Chris Durham

Well my guess is that grad students often don't come from a film undergrad program, or a film background. They therefore might know less about what they're doing than someone who has spent time learning the ropes.

What's interesting to me is that this can be done through a hack. It's also interesting in that it probably exposes why Canon went with line skipping. The GH1 is 12.1 megapixels and it can pull this stunt, but apparently sometimes has problems at 50Mbps. So I can see why the 5D, with 9 million more pixels, might have a hard time downsampling. I'm still very curious to see what Nikon does next. Their cameras don't seem to be as pixel crazy as Canon. Some people are speculating RAW files as the next step for HDSLRs, but the problem is there's not a post workflow for that - unless you go CinemaDNG which I'm all for. I think they should keep the pixel count low, up the dynamic range (easier with larger pixels), and pump up the bit depth.

Good to see we weren't on the same page because I was a bit confused Tim. The grab I posted was from the post on Philip Bloom's blog that Karel linked. And you're right, it's vastly different from what you posted, both in terms of contrast and lighting conditions. So yeah, my comments were all about dynamic range. As far as the quality of the image I think it's superb - I actually went peeking around Hotrod Camera's site after watching these. As far as the compression and artifacting - and aliasing I'm sure - This is looking superior to the 5D no doubt. I'm deeply ambivalent and love/hatey about these HDSLRs, but this development is definitely another point in their favor. At the end of the day though, the GH1 probably isn't the camera for me. I can't really afford the Hotrod mod - and definitely not the PL glass on top of it - and I'm not happy with the limited lens options for the format (especially since I prefer not shooting with zooms).

Of course I'm not viewing this on the greatest monitor so that could account for something. But if I were comparing this to the Zacuto comparison, I recall the shots with the light bulb where the Canons maintained details in the bulb but the GH1 went to white. And here you have: Hot spots in the light clipping while not seeing a lot of detail in the darks either. So this shot isn't exposed for what's in the shadows but is blowing out in the highlights. Don't get me wrong. I really like what I see here. I took another look at it before responding here, this time at full screen, and it really is quite impressive. As far as saying the image is contrasty, that's not really a criticism - I quite like it. As far as evaluating the dynamic range of the image though, it doesn't offer very much. It's an obviously overcast day and most of what I see is in the middle as far as exposure. Where it's dark there's not much detail. In the few places where there's a lot of light there's not much detail.

It's a very nice image, but it doesn't seem to have a lot of range. The Zacuto comparisons showed how contrasty the G1 image is and this doesn't change that of course, but downsampling rather than line-skipping makes a huge difference.

I've recently moved to NYC from Dallas where I was making steady progress in the local independent film scene - for what that's worth - as a DP. I worked as a DP on a lot of short films, did some editing here and there, and did some crewing for various other productions. Then I got a chance to move to NYC with a really good day job and figured it would be a good move all around. Now I'm settled in and wanting to start working again. I know this is a real production town and expect my previous experience will be less significant here than it was in Texas, particularly on larger productions, and of course I'm not above starting at the bottom - I just want to work and grow. A big hurdle for me is that for the immediate future I'm only really able to work weekends and evenings, but I'm more than willing to work my ass off at every opportunity. So for those of you who do, or have, worked here, what can I do? How should I proceed to start building the foundation of a professional career in the camera department?

My apologies. For some reason I was incorrectly remembering that the EX1 had 1/3" chips. I stand corrected.

Definitely, more information please. The Z5U is a great little camera; I've shot on it quite a bit. I'm not a big fan of DoF adapters in general, but if that's what you're going for I'm not sure how much difference you'll see between the Z5U and EX1 (I think the EX1 is generally a superior camera, but people who shoot with adapters tend to focus on the adapter more than the camera - and you can lose something in that; plus I don't think it's a big jump). If you can get an EX3 you'll benefit from the slightly larger sensor (theoretically a larger sensor should mean more dynamic range and more light collection and thus less prone to light loss from the adapter). I won't get into opinions on the 5D because my feelings on it reflect fairly deep ambivalence - I'll just say that it can look very good but that doesn't mean that it is very good.

Thanks, Everyone, for the responses. I'll definitely be checking out the Ziegfeld, and probably the others. IMAX doesn't do much for me if it's just a blow-up so I avoid it for most things, but it will be good to know where they are.

I've just moved to NY and am looking for a great theater to go see movies at. I'm willing to make a bit of a trek to avoid the small, cramped, small-screened cinemas that seem to be around me. A few months ago I was in LA and went to Grauman's and, compared to TX where I was living, the bar was certainly raised for what a projection and theater should look like. There's got to be something at least approaching that quality in NY. Don't get me wrong, I love all the cine-love here and I'm happy to be in any size theater, like Film Forum or Anthology, if I'm getting to watch Godard or Renoir; but if I'm out to see Iron Man 2, or anything contemporary for that matter, I want something quality. So where's a cinephile to go?

I've just moved to New York and for the next 6 months I'm basically walking distance from the New York Film Academy and NYU. Of course I moved here for my day job, but one of my goals in being here is to delve further and expand my horizons as a filmmaker/cinematographer. My ultimate career goals are to direct, but of course to direct very visually, and along the way to work as a cinematographer. I've been making movies for close to four years now - my own short films, but I have also DP'd, edited, and acted as a colorist on other people's projects. I've done mostly digital video, but some S8 and S16 film as well and I really love film even if I'm not entirely comfortable in the medium just yet. In other words, I have a decent foundation but some of my fundamentals are more well-rooted than others. I don't want to go to "film school" as most people would think of it, but I am looking for a program that can fill in my blanks and provide me opportunities to expand and improve myself, maybe meet and work with some like-minded people, and possibly be some recognition of qualification (I know a reel and a resume mean more, but I also guess that something along the lines of "Certificate in Cinematography from NYU" stands out a little more than, say, "intro to broadcasting from xyz community college.") So, I've seen that there's a short-term, intensive program at NYFA that looks interesting. I think it's six weeks but looks like a general filmmaking - not cinematography-centric - course. What attracts me to it, though, is that it looks like it focuses on film more than digital. Couple that with the fact that a broader education could benefit my long-term goals and the course seems attractive. I've also seen that NYU's SCPS program has a Certificate in Cinematography which requires either a short-term intensive course (during the day, so out of the question for me) or 5 evening courses. This speaks to my current focus, but info on their website suggests a less film-centered approach; and while I don't devalue digital cinematography, if you're starting me out with DVX100s and HVX200s (specifically mentioned, and a class of camera I've worked with long enough to dislike), this may not be the approach for me. On the other hand, there is an advanced cinematography class in the program and an art of cinematography class, so it could be good. I don't know what other programs there are or are worthwhile at other schools around, but I'm sure there are several that are good. Can anyone give me some suggestions as to what other programs there are, and as to what your experience or knowledge of the two listed programs are from a cinematography-centric point of view? I'd appreciate it. Chris

Hi Everyone. I've just discovered that I'm about to be offered a job in NYC - not a film job, mind you, but the next job in my IT career (the career I'd eventually like to shelve in favor of film). There's been a long interview and review process and I was told today that I've been selected for the position and now it's a matter of coming up with a salary/offer letter. Going from Dallas to NY is a big step up in cost of living so compensation will be a big deciding factor for me. But there's another consideration. NYC never occurred to me as a place to move until I stumbled upon this job but in terms of prospects for filmmaking it seems an incredible step up from Dallas. At least I think it does. There's always the argument about being a big fish in a (very) small pond versus a minnow in the sea, but I try not to think about that. I figure if my work ethic, skill, talent, and desire to progress are going to take me where I want to go, they will do so no matter where I am (albeit with different hurdles to overcome). The other side of that though is that getting involved in a more established production city with more earnest work being done will be all the more difficult while juggling a day-job. Here in Dallas, it's not horribly abnormal to be a nights and weekends filmmaker and still be taken seriously. To the perspective of someone like me it seems that cities like LA, New York, and Vancouver represent much broader horizons as a cinematographer and as a director. Sure they represent greater competition, but being in the kiddy pool doesn't feel much like swimming sometimes. Just in terms of professional standards though the world seems much bigger. I mean in terms of progress I'm guessing getting to AC a film commercial in NY is worth oodles more than DPing a prosumerHD short in Texas. Not to mention that there are educational possibilities - night programs at the New York Film Academy and such (I'm not interested in "film school" so much as learning opportunities), workshops, etc. There are a lot of things on my mind that will temper my decision when an offer letter appears, but I'm really curious to get other perspectives, particularly from professionals who live and work or have worked there. My view of the place and the opportunities this move might afford me, considering that I'd be maintaining an existing career while pursuing another one, may be grossly skewed. What insight can any of you offer? Thanks.

The closest you'll get to a Super16 frame in stills - and it isn't that close - is the Olympus/Panasonic Four thirds system with a width of 17.3mm (S16 being 12.52mm). This is neither S16 nor S35 but somewhere in between. (The Canon APS-C chip has a width almost identical to techniscope). I don't think there's much you can do in stills to emulate Super16.

Fire me from a cannon in a shell with wings with flaps and a tail with a rudder and I can control it (assuming the inertia doesn't bother me much, and I'm Chuck Yeager or someone, cuz I'd probably poop myself).

I'm in Dallas, but have friends in Austin, or who go there for work, although I get the impression that the amount of legitimate professional work to be had there is somewhat exaggerated.

Tearing the DP a new one is one thing, but during his tirade didn't Bale say he was going to kick the DP's ass (dammit, now I've got that part of the remix stuck in my head)? That's over the line.

You're probably right on the optics, I hadn't really taken that into consideration and I suppose it's best for the DP to judge that based on what camera's being used (some s8 cameras might really be a stretch at 720). But clarity of optics aren't everything - I want the visible grain scanned as clearly as possible too. As far as the expense I probably misspoke saying 2K scans, but I've seen 1080p scans (6% lower res than 2K) for $0.036 per foot which is $18 per roll so not bad at all. (as for the vendor I've seen this price from I can't speak to the quality - I'm going to send a roll off in the next week or so to try them out - I'm just saying, the price is very reasonable.)

Thanks Paul, I appreciate that. I've been in love with the idea of 2-perf since I first read about it. I'd heard that it could rival S16 prices, but these numbers are compelling. Of course they assume using short ends, but for the price...

Kent, you're comparing 8mm to 35mm on one end, but then you seem to be equating 35mm to 1080. I think most DPs with the budget would do a 4k DI. 4K is 4096 × 3112 I think. Round vertical resolution to 3k then, and round the height of an 8mm frame to 1/4 that of a 35mm frame and you get 750, so you could say that 720 is roughly equivalent (just slightly less than) to a 4k scan of 35mm. But of course film is more than just resolution. Ask what's the resolution of film? What's the resolution of 35mm? You'll get varying answers depending on many factors, not least of which is the stock. 4K is just an acceptable scanning resolution, I think most DPs will agree that it doesn't capture the richness of film. I've heard some say 6k would be more ideal, I've even heard 8K. Of course we don't have 6K or 8K scanners (well, they exist but they're not very common and I think they're used for 65mm/IMAX stuff); but why not try to squeeze their equivalent out of smaller formats? A 2K scan of an 8mm frame is probably a bit less than the equivalent a 6k scan of a 35mm frame in terms of vertical resolution, but it's getting closer. Of course you get slightly different figures depending on the numbers you use which vary from camera to scanner to projector, but the point is I don't think there's a reason not to scan 8mm at 2K. It's not really that expensive.

That's an interesting statement. Can you give some numbers or point me to good places to find them. I'm not doubting, I'm just very new to working with film.

The Girlfriend Experience.

What stock and camera did you use? I like the look of it. I'd love to do some music video shooting in Super 8.

To be fair, there are some really good Red images too. It really depends on the person shooting with it. Like anything, you really have to know the bounds you're working in. It's not incredibly forgiving. Every time I talk to a director who wants to use Red I ask them to let me show them the numbers and how it makes sense to shoot S16 instead. Occasionaly you'll hear someone say "the producer's already told us we're using red." Very sad to hear and probably not a production I want to be a part of - not because of the Red, but because it's led by someone who is probably neither savvy nor open-minded enough to make the right decisions. A 10:1 ratio is not bad at all if you're smart about how you shoot (you don't even have to be very smart about it, just kinda clever).

Red Centre podcast recently had an interview with the head of Cooke and he said that at equal apertures between their 5i, S4, and Panchro lenses you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference. I haven't used them myself, but to me this is a very telling statement. In effect the manufacturer is saying that but for the speed there's not much point in the upgrade.

Well the first part of the statement is off: "ND's can effect DR..." No. Dynamic Range is a function of the capture medium. Film has a certain dynamic range, a sensor has a certain dynamic range. This is unaffected by how much light actually reaches the medium. Forgiving possible defects in manufacturing an ND filter simply reduces the amount of light passing through the filter at all points. 50 lux through an ND2 would result in 25 lux reaching the lens (I think I'm right measuring in lux here). Factor into that light loss through the lens elements/aperture, and you know how much reaches the capture plane. It should be as simple as that. Of course that may mean that some light passing through is reduced to the point where it has no visible effect on the capture surface in the 1/48 of a second in which it is exposed, but that didn't effect dynamic range at all, just the overall brightness of the image: It reduced light density in a neutral way.