know if I'm getting good exposures comparable to motion picture films will be to get a hold of a scanner where either I or the person operating it has a goal of scanning it accurately.

Hmmm... as far as getting to see what my 35mm negatives really look like, maybe I should invest in my own negative scanner because I always get the store to do it for me... I did not know they were that cheap! I've spent probably 100 dollars on cds they burn them on in the photo store already..... anyways that's not really getting too far into my question but thanks for the pics you posted - slide film definitly has smaller grain but most motion pictures don't use positive film right?

Hi, My question pertains to the quality of film and what determines how to get a sharp picture. I've always noticed that hollywood flicks get really sharp picture, however they use high speed films - such as Enterna 500 for example and it still turns out looking sharp as hell! And as a still photographer I thought the only way to get sharp pictures was to use low speed films - like 100 or 200. However I've taken one or two photos on 800 speed and gotten fairly sharp images. I was wondering if their was a difference in the quality of film that motion pictures use compared to regular kodak or fuji film you can buy at walmart. I also was wondering what determines how sharp your image turns out. here is that 800iso photo that came out sharp when exposed correctly: but here is 100 speed exposed correctly and it's REALLY grainy for that speed: so really, what's determining how sharp the film comes out and why am I not getting as sharp of images as the film industry? By the way I use a nikon camera with nikkor lenses. Thanks!

Hello Peter, I'm also an owner of the Sekonic L-398... I've only had it for about 2 weeks so far and I too had to reset the screw on the back of the meter to get the needle to go to zero. Unfortunately I don't have any specifics on how to repair it but I have this to say - The problem must be purely mechanical but I take it that you don't want to open the meter up and ruin it - so in that case the best thing you could do would be to write Sekonic an email and I'm sure they could give you some in depth info on where to get it repaired. If I had the same problem on my meter, I would have just taken it apart and tried to fix it - it's a very simple device and as long as your careful I think you might be able to fix it yourself. Just my two cents.

Hello all Clapper Loaders or Camera assistant's, I've recently landed an internship on a low budget film and I think the DP might want me to know how to load film into a 35mm camera (probably 400ft mags into a Panavision Millenium) Could someone give me a gist of how to do this so that I don't make a total dick out of myself when trying it.

I really liked the idea that was brought up about a public fund. It almost seems that if too many people invested into the production of a movie then they would just break even and make enough to pay for their movie ticket - theoretically if it was a huge pool of little sums of money. I think other commentators brought up a good point - stocks is really where little men can get their hands on motion picture production. I guess that's why stocks were created.

very nice! It seemed like it would be a cinematographer's purist production in that since the whole trailer was in black area - the lighting and actors truely create the visual world without aid from anything else. The ARRI D-20 - i've been waiting to see footage from this camera. I almost shat my pants when i was it displayed at Sundance. It's hard to see how it compares to the other cine HD's but I trust in the German's skill - they make the most extreme things. My question is - what kind of lenses did you use? Arri's? I'm supposing you could put any 35mm cine lens on the camera.

Hello all, This video entails a series of shots I took at my school campus last semester. The shots were all part of a camera test that I - as you will see - got carried away with. Oh yes, the footage is all of well - me - not because I'm vain but because I was the only person shooting this. Please let me know what your opinion of it is - It's improvisational art at it's best. http://www.somethingclassy.com/forum/index...post&id=106 This was shot on a GL1 with a redrockmicro and a Nikkor 50mm lens 1.4

wow thank you so much for this helpful advice everyone!!! I've noticed how great film looks when you expose it correctly. ( I usually can get away with being a few stops off - but it's never as good as getting the right stop) This will most certainly help me get up to running on how to use a light meter and get the film exposed properly. I read all the comments with much thought and I believe that they give me the answer I needed - especially info about the grey card. Thank you all very much!

With the danger of an HMI burning people - you'd think flourescant light is looking pretty appealling with all of the improvements they've made on them. I've heard that flourescant are a great source of light. Is this true? I know they make "film lighting flourescants" but what about ordinary flourescant? would that be good for digital production?

Can't HMI's burn people with ultraviolent radiation? I read on wikipedia that you needed a uv filter - but then I talked to a light guy on a film set and he said that there were no filters over his 12k light.

My question pertains to light meters. I was working as a stand in on a christmas movie this summer and I got to work up close with the DP. I noticed his extensive (and understandable) use of the handheld light meter. I was wondering about the effectiveness of these meters and exactly where do you point them to gather the light your reading. (the wight semi sphere?) I do lots of 35mm photography in order to learn about motion film, but I notice that my cameras built in light meter gives a vague reading and in turn it's hard to get the perfect exposure. That coupled with the fact that my camera does not read my lenses F-stops. (all for the better!) anyways - could someone give an basic explanation of how to properly use a handheld meter? I want to use one but they look kind of tricky to use. -also don't be afraid to get technical.

Here is the link about the XD with the CineAlta: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusin...ews_xdcam.shtml

Hello, here is something I've been pondering about for a while about lenses. Why is it that SLR still lenses can have an Fstop of 1.2 and be tiny in comparison to a Cinema lens with Fstop 1.2. I guess the speed of the lens is not relevant to the size of the lens? Here is my question, why are Cine Lenses so much bigger than SLR lenses? I was looking at a Panavision camera the other day on a set and the lenses were HUGE.

I would say from what I saw of Sony's demo reel, that the XD cam was pretty ugly. Sharp footage, but similar to that of a workout video. Could anyone point out some good footage from the XD cam? I noticed on sony's site that they are putting the XD with the Cine Alta's... but it kind of confuses me because of the ugly demo footage I saw.