Matthew W. Phillips

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.

I really enjoyed Pirates 2...thought it was better than the first actually.

Can't you say Cinematographer?

Sir, it was a demo reel. Demo reels don't have plots. They are just a montage of the DP's work.

I totally applaude this statement. This point right here is why I personally believe digital will not overcome film as the professional medium no matter how technically superior digital is supposed to get. (I know this may get backlash.) People, by their very nature, cannot put as much effort into something that is unlimited as in something that is limited. If you are wearing a $9,000 suit, aren't you going to be more careful eating with it on than you would be wearing a $10 t-shirt? Same sentiment here, and I think everyone serious about honing their skills should learn film. But the point is moot because digital is cheap and most people like the cheapness. I think people like George Lucas actually set a bad example for filmmaker's because he shot over 200 hours of footage for Attack of the Clones on digital. There is no reason at all that anyone should shoot that much footage to get what they need. If you are careful, you shouldn't even need more than a 6:1 shooting ratio. But it was digital so Lucas went off.

Levon, from a technical aspect, I thought it looked really good for a digital shoot. You nailed exposure right on buddy. Props for that. I agree that the audio was way too low but if this is a rough cut, you can work that out. Your lighting was good IMO but it was very straightforward. Maybe that is what LondonFilmMan is referring to. As far as his comment about you not putting much into it, I think he is being unprofessional and caddy. A critique is something that is to include suggestions for improvement, advice, etc...not silly childish comments that cannot benefit anyone. Keep up the good work! P.S.- I would love to see what you could do with film if you worked on it.

I think that, if you wanted it to look like grindhouse, you should have shot it in Super8 format. No offense, but that didn't look like grindhouse at all.

That will do it.

Last I heard, it was $4.88, but yeah, I think they still do it.