Mathew Rudenberg

Well, the master film maker Uwe Boll used a crazy turntable rig to spin the camera around his actors in 'House of the Dead.' I believe there was some form of stationary platform the actor stood on, and beneath it a turntable to which the camera was connected. Then the crew all ran away (either to avoid being seen by the ensuing 360 degree shot or to avoid being brained when the camera broke lose from it's mount) and pushed the button. However, according to the Internets that was the last time such a rig was used since it would maim/kill an actor if he/she moved more than a couple of feet. It looked pretty cool though.

I'm not an post guy, but I suspect that you're likely to get some loss of sharpness regardless of what stabilizing program you use. Most post stabilizers work by zooming in on the image and then moving it to counter the shake. They have to zoom in enough that when they move the image you don't see it's edges, so the greater the range of the shake the more it zooms in and the softer the image gets. You can also get some softness if the shake is introducing motion blur, as the motion blur will still appear even though the image no longer moves. The only solution I can think of is to only partially fix the shake, which should allow less of a zoom in and thus greater sharpness.

Try to shoot in a direction where everything is back lit by the sun. Without lights you won't be able to match brightness inside the car to direct sunlight, and if you ND enough to balance the outside in direct sunlight you risk it looking fake. If you shoot in a back lit direction you should get a good combination of shadowy areas which will match the ambiance inside, and hot spots that keep it looking interesting. If it's overcast ND or net (if it's out of focus) is pretty much your only option. As with anything outside, shooting later in the day (or early morning) will always be prettier... sadly the schedule rarely allows for that (except in winter, when the sun is always low but the days are too short...)

I like soft lights, but I seldom carry any bigger than a 2k zip on a truck - the bigger ones tend to be a bit unwieldy on location. On stage I use them a fair amount - they're not too soft on their own but if you bang them into a 4x4 you've got an instant book light with less spill... They can work well for fill if they're right next to camera, primarily in a hard light style lighting set up. I've also seen them rigged to provide ambiance, although space lights and chicken coops are more common.

That's quite a challenge... My lightmeter only goes down to 0.1 footcandle, and at that it give's me 0.7 1/3 at 180 degrees shutter and 6400 iso. The general consensus seems to be that the light of the full moon is 0.02 footcandles max. I think you may just be able to do it but you'll have to push the footage hard, and it's bound to be more than a little grainy. I'd like to see it if you do do it. Oh, and here's the lens for you. Leica noctilux 50mm 0.95 - drool http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091505leica_50mm_f0_95.asp Only 10 grand...

Depending on your shot, one option may be to set up your 2k with the 4x4 for the end position or close-up position, and then to use the 1k's without diffusion to light deeper into the theater. The harder light will throw further without as much fall off, and at a distance it won't be evident whether the light is hard or soft as long as you match the level of intensity.

No luck on 15/70 projection in LA so far - The Bridge and Universal Citywalk, which are possibly the two largest IMAX theatres here, are both digital. If anyone finds a nice 15/70 projection here and wants to let me know that would be great! I find it rather sad and ironic that they go to all the expense and effort to shoot 65mm, embracing arguably the best film has to offer, only to be shown digitally since there's insufficient desire to screen 15/70.

Thanks Adrian, but sadly that's exactly the theatre I went to see it! There's a little caveat towards the bottom of the theatre info that says to the effect that hollywood films are digitally remastered into IMAX, which I'm pretty sure sure is what I saw (it looked like a softish digital blow up) I would be willing to accept that the difference simply isn't that noticeable to me if it wasn't for the fact that when I saw TDK at the exact same theatre the quality shift between 65 and ana 35 was very very obvious. In this screening the shots which I imagine were shot 65 such as the helicopter establishing shots looked just as soft as everything else.

You lucky bastich, I fear that the IMAX screens here in LA have all converted from 65mm projectors to dual 4k digital projectors for 3d. I have no essential problem with digital, but 4k digital looks very soft on an IMAX screen, especially in comparison to 65mm projection. It's also somewhat ironic that Pfister and Nolan go to all that trouble to photochemically finish their films and then the only way to see them is in digital projection. Does anyone know of a theatre in LA projecting Inception in 65mm? - I would happily pay to see it again if I knew it would be that.

Usually there are several elements used to sell this effect. One is slow mo with everyone holding positions. Another is props/ hair that are manipulated to look like they are frozen And another is the addition of cg elements (such as water or particles) and the painting out of wires used to help people hold uncomfortable positions. Stills and plug ins can be used to create a similar but limited effect (that is, perspective shift is hard to create effectively when using stills) This one looks to me like a lot of it was done practically due to the shifting perspective and reflections. Also, the CG (as you can see in the obvious cheap flare plugin) is horribly bad, which makes it seem unlikely to me that they could handle everything else relatively well.

I saw TDK at the universal citywalk in LA, and let me tell you, when it cut to IMAX it was totally incredible - massive detail, no grain - it made the anamorphic 35 look like poo-poo by comparison. I went back to the same theater, paid for the exorbitant IMAX ticket and sat back and waited to be blown away. And then I waited some more, and then some more. and then the movie ended. The whole thing looked like a soft digital blow-up, I can't believe they were selling it as IMAX, especially if a large amount of it was shot as such. I couldn't even tell what if any shots were shot 65mm, aside from some helicopter establishing shots that probably would have been awe inspiring if they didn't feel soft from the blow up. Is there any where you can actually see inception on 65mm film?

I know a while back (3 or 4 years ago) I had pv lenses on a mini35 for a feature, but when it came to pickups we had to go superspeeds because Panavision was 'no longer renting lenses without bodies' (or at least that's what the producer told me... maybe he was just too cheap :) ) It wouldn't surprise me if they waive that rule for bigger names though. Also, it's interesting that Shane Hurlbut moved his support from Panavision to alternative rentals, and says that the primo lenses he used for act of valor 'are not available any more.' Is it possible that Panavision is now limiting his access to their lenses?

I believe Hawk's new range of anamorphic lenses have a 1.3x option - designed for converting 16x9 into 2:35 without any resolution loss Still probably won't cover the whole 5D sensor, so you may be better with the 7D.

I don't think any one has mentioned to you yet that one of requirements of this board is to use your real name. you should go ahead and change it If you crop both sensors to the same size you will get somewhat more resolution out of the 7D (or the T2ii which has the same size sensor and is cheaper)

I agree, I often hear the argument that now that anyone can have access to the means to produce relatively high quality images it's all about the talent, and the people that are really skilled will rise to the top. Two problems with that though. One: What is talent, I mean really? Are we talking artistic fidelity or commercial success here? Two: I think limited access was a good thing. If you really really wanted to be a filmmaker and the only way to do it was shoot on 35mm you would find away to do it. The Cohen Bro's did it. Tarentino did it. Pretty much every director I know and love found a way to make movies because they were passionate about what they did and wouldn't let any obstacle stand in their way of telling powerful and unique stories. Now that anyone can spend a couple grand and pump out a movie there's just a lot more trash to sort through to find the good stuff. Same thing happened to the music industry. Nothing to be done about it really, it's just the way things are now... The people that will become the defining voices of the new generation are those who make things that stand out from the background noise of the internet for whatever reason. That will be the new selection process, and think about the things that stand out on the internet... I forget who, but someone said the internet is proof that putting a billion monkeys on typewriters will NOT produce Shakespeare.

I was meaning less to vomit the old argument than to highlight the hilarity of using food metaphors to refer to filming, is the camera the meat, or is it the pans? maybe it's the ketchup or the dishes :) As a creative your personal tastes define the flavor of your work, maybe some people like natural salt while others want a dose of MSG. Per your original question - there's a very simple answer. If you feel so strongly that Red (and Genesis) shot films 'simply look weird' regardless of the budget and talent involved, simply don't use those cameras, as nothing will make them work for you. It's a creative choice that effects all aspects of your project, from budgeting to the final image, just like choosing to shoot anamorphic 35 or 16mm.

Just put black duvetene or velvet everywhere, add a bit more fill light then usual and crush the blacks in post. I've done this plenty of times and it works great...

In order of the questions: yes, everything, probably both, but that really depends on you.

That reminds of the story of a conversation at a dinner party: The cook tells the photographer 'My, your photographs are quite beautiful, you must have a really expensive camera' The photographer responds, 'Well, your meal is delicious, you must have really expensive pans.' zing.

yeah, that's pretty exciting, another cheap camera with unreliable firmware that uses still lenses. Does it have peaking and zebras? That, at least, would be something.

Thomas, you've made this same argument limitless times - that temporal resolution is more important that resolution within each frame. I get it! And you know what - you're right! - it is true that shooting for a higher frame rate delivery will render motion more accurately. However, filmmakers simply are not interested in rendering better motion for narrative works. Nolan and Pfister tested Super Dimension 70 for Inception and decided not to use it because despite the 'phenomenal resolution' they "just couldn't get around" the fact that it felt like video. The guys with enough money and clout to truly make a change to 48fps playback in theaters tested it and decided against it for artistic reasons. The problem is that narrative filmmakers don't want to depict motion in a scientifically accurate way. They prefer the dreamy evocative feel of 24fps playback, and no matter how many times you say the same thing it's not going to change that. So, please, just stop saying the same thing again and again, it's a valid point, but it's pointless to keep repeating it.

If what you want is 1080p with a large depth of field why ask for the comparison of those cameras? - there are a number of low cost prosumer cameras that shoot 1080p and have a small sensor thus rendering a large depth of field relative to the frame size. The panasonic AG-HMC40 camera has 1/4 inch chip and shoots 1080p. Also, unlike the scarlet, it exists.

I would say there are several other issues involved in deciding on using 7D's for a show... From my experience the 5D/7D make beautiful pictures, but are painful to work with in a professional capacity for several reasons... 1) video village - if you want to be able to have directors be able to watch monitors in HD at video village you're going to need to have an HDMI enabled onboard monitor for each camera, and and HDMI splitter (which has to be powered) to send signal to the monitors in video village as well as the on board (you could use AJA boxes to convert the HDMI to HD-SDI instead). Alternatively you could monitor in SD but that's dangerous for focus. The hpx-170, on the other hand, has a dedicated HD-SDI out. 2) sound - with no time code or lockit boxes and no professional input for sound editorial is probably going to have to rely purely on the slate for syncing - this could be an issue depending on turn around and so forth. Also no TC = unhappy scripty. The hpx-170, on the other hand, has TC and XLR inputs 3) Focus - how are you handling focus on your show? There are multiple approaches, the ops can pull their own which works fairly well but tends to enforce a certain 'style.' Alternatively if you're going for a more controlled look things become a little trickier. Still lenses make beautiful pictures, but are horrible for AC's - you can consider options like manually geared lenses or converting your cams to PL mounts, but these are naturally pricey. A mini 35 rig, on the other hand, has a PL mount and rods for follow focus. 4) exposure and focus controls in camera - When I shoot digital I rely heavily on certain standard video camera functions for exposure and focus - these being zebras and peaking. These wonderful tools allow you to be able to tell if your shot is in focus and properly exposed while you're rolling. The DSLR's have substitutes for these BUT they only work when you are not rolling. The hpx-170, on the other hand, has zebras and peaking and more... Now, I'm not saying that mini35/hpx combo is perfect by a long shot - it is noisy, bad in low light and unwieldy for handheld. It is, on the other hand, a real video camera. The DSLR's are still cameras that happen to record video. Personally I'm glad I'm not in your position because I would find it very difficult to choose. The 7D will make somewhat prettier pictures, but also be somewhat harder to work with.

The cone effect you speak of will naturally happen when a bright globe is in a practical with a similar lampshade to the one in you picture. Preventing the lampshade itself from blowing out can be done using ND, or by simply using a thicker lampshade that absorbs more of the light that hits it directly. If you're using an HMI for moonlight, remember that it is a naturally blue light source already. How blue it is depends on the color balance of your film or that your digital camera is set at. It also depends on the camera you're using and the level of saturation you're finishing at. I find a 56k 'moonlight' at a 32K setting to be too blue for some digital cameras (like the venerable old F900) but just right with less color sensitive cameras like the red. I don't think I would add blue to a HMI if shooting at 32k unless I wanted a really particular effect. Green is quite commonly added to moonlight for a more stylized effect. Remember that moonlight is merely sunlight reflected off the moon's surface, so realistically speaking it should be the same color as sunlight, maybe slightly modified by the color of the moon's surface that it is bouncing off of. That being said, decades of movie goers have been acclimatized to the visual cue that blue light = nightime.

Gale shot a lot of it on 1.0 and 1.2 lenses WFO specifically to get that shallow depth of field... so it was a choice more than a mistake. There were several wide shots that felt a little soft as well... I have to say I was skeptical beforehand, but I think it looked very impressive - it certainly doesn't hurt that the sets and lighting lent itself to a contrastier look then the show usually has. I felt like the hospital stuff really showed how much more contrast the 5d has then their regular footage, although it may have been graded for that. Some of the slightly wider angle close ups with the full frame sensor were rather incredible, unlike anything I've seen. It makes me a little uncomfortable that it looks as good as it does - I still find the 5d hard to work with considering its monitoring issues, amongst others. Still I can't honestly see any reason footage of that quality isn't suitable for television.