Jon Rosenbloom

So, I steered clear of the Quadra, and scheduled a seesion on a Rank, w/ a year old Ursa tube. From your posts, I gather that means I'm using technology that's even older than the Quadra? (If you think the Rank is finicky, you should meet the colorist!) At least I know this machine. I used it and the same colorist last year for a regular 16 short that I shot on a 16-bl w/ that freakin atrocious Angenieux doorstop of a zoom, and I thought the transfer looked pretty good. (It was the tube's first job!) Since then, I've done a super-16 transfer on the Shadow. I know what I'll be missing, but the Shadow's just too expensive to employ everytime I shoot a student film. For the price I'm getting, I'll be able to see what digi-beta does for me. Thanks for your answers.

Sorry for not reading all the other replies, but, did you print your test footage and have it projected, or, did you watch something like an unsupervised transfer to video?? If you had the footage printed, you should have the timing numbers, and these can tell you if you're on the right track. If you had it transfered, well, all bets are off ... maybe your methods worked, maybe they didn't. There is no there there in (unsupervised) video.

Who can tell me about the Phillip's quadra telecine? I'm going to transfer (supervised) the most recent footage I shot, and the Shadow will probably not be available. Is the Quadra an acceptable substitute? I understand it's a tube machine, but is it better than an Ursa Diamond? I've got super-16 negative, w/ good density, and I'm going to transfer to Beta-sp. Eventually, the footage will end up in my reel, which I've always put together on Avids. (Though I hear Final Cut is now uncompressed.) Related issue, some regular 16mm I shot was "best-lighted" on a Spirit to digi-beta, and I find the image veering toward a very "video originated" look. Is this the result of taking the round film pixel and turning it into a digital square? (This is kind of why I'm avoiding digi-beta on the next transfer.)

Had the same questions a few weeks ago. Actually, I spoke to a pretty good DP - someone w/ really good credentials (he was at the clubhouse when I called) - and he gave me two pieces of advice which apply to something that'll never be projected in a theatre: Use whatever stock you want, the differences in grain are so minute that you won't ever know the difference in Telecine. That said, if you want to use 100t without the filter, go ahead, you can correct it in the transfer. Or, if you don't want to mess around w/ overexposing the blue layer of a tungsten film, shoot the 250D. I've shot the 250d on super-16, supervised some of it's transfer, the stuff is beautiful, you could be forgiven for thinking it's 35. Even in regular 16mm, it's very sharp. I'd worry less about the stock, and more about finding a set of primes and a matte-box if you're going for a "sharp and clean" image. Last, how do I get frame grabs on here?

Wow, what a nightmare. I've never seen anyone gel a space-light. Are you going to gel them once during a pre-light, or are you going to gel them during the middle of the shooting day? I can't imagine wrapping those things in gel if they're already in the grid.

How did I forget "Once Upon A Time in the West:" The shot that starts on the empty train platform, follows Claudia Cardinale into the station, and then cranes up over the roof of the station to reveal the Platonic ideal of the mythical western town. Also great is Henry Fonda's entrance in flashback, as well as just about every other moment in that film. Also from "The Third Man:" Harry's fingers futiley pushing through the sewer grate, and the last shot of that movie, where Alida Valli refuses the ride from Joseph Cotton.

Two shots from Tarkovsky's "Nostalghia:" Obviously, the 10 minute dolly across the empty pool, and, even more obviously, the last shot. No dialogue, the only effects are "in-camera," the shots are technically pretty simple, but they sum up the entire movie better - they tell you more - than any dialogue or critical exegis ever could. From "Underground:" The island breaking away into the Danube, and/or the burning wheel-chair in the bombed out village. John Wayne's exit in "The Searchers."

Do you mean that you would turn down a job if it's shooting on film?! I've shot 7 short films on 16 or super-16, and I've encountered the push-open eyecup only once.

Unfortunately, video taps have always been out of reach budget-wise. I was asking about old-school, straight operating, looking through the viewfinder of a film camera. Even if the budget could accomodate one, I'd rather spend the $ on an hmi, or a technician, or a dolly w/ a boom, or a second matte-box ... Something that has a direct impact on the photography.

Thanks, J. I'll try your suggestions next time out. Also, do you know of a follow focus that screws into the rosette on the camera?

For experienced operators: How hard do you press your eye to the eyepiece? I just did a short film that involved a whole bunch of pretty quick dolly moves, w/ big pans and tilts, and I had to do extra takes because I simply lost sight of the image, even though I had my eye pressed hard into the eyecup. (We used an SR-3.) Should I back off on the pressure? Would an eyepiece chamois help? Would the eyepiece extender help?

There are plenty of people who love "Ambersons," including me. Up until the studio ending, it's one of the great accomplishments of film art. If you get into reading Welles biographies, you'll find many pages detailing the tragic history of the "Ambersons:" The reels that the studio cut out eventually sank into the Pacific! Despite this, there have been a bunch of attempts to "restore" the film. (Wasn't there a TV production in the past 5 years based on Welle's script?) Certainly not as fast-paced or effervescent as "Kane," but it still has a great vitality, raging beneath its genteel surface. (And very funny, too.) It's kind of "Odyssey" to Kane's "Illiad." Note, Welles attributed a lot of Amberson's budget troubles to Cortez, whom he called "a criminally slow camera-man."

For a super-16mm short, I'm thinking about shooting a 90% daylight script on 200T, skipping the 85 filter on the camera, and just "fixing" the blue on the spirit in post. I'm guessing that the 200t has slightly finer grain than 250d, but it's still just fast enough for me to feel secure near the end of the day. An ASC member suggested this approach to me, and I really like the idea, but I still have a nagging worry about sacrificing some bit of exposure perfection if I don't use the 85. Any thoughts?

Checked out the curves for these two stocks, does the vision 2 have a gentler curve (less contrast) than the old exr stock? I've never had the chance to shoot on the 50D, but maybe it's too "brittle" for my lead actress, especially since I won't have silks our bounces, (or anything!) to control the sun. Hence, I'm considering the v2 200t or even 100t w/ an 85. I'm looking for the least grainy, most "feminine" image out of the above choices. (Shot on 16mm, transfered on spirit.)

If you've got two mambo combo's, you can rig a 8'x8' silver lame, and bounce your 4k pars into that as a 3/4 backlight. Just get some black sash for the safety lines. Don't worry about pointing the pars straight up, the heat escapes through the lens.

IMDB is missing about twenty of my grip credits, Melinda & Melinda, Kate & Leopold, Men In Black 2, Door in The Floor, Vanilla Sky, and on and on. It's not really accurate. (No, I'm not going to register to correct them.) In fact, if a producer were relying on IMDB to judge job candidates, that would be kind of a red flag for me. (But, yes, I was tickled when I saw a Cinematographer credit on my page. :) )

David, Did you have a chance to see the Diane Arbus retrospective at the Met?

Ideally, the only light that enters the camera should be the light that is reflected from your subject. Pay close attention to flares, even if they're soft.

Very interesting. Can you elaborate on the different emulsions that make up a given stock?

What is the Easy-Rig? Is it the upside-down L shaped contraption that fits into the newer Steadi-Cam vest? The camera hangs on a 1/8" steel cable that's got some kind of adjustable spring resistance. Kind of makes the operator look like a big question mark??? I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to get a bouncy Steadi-Cam while running on steep, uneven terrain, especially w/ a lighter camera like the A-minima. (You could just hire .... ;) )

"Pushing never increases the speed (sensitivity) of a stock, just takes what got exposed and increases the density, which is why what's left is more contrasty. That being said, b&w film pushes "better" than color film, with a better increase in density without a lot of increase in grain (which is good since Double-X is already a rather grainy stock.) I've often thought the pushed version of these b&w stocks looked better than the normally-developed versions. Just be warned that since color print stock has a higher gamma than b&w print stock, printing b&w neg onto color print stock will get you a more contrasty image ON TOP of the contrast increase from pushing. This may look fine for your needs or you may want to add more fill light or some foggy-type diffusion filtration to lower contrast." Well, what would happen if you flashed your double-x and pushed? The flashing would help you see into the low levels, and the pushing would help you out from zone 6 on up. Also, the flashing would mute the contrast gained from pushing, which would help when it came time to print on color stock. Or would the two manipulations just cancel each other out?

I've always been a little curious about this. On the vast majority of filmed projects I've worked on, the DP has always overexposed the film by 1/3 stop, so if 7218 is on the camera, the meters are set to 400 asa, if 7277 is up, the meter is set to 250, and so on. Having shot a handful of films myself, I now do this as a matter of course as well. The footage just looks better. In fact, I haven't done any densitometry, but it seems that w/ that little bit of extra exposure I'm getting a negative that is more optimally dense than what would result w/ going w/ the asa rating on the film can. So why not just label 7218 as 400asa, and 7205 as 200asa, etc.?

Has anyone suggested using lighting balloons? Also, what's the final product, a projected print, or - more likely - a dvd/beta-sp? If you're not printing, you could probably shoot 7218 at 1000 asa and go w/ whatever's there in the church. If you want more footcandles: you could get the balloons, you can hide kinos behing the columns, you can hide par cans between the pews, You can put blue eca bulbs (250w) in the practical fixtures, and put nd gel on the camera side of the fixtures, You can stretch some ropes above the knave and hang chinese lanterns, There are plenty of ways to go. You must make sure to scout, decide on the framing, and then figure out what's out of frame. Good luck!

I know "The Door in The Floor" was shot super-35 and went thru a DI. It was quite grainy on the big screen.

"Four Weddings & A Funeral" struck me as overlit, as did "Clueless," (same DP I think.) Not that there was anything technically wrong, but the beauty lighting made these movies look like makeup ads, rather than stories about characters. Also "Jerry Maguire" is bizarrely commercial in its look. The recent "Merchant of Venice" was pretty gloomy for a comedy. (So, I'm contradicting myself; the 1st two comedies were overlit, the 3rd is underlit!) I can't fault the technical quality of these films; it's the artistic choices the DP's made that "take me out of the film."