Matthew W. Phillips

I'm not 100% about this but I think the resolution is the same with both. I think the main difference is that DVCAM is a bigger, better quality tape so there is less drop outs and archiving is a bit safer.

Man, I thought about this too but in the end, it's just not worth it. Bite the bullet, pay the cash, and be patient.

Heck no, it's not. 100ft. is a daylight spool and totally worth the effort...especially for a deal.

I dont reject digital technology because I always edit using digital intermediate. I just reject digital as an origination format for narratives. BIG DIFFERENCE! As far as the "good ones" getting lumped in with the bad as far as digital goes. I realize that it happens, but I don't think the "good ones" realize or admit that there are bad ones. Seriously, many good digital shooters will not accept that they are a minority against all the hacks out there. If they would admit it, and distance themselves from that, I would regard them higher. Maybe they think by admitting it that it degrades digital as an origination medium, but whether you admit it or not, it is there. Is a tagger with a spray paint can a painter? Catch my drift?

Amen!

Here's the concern I have about including video shooters in with Cinematographers. David and Brian wisely point out that there are some seriously talented people shooting on digital. No doubt about it. I agree whole heartedly. But despite what Brian says, the vast majority of digital shooters are NOT like that. The talent is a minority in the digital realm. Go to youtube and look at some "Cinematographer" reels. You will shutter at the number of hacks that have the nerve to call themselves Cinematographers. Also, as a test, I decided to email one of them and ask what their rate was and they replied with $500.00 a day! Can you imagine paying that kind of money for someone who looks like they've only used a camera for less than a year? Look at your sites like Youtube, DVXUser, DVtalk, Indie forum, and etc and see just how many digital shooters are calling themselves DPs and Cinematographers, yet their work is extremely subpar. That was hilarious!

Funny thing is, if anyone had made a movie back in the early 80s with one of those crappy RCA video cameras, do you think anyone would have called them a Cinematographer? Not hardly. I think the reason people think the rules should be changed is because video looks way better than it used to. But how good something looks has nothing to do with what term you use. If a guy shooting a movie on video back in the early 80s isnt considered a Cinematographer, I don't see why it would change now. I think you would be hard pressed to say that back then people would have considered him a Cinematographer. And why is it being a "douche" to call someone a videographer? Are you ashamed that you use video? If not, what's wrong with it? I think it is a respectable title.

I don't see why not. I mean, if you write a script, albeit an amateurish one, aren't you still a script writer on the credits? Same thing for an actor or anything else on the credits. Doing it well isn't a pre-requisite to being labeled as such if you are conventionally accurate. Richard is right when he says that: Cinematographers= film is in the camera Videographers= tape is in the camera Your point about what the ASC says is irrelevant. If that were the case, no one outside of the ASC members should even be considered Cinematographers.

The first thing to realize about your endeavor is that a video CCD doesn't respond to light in the same manner in which film does. Video is much more sensitive to light than film, save maybe the really fast films. Also, the Cineframe bit will make things difficult too because you arent really recording progressive so your calculations from film won't be accurate. Also, it is not documented what your ASA/ISO or even DIN ratings are. This will make it pratically impossible to use a light meter effectively. To be honest, I haven't known anyone to get too good of results using a light meter for video. I think you would be better off with a nice external monitor with full frame.

What I mean by culture is not what type of shooting you do. It is the fact that, in film, people would often break in and learn extensively from those whom did it before them, doing apprenticeships and such, and respect was given for those with experience and you did whatever you could to work around them and learn the unique film jargon. Now with video (this isnt always the case, but moreso than not as I have seen) people get a camera and go out there and just go wild. They learn the hard way before they step back and ask for help. I haven't seen any apprenticeship type of thing going on and I haven't heard too much specific jargon that is unique to video. I actually heard on guy who said his video was "in the can." I thought it was humorous because there is no such can for video. I think that some stuff is negotible such as calling video movies "films" and such but where do we draw the line? Next do we start pointlessly slating video just to have film tradition? Do we use "in the can" to refer to the finished rough cut? Maybe we should refer to uploading DV footage as processing?

I personally feel that the term Cinematographer implies shooting motion picture film. Over the last 100 years we have built up these terms that were started in the context of film so it's hard to change gears and be accepting of a new format which is arguably inferior to the tried and true method. I was taught from the time I was a kid that "if it aint broke, dont fix it" but I think that's exactly how it is with this whole Film VS. Video debate. Video came in trying to oust film because it's cheaper (sometimes) and appeals to people's impatient nature. I'm sorry but there is no other way for me to look at video other than just being a cheap and easy fix. I see no artistic benefit of using video instead of film. I think that if video users want to be taken seriously, they need to discover their own culture just like film did. Don't copy film and steal all the meaningful terms and culture...create your own culture that makes it unique. First step is using Videographer instead of Cinematographer or perhaps create a new term for what you do. I find it humorous that many video users say film is dying and obsolete but they are trying to imitate film. Why imitate something you claim is inferior? I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone who shoots film tries to imitate video. Film is more than a format, it's a culture...video lacks that fraternal structure.

I noticed no one mentioned "On the Waterfront" which I thought had an incredible richness of blacks. Also I like: Citizen Kane Raging Bull Grapes of Wrath What is Cane?

I don't have that one but I do have a Sankyo XL 620 Supertronic manual. I think these two models have similarities, if I'm not mistaken.

Hello David...welcome to Cinematography.com. Why don't you start a thread relevant to the site instead of just avoiding pruning?

Um, actually you can compensate for over/under exposure as long as it's not ridiculous with negative stock. That is why it is good to shoot because it's not as touchy as reversal and affords some degree of latitude. As far as the issues with aged stock, I didn't say you can get rid of that. I was referencing what he said about exposure which CAN be pushed or pulled in processing if neccessary.

What you described sounds exactly like those guys at DVXuser.com. Not to be rude, but many of them are these guys that think film is dying because THEY can't afford it, as though that really matters. My take on "Digi-heads" is that they not only abhor the cost of film, but they are also too impatient to wait for processing and transfer to see their results. I think that if you are impatient, you are already showing immaturity and an inability to succeed in this industry. I personally think that the value of shooting on film shows quality in many more ways than just the image on the screen. It shows you have patience, take care in your shots (because it's too costly to mess up), and you are truly more dedicated. As far as whether HD looks as good as 35mm, I would argue that well shot S16 or 16 footage looks better than most HD I have seen. I had one gentleman from DVXuser (he was young so forgive his ignorance) claim that his footage from a MiniDV DVX100 looked as good as 35mm footage. I was blown away...I couldn't believe someone could convince themselves of something so absurd. I personally will continue to shoot on film regardless of if it is popular or not. To me, film will always be a unique look that will not be completely imitated by video.

Do they do E6 for Ektachrome too or only K40?

You can say that again!

What a great learning tool for you to have...free stock. As far as compensating, I wouldn't do that if I were you because you have no way to know exactly how to compensate. If this is negative stock, they can compensate in processing or you can do cc once you transfer it to digital, if you bother with it. If it is reversal then get the best exposure you can based on the film speed and pray. Either way, learn and have fun!

An F-stop is the ratio of the aperture's opening compared to the focal length of the lens. Therefore, a single stop is not a set thing. Furthermore, each stop down halves the light intensity from the previous stop. Therefore, 2 stops has half of the light intensity as one stop.

Okay LeVon, I checked out your buddies work. Here's my synopsis. He has the right idea with shots and such but he doesn't have the lighting down nearly tight enough for shooting on video. The highlights are often blown out which makes it obvious that it's not film (assuming that's what he is going for.) He could benefit from: A) Shooting on negative film stock (this would smooth out the contrast and not blow out as easily.) OR B) Use a Low contrast filter along with a low-rate ND filter. This would lower his stops a bit and add some details in the shadows. A BIG mistake some digital shooters make is trying to make their footage overly contrasty. Because digital, especially at the prosumer level, has a much narrower latitude than film, a shooter needs to take care that their shots don't blow out on one end or get murky on the other end. Try to keep as much detail in the shadows as you can and avoid "crushing the blacks" because if you ever do film out, that detail is gone for good...can't get it back.

Reflective meters do not have to be pointed at 18% gray. That is just one method to get average exposure. Reflective meters can be pointed directly at a subject to see how much light is reflecting off of them.

The link doesnt work and your original post is less than a month old.

I really don't think you have anything to worry about. As long as the film didnt get exposed, it sounds like you got a good 400' ft there to use. Get out there and shoot it!

I have honestly never heard of a camera that wont automatically compensate. The camera makers realize that 24fps makes a different shutter speed than 18fps, therefore, their meters should take that into regard. If you are really paranoid though, use and external incident meter.