Laurent Andrieux

You mean the 85 would not be a 85 B but the 85 N3, N6 etc. would actually be 85B N3, N6 etc. ?

In french, a SILOUHETTE, that is translated in the Robert&Collins as an outline, is exactly what you mention, at a first place. But we also use it as to mean that we see somebody without being able to recognize him or her, by the light or any other matter. It can be someone who passes in the backround, for instance, or someone whom you would only see the back or a part of the body (directing term).

Ken Loach and sometimes Mike Leigh also shoot a "documentary way" and don't use all these ENG tricks...

Not sure... We use series that are : 85, 85 N3, 85 N6, 85 N9, 81 EF most of the time and I had the opportunity of comparing with a true 85B, the so-called "85" was less orange and less dense, but I'll ask people at Panavision to see if what they rent as an 85 is actually a 85 B... ;) Plesase, please, please... Create your own topic,don't digress !!!

Don't know if it's what Tim had in mind when he wrote this but I fell my self like many directors/editors - esp. in short movies - don't pay enough attention on how the shots create rythm and try to create it afterwards. If this is what he ment, I second that. I hate it when you are asked to do a slow tracking shot on stage though you try to say 'look, it's too long, we should shorten it or make it faster" and the director insists, and then, you see that the shot was cut at the editing, breaking the rythm you've given, like pasting a steady shot after it, since the tracking shot doesn't stop before it's cut... arrgh !

:blink: I think this is the main problem, and the fact the permission would be given or not, should certainly be linked to the safety of the site... I would try to go there and take photos, from the air only eventually and totally build a set somewhere else, that being Sweden or Germany, Poland or Tchequia, considering you are based in Sweden...

Thanks Franceso.

And for some reasons that I don't know, DPs use the 85 filter a lot more commonly than the 85 B, though tungsten negative film is balanced for 3200 K. The neutral density combined conversion filters series are commonly based on a 85 conversion filter as well. Is it for getting a bit more light since the 85 filters a bit less light than the 85B (though they both need a 2/3 stop compensation) ? Is it an historical reason ?

I basically second all that - as I've done for years - but, let me know what is a "dutch angle" please.

Distance from camera to object X image size = Object size X focal length

Hi all, Kristi, I'm very sorry I find your post only now. I was going to give a link to the chart on my site where I just uploaded it with a better quality, since someone else asked me, when I found your post. Yes, that's what I ment - sorry for my bad english - This is the way the technicians at Panavision France recommend to do. I actually was astonished when last week I went to Panavision Marseille, to find that they still use the same chart I learnt to work with almost 20 years ago. The copy just got a bit bad with years, that's all. The one I posted up here is the 20 years old (and best) one. The man who wrote them was a master in the art of optical craft at Panavision Paris, Pierre Coque, and is retired by now. Here you can download the original chart : http://l.andrieux.free.fr/mire_scope_2.tif But the main element is not that well defined. So they gave me a better copy of it only, that you can download here : http://l.andrieux.free.fr/mire_scope_3.tif You then can make you own chart. Remember that finding out the focus calibration is a matter of comparision. The chart won't give you a figure for your lens' definition. There is a CST chart that allows you to determine definition (still @ 50 times the focal length) but I don't have a good copy of it, and it's expensive to get the original one).

Sorry, Stephen, it's 1.33 stop, to me...

this one is especially nice, I think ! And it's got a Spectra light meter in it ! Not a Sekonic, lol !

You certainly would ! It ain't that expensive, is it ?

OK ! Hope he could answer the other questions too !

No, our site is not a french version of cinematography.com, :D it's just a french site that is based on the same forum software... Sometimes the site is a bit saturated, the links I gave works fine, but unfortunaltly I checked and the doc is the same as here... Were the infos I gave about the light meter usefull, anyway ?

Hi, Tim May be this would help : http://www.camera-forum.fr/index.php?autoc...amp;showfile=55 Click on "télécharger" as to download the file. Can you post a picture ? I have been using diffrent versions of the Aaton, but I can't recall what you are taliking about. A picture might help. Yes there is a built in light meter. It displays a series of flashing diodes in the lower side of the viewfinder. There are two ways to have it displayed, assuming the fact there is a battery plugged on the camera : 1) While it's running 2) if you press and hold the run button to the right, as you would do to open the aperture plate as to check the gate. If you open up the iris, the diode will go right, and left when you close it. The proper exposition (based on a mean value) is reached when the center diode flashes. All this from memory, please apologize for eventual mistakes that you should easily correct trying by yourself from these informations... This is all I can do by now... Hope it may have helped !

Sorry I'm so late here, it came out in the period I was not coming around much and a friend at Panavision Marseille recently told me about this bad story. I join all the friends here to wish you the best and very fast recovery.

First don't mistake beetween lumens and lumination (fc, lux)... the flux i(n lumen), caracterizes the whole luminous energy provided by a luminar, it wil depend a lot on the enlighted surface. See, let's take a fresnel lens or an open face projector for instance. You know the f-top, as well as the lumination, will vary according to the enlargment,and depend on whether you provide a flood or spot beam. The flux doesn't depend on this, since the whole energy remains the same. It just doesn't enlight the same surface... But there are diagrams that show what lumination you get at a given distance, in different positions (flood, medium flood, spot) for a given projector.You will find them from its manufacturer. Try Ianiro, Arri, Desisti or any other one you know. May be browsing their web sites would be successfull...

Depending on the effects you want for what is about the high level light, the filtering options can be different...

You certainly should need a UV filter, as a starting point. As for the crystals, it's al a problem of "power" of your lens : you need a macro lens or diopters. What camera are you shooting with ? Color or black and white ?

I'd second that, for what is about Panavision France Paris

When you set the focus at the infinite the dof goes from the hyperfocal distance to the infinite (it's the hyperfocal distance's definition, BTW : the lower limit of dof when a lens is set at the infinite). When you focus on the hyperfocal distance, the dof will go from half the hyperfocal distance to infinite. It is the widest dof you can get, vs any other setting, at a given focal length and f-stop. You can check on a dof calculator, that you can even find online, make a research here... Once again, this was more a newbie question than a 35 mm related one... You should have posted in the dedicated section...

I second Jonathan. The smaller the image, the less dof all paremeters equals besides. But the smaller the image is, the shorter your focal length has to be, as to achieve a precise shot, considering its field of view. Therefore, a considered shot, with a given field of view, will have more dof in 16 than a lerger format (35 mm), at a given f-stop. This more like a newbie question, to me BTW. Pity you didn't post in the dedicated section...

Exactly. It's a problem of lens construction, (the place of the iris within the optics) that is more difficult to deal with when the focal length gets short. But there isn't a focal length at wich it suddenly appears. A cheap 35 mm may distort. The 5.7 kinoptik doesn't distort much...