Jim Feldspar

hadn't heard of these. look great. Thanks Stuart.

Comment and question:

This may help some of you. i-Movie has a special section of VFX that you can lay on after you've

shot

your scene, in this case no hoses except to wet down the streets. It works especially well for night

shoots or overcast days but particularly night because if you have a streelight or something in the

background, that will seem to justify the backlighting of the rain. I've used this effect for

downconverted P2 footage and then sent it to Final Cut Express to finish. With good sound effects,

it can be pretty convincing.

I just bought an instructional CD at my local camera store. It says that it would show how to create

environmental effects, like rain and snow, in Photoshop. I don't know much about Photoshop but

could get access to it. The video starts with the instructor standing outside introducing how he's

going to show how to do these effects in Photoshop. While he's talking, there is snow falling and then

lightning, both clearly effects and implying that how to do them will be revealed in this CD.

In the video however, he uses still pictures and never says a word about getting these

effects onto an editing timeline. This video was right next to an instructional DVD on shooting

Mini-DV.

I called a friend who knows Photoshop very well and he said that he didn't see how Photoshop,

which he said is for still images, could be used for video effects.

Does anybody know? I think that I got duped. Does anybody know of any effects programs that

can allow rain or snow to be put over scenes in a video or film? Thanks.

Hi Jim take a look in this website you can find this material Griffolyn look this curtains i don't know the price but i use very similar material like silk and for me that help...

 

http://www.reefindustries.com/products.php?id=7

Also look this website if you want to make your own equipment

 

http://www.theasc.com/education/reflectors/page2.html

I hope this help you :P

xavier

Xavier,

Thank you! I've been going to all sorts of places that might sell materials and doing searches

for do it yourself gear. These sites are immensely helpful. Really appreciate it!

A new, clean bleached china silk is around a stop. Artificial silk cuts a bit more. Both cut more if they are dirty.

Thanks!

This is what i'm talking about (road flags)

 

http://www.msegrip.com/mse.php?show=articl...cat=4&ID=87

Cool, thanks. A bit out of my price range presently but it's good to know about them and also to

learn a new term.

Thanks guys,

I've never come across black silks. Are they for diffusion still?

What are Road Flags? I searched but couldn't find anything, just sites for off road racing flags.

I'm looking to find what would be the right choice and then buy some and make some gear. I went to a

fabric shop that sells "silk" (it is silk but I guess there's all kinds) for $9.99/yd. That's a yard long and

60" wide so I could make a 10' x12' for about $80.00. There's also cheaper silk which has some patterns in it

but as long as it's white that's okay.

I know that silks are used for diffusion but I'm also wondering if there is a uniform

figure for how much light is cut. When a silk gets pulled off of a grip truck for a 12'

by, I've never heard anybody say which one do you want? In the 18" x 24" flag kits,

there are single and double nets but only one silk. Is that silk the same in terms of

diffusion/cutting light as a silk for an overhead? My local grip huse didn't know offhand

and they're busy (week before the 4th) so I don't want to bug them and ask if I could

come in and measure.

I know that at first it might seem that a question about silks should be in the gripping

section but I figure that this aspect might be more of concern to the people lighting.

I'm making some plans and any information would be helpful. Thanks.

Click the Thread below for more info.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=19899

THANKS!

Does anybody know where in the Eastern U.S. or anywhere the mail goes Super 8

Kodachrome can be developed? Thanks.

Well at least there is a cash prize if you win. More and more of these competitions are popping up on the internet with 'exposure' being the only prize up for grabs. Often it's just a cheap way for bands or companies to get a music video or album cover (for some reason the music industry seems to be the main culprit involved in these competitions) made under the pretence of being fan friendly.

 

This website may be of some interest...

 

http://www.no-spec.com/

Excellent web site!

Film Schools owning the copyright of student's films is extremely common, but as you pointed out not necessarily right since the tuition fees can be so considerably high - its obvious the funding is coming indirectly from the student or student's family.

 

Unfortunately it is such common practice that nobody questions it anymore. Where it does become useful, is that a good film school may continue to distribute the shorts to festivals or screenings after the student has left, and that often benefits everyone. Also unlike writing a short story, students will often be working as a group, so it avoids the copy-write being shared by several people and all the problems that entails.

 

Personally that grant sounds pretty good $2000 for a 3 minute short is pretty good, and anyhow in the vast majority of situations filmmakers don't own the copy-write of their own work.

Quite excellent points. Who should own the copyright to something written by one or more people,

perhaps revised by others, directed, shot, edited by different people? In comparison, the short story

copyright (which is on every one I've turned in) is certainly easier to ascertain. Also, as you point

out, the school may benefit the filmmakers by continuing to screen their films and certainly I've never

heard of a film school making millions by producing a picture based on an idea in a student(s)' short

or conversely suing a student who gets someday to make a feature based on his short. Obviously

that doesn't happen.

I guess it's the big picture that's bugging me. As you point out, there might be an argument here but

after a while common practice becomes so common that people don't tend to question it anymore. I

see that so often in society that I guess this set me off.

Oh, by the way, part of the agreement with WGBH for the $2000.00 grant is that the filmmaker post

a copy of (his/her edit of the) short and then make cuts based on comments from people who view it

online. How do you like them apples?

Enough ranting.

1. I'm going to talk to the station about this, if they'll listen, and see what they have to say.

2. I'm going to work on my list of laws and policies that I think are unconstitutional or simply unfair

but exist because they go unchallenged.

3. Maybe I will pitch an idea, see if I even can get a $2000.00 grant and worry about all my

philosphical concerns down the road.

This is not unusual. People who pay for a production often have ownership and even copyright -- film schools, for example, do this when they pay for a student's production. The student doesn't own the work.

 

WGBH is giving you money and exposure -- they should get something in return for their investment. They also don't want to be dealing with re-licencing the short from you every time they want to show it.

Being an English major and not at a film school, I didn't know that film schools take ownership/

copyright of a production. That would really piss me off. The film student is paying tuition so

isn't he or she is paying for the film?

If my school said that the English department could claim the copyright to my short stories

which I wrote for my classes because they provided the desks and teachers and lights and heat

and in some cases copy services for students; I'd tell them to take a hike.

Well look at it this way, if your piece isn't accepted then you can do with at you please. Also, where some might not want to do it because they feel they are being slighted, there will be plenty, plenty, more that will and one of those will have their piece accepted, shown, and noticed by many viewers and others. I think that is worth giving up a little piece of film in return for $2k and some good on-screen time. More than likely the copyright is specific to the film itself. And let's say it isn't, well I bet if you approached WGBH about expanding the piece into something more, they would more than likely assist in some capacity to get that realized; since they were impressed enough the first time to accept what you had made before.

 

Otherwise don't participate and do something for yourself with your own money and send it to shop it around.

Yes, these are good points, much like if one doesn't like a certain show, change the channel. I'm

still protesting however (or complaining?) For example, I've worked for free on many shoots as a

p.a., extra grip. sandbag carrier and it's been worth it because I've learned a lot.

In this case a production is getting ownership of ideas thought of by someone outside the production

who is hungry enough to make this trade-off. I dislike that much more than trading my manual labor

for the benefits of working on a big production.

Of course this may be a case of an entity simply protecting itself without having any ulterior

motives. You're most likely right that there would be no objection by the station to a filmmaker

developing the ideas in the short later on.

I think you hit the point when you said that there will be plenty of other people who won't mind these

terms. That attitude is pervasive and it's why higher up the chain on the labor side, unions developed.

Without unions, there would be a lot more "Oh you don't want to work 16 hours for a flat rate? No

problem. There's ten people waiting outside who will."

As a p.a. I can take low/no pay for carrying stuff but giving up ideas that somebody else couldn't

think up? That just bugs me.

This is not unusual. People who pay for a production often have ownership and even copyright -- film schools, for example, do this when they pay for a student's production. The student doesn't own the work.

 

WGBH is giving you money and exposure -- they should get something in return for their investment. They also don't want to be dealing with re-licencing the short from you every time they want to show it.

I understand that there's a trade-off.For example, some scientists work for pharmaceutical companies and

get

labs and equipment and research funds that otherwise they would never get. They may get a good salary but

if they discover a drug that makes billions, they won't necesarily get a cut of that. However, without the job

at the drug company they would maybe never have achieved that scientific success and contribution to

society

(and to the company's bank account,) That's part of the deal though, because the pharmaceutical companies

spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, on other projects that don't work and the companies don't recover

that money.

You make good points in this case.

Possibly too, if a filmmaker did find a way to expand his idea from a three

minute short into something much bigger, WGBH might not stand in the way. Their project is done so after

some time such a spin-off might not hurt them and maybe all they would want is a credit.

I guess it's just that yielding total ownership that troubles me. It's probably a lot easier for WGBH than

working out the individual negotiated conditions of a bunch of filmmakers that may never come into play

anyway, and exposure on a Ken Burns film could help launch somebody's career so it might well be worth it.

This morning I saw a rerun of "Dinner for Five" in which Jon Favreau talks to filmmakers and actors. In

this show, Frank Darabont noted how the Writers Guild of America gave up, as prcatically its first action,

the writers ownerships of copyright to the studios. I'm sure that that there are complex issues here but

everybody on the show did have a bit of a chuckle at a union becoming established and then giving up so

much.

I guess that the WGBH requirements remind me of other contracts that contain provisions that protect the

heck out of the producer and although they might never be exercised, they do mean that a filmmaker

who signs such an agreement is agreeing to at least the possibility of an extreme trade-off.

I guess if you have a hit record but you don't get any of the money and yet it launches your career, then

maybe it's worth it.

I heard about the local PBS station offering a $2000.00 grant to support the making

of a 3 minute short that PBS might include in Ken Burns "War".

Now two thousand bucks is nice but look at the last requirement on the eligiblity

list below,

"grant WGBH all right, title and interest, including the copyright, in and to the short

produced with the grant"

I say the hell with them. I'd sign something to let them show it all they want and to

show it first and to show it exclusively for a year but the copyright?

What if I thought

of a way to expand it into a feature or develop something from my short?

Public television. Everybody calls the people involved liberals and lefties but this looks

like a grant from HUAC!

This is from lab.wgbh.org. the site with the info. for the $2000.00 grant from

WGBH in Boston:

Eligibility

Almost anyone with a good idea and the gumption to execute a video short may apply to the Lab's Open Call. You must be a legal resident of the United States and be at least eighteen years of age to apply.

Employees of WGBH are not eligible to enter. All entries submitted become the property of WGBH and will not be returned or acknowledged.

If selected to receive a grant you must complete, sign, and return a Producer Services Agreement and:

comply with all independent contractor criteria of WGBH including completing all independent contractor status verification paperwork required by WGBH (e.g. Taxpayer I.D. Number for Business). Failure to do so will disqualify you from becoming a grant recipient

be available to produce the short during a four week period beginning on or around 7/10/07 and ending no later than 8/17/07

not become an employee of or provide other services to WGBH prior to December 31, 2007

if deemed necessary by WGBH, obtain a fiscal agent

certify that the completed work is original, and no other person or entity holds rights to the entry

certify that the completed work has had no prior cable, network or public television broadcast in the US

grant WGBH all right, title and interest, including the copyright, in and to the short produced with the grant

Hey all

I purchased a glidecam 4000 a while back, and have been fairly pleased with the results. A few issues/points with it however.

 

It is heavy. The handle you hold it with is offset so the weight is in front of your wrist. Bear that in mind when thinking about what else you want to put on the camera and how long you want your shots to be. I don't have a vest/support system of anysort just the base glidecam, and I can usually get away with a 1-2 minute take if needs be, depending on the day lol.

It isn't perfect for everything. It has been tricky I've found to have somone pull focus on this by hand, as their added grip throws things off, If people have found a solution to this that would be great.

The footage can be very smooth, and almost imitate the look of a small jib/dolly, or it can look downright aweful, it depends on your skill with the glidecam, how well it is balanced, and your environment.

 

So all in all I'm glad I bought it, it has worked will with the HVX200 as long as you don't mind the weight. I've used it for certain things on several other people's films and it looks pretty good. If I get a chance I'll put some footage online.

 

BTW nice work Sibte, especially for your first day. I enjoy the 'documentary' style long take, although that must've been rough on your arm with the glidecam lol.

Good luck all

David, I go without the vest too but do you use the forearm brace? It has a metal post

for mounting the rig and gives a lot of support and a lot of relief to the operator and it's

fairly inexpensive.

If a may make a suggestion ... you may want to approach it from another point a view. Call it a shoe string budget idea. You may be able to find 1k pars or par cans much more affordable. In fact you may find you can get a whole cartful or pars for the same price of an HMI. Since it is a night shoot you can kind of "paint" with them and hit areas that are important and let othe areas go dark instead of hitting a whole area with one light.

 

If you use several pars from the same general area it will look like one light.

 

And you have the option of using 1200 watt firestarters for punch and heat, or you can easily use 1k wides, narrows or mediums for wider spreads and less intensity. Be sure to get scrims too.

 

Generally speaking many people don't use HMI's at night. They can be troublesome with headers and ballasts and micro switches and the like. Sure you can and people do, but tungsten is usually cheaper and easier.

 

Another idea when renting: You can tell them it is for a shoot on a Monday and you need to pick em up on friday and return on Tuesday. So then you get 4 days for the price of one. Or tell them you need it for the week and they may give you a one or two day rate then pick up on a friday and return the following monday.

 

Good luck

 

Tim

How do you use par cans on location? I picked up three Altman lights of varying lengths

that had been hung by pipe clamps in a theater. I've used stand adaptors on 1K Fresnels

that have flat yokes becasue they were hanging in a studio but the Altmans are longer

and I think might be front heavy. They have shutters to control the countors of the light

but are I believe par cans or maybe they'd be ellipsoidal spotlights as I've seen par cans

that have no adjustablity. In any event, these lights have flat yokes but if I used them

would I have to bag the heck out of a baby stand or would I need to get a different

adaptor and move up to a junior or combo stand? Thanks.

One issue that no one has mentioned is that if you're using HMI's, you need a generator that has a crystal controlled hertz rate. Some of the Honda generators have them installed, but I think that's usually done by motion picture rental companies that have modified them for film shoots, not from your local hardware store.

 

I shot a low-budget feature last summer where we carried a Honda 6500w generator to power our "big gun", a 2.5K HMI for day interiors. When transferring the footage later in telecine, I noticed there are a number of scenes that have flicker from the HMI, which we're stuck with because we can't reshoot. It could be due to poorly run cables, but it's also playing with fire to use a generator without crystal synch. I should mention that we did have a flicker-free ballast, which shows that it can happen with those as well.

" It could be due to poorly run cables" I didn't know that this could cause flicker. How can

the way cables are run have this effect? Thanks.

No, they may be shooting for digital projection or home video release, etc. and never go to print. Super-16 transfers very well to 16x9 HD for example.

 

Yes, some (not all) of your cost savings will be eaten up by the blow-up process (optical being cheaper than digital) but it's partly a cash-flow issue in that you are spending less to go into production and spending a little more later to finish to 35mm, which may or may not even be necessary if you only end-up with a sale to home video.

 

But if you shoot in Super-16 and need a composite print (one with a soundtrack), it is more common to blow-up to 35mm than to optically reduce down to regular 16mm. Otherwise, the only contact prints you will be making from the Super-16 negative will be silent ones, to be projected at the lab with a projector with a Super-16 gate, for workprint, tests, answer prints, etc.

 

And while an optical printer blow-up will be a cheaper route to a 35mm print than a D.I., if you also end up needing an HD master for home video deliverables, you'd have both the costs of the optical printer blow-up and the costs of an HD transfer, which may end up making a D.I. the more efficient & cost effective (or at least competitive) method, since it covers both creating a 35mm version and a digital master.

Fantastic! Thank you David and everybody. I feel like I just got a million dollars education in

your replies.

Super-16 is not a release print format -- there's no place to put a soundtrack on a Super-16 print, and there are very few Super-16 projectors outside of a lab.

 

You'd blow it up to 35mm (1.85 or 2.35 anamorphic) digitally or with an optical printer.

Does this mean that everybody who shoots Super 16 and makes prints tends to a

35 mm blow-up? It seems to me that shooting Super 16 is a great way to go and

make a good looking film while saving money (compared to a 35 mm production)

and you can show your Super 16 feature in several ways without a film print and thus

let a producer pick-up the cost of the blow-up or, if you don't get a distribution deal,

then you've saved a lot of money and still may have a decent film to show.

Would you say that people tend to shoot Super 16 more for better looking 16 mm

projects that are never intended for big screen projection (straight to DVD,television

shows, music videos) or more for lower budget feature films?

In a way, doesn't the cost of the blow-up counteract the initial savings except

somebody else

in this case is paying for the blow-up so the original producer was able to shoot in Super 16

what might otherwise have been unaffordable to have shot in 35 mm ?

Thanks.

Film negative has a lot of latitude so you can overexpose to some extent before you start visibly seeing a loss of detail in the bright highlights. When we talk about "overexpose for more density" we're talking about 2/3's of a stop, one-stop max, more than within a safe range that the film can handle.

 

The more you expose a negative, the more the silver halides collect photons and become "developable" -- convertable into silver when processed. The more silver gets developed, the darker the negative becomes, the denser it becomes. So more exposure = more density.

 

Unexposed silver halide never gets developed into silver and thus is washed away in the fixer & wash steps. Underexposure = less density.

 

You're thinking of video, which dramatically "clips" overexposure information above a certain point, often only two or more stops over normal. Film negative burns out to pure white more gradually, maybe five-stops over, hence why overexposing negative (within reason) is possible without any significant bright detail lost.

Now I get it. That is so clear. Thanks!

There is no spit of difference between shooting 1080/60i and 720/60P.

 

Both are HDTV broadcast formats, so 1080/60i when broadcast on a 720P station just gets converted to 540/60P (fields turned into frames), 1920 horizontal gets downrezzed to 1280 and 540 vertical gets uprezzed to 720.

 

And 720/60P when broadcast at 1080/60i just gets the P frames split into fields, and 1280 horizontal is uprezzed to 1920 and 720 vertical is downrezzed to 540.

 

And there is NO difference either way in motion reproduction, and the net resolution is about the same. Either way, 1080/60i and 720/60P, motion is sampled 60 times per second. 60 images captured per second. Once 1080/60i is converted to 720/60P, it looks the same basically -- there are no interlaced-scan artifacts. And once 720/60P is converted to 1080/60i, it also looks the exactly same, as if you had shot at 60i in the first place. Not "sort of", but exactly the same. 60 motion samples per second -- the only difference is the display format.

 

As for 24P, that's used for its unique film-like motion characteristics, since 24 fps is the standard for film production. If 60 fps were the standard for film, then digital would also have to shoot at 60 to match that look. But it isn't. Has nothing to do with right or wrong, or best or worst, it's just about the look you want to achieve and audience expectations.

 

Trying to compare resolution between 1080/24P and 720/60P is pointless because they aren't used for the same types of projects. And you can't make a clear connection between pixel resolution and temporal resolution, which is not even accepted by everyone as a type of real resolution anyway. Not to mention that the majority of 720P production is shot at 24P and only recorded to 60P with redundant frames.

Many Super 8 cameras shoot 18 f.p.s. and are projected at the same rate. A Nizo that I used

had variable speeds but it's 24 f.p.s. option gave a less skittery look when played back at 24

f.p.s. than did 18 f.p.s. projected at 18 f.p.s. The other variable speed options were to

overcrank or undercrank and have it look that way because the projection speeds would still

be the 18 or 24 f.p.s..

So, just for kicks, say you have a high speed camera and can shoot 300 f.p.s.. That's going to

give you great slow motion when projected at 24 f.p.s..

However, if somebody invented equipment so that you could shoot at 300 f.p.s., record sync

sound and play back at 300 f.p.s., wouldn't you have an incredible picture?

Of course there are exposure issues, film costs, etc.. Hypothetically though, what do you think?

What about a 60 or 96 f.p.s. sync sound camera that could be projected at those respective

speeds?

I have seen a reel of Super 16 letterboxed to 2.39 blown up optically by Color By Dejonghe in Belgium to 35mm and I was very impressed. If you shoot correctly (lower ASA stocks and a bit of over-exposure tog et a thick neg) this can give you very good results.

Max, you always seem to know your stuff and I learn from your posts but I've been confused about

something regarding thicker/thinner negatives. I hear it mentioned but it would seem to me that

overexposing would use up more of the chemicals involved in the negative and thus there would be

less information which would seem to me to be more aptly decsribed as a thinner negative than

say something that's uderexposed but perhaps has information that can be dug out of the shadows.

Am I going wrong somewhere? Doesn't a bit of overexposure obliterate the most exposed parts and then

they can never be available to be addressed in post?

Thanks.

Most people transfer Super-16 to 16x9 video (standar def or HD) full-frame, which means cropping 1.68 full camera aperture to 1.78, but if these are just video dailies, they may ask that they be transferred with a 1.85 hard matte to match the theatrical framing. But it doesn't matter because they will later be re-transferring the negative.

 

If the transfer is to be used as a master later for video release, it would make more sense to transfer to 16x9 HD full-frame and make a separate 1.85 letterboxed version from that, plus a 4x3 pan-and-scan version.

 

The only time these days that the whole 1.68 Super-16 negative is used is usually when doing an optical printer blow-up to 35mm, in which case you end up with a 1.68 hard matted image inside the 35mm 1.37 Academy frame. But this usually gets cropped during projection to 1.85 using a projector mask, unless it gets shown with a 1.66 mask, which would cause the edges of the hard-matte on the film print to become visible.

The Super-16 format uses the right edge of the single-perf film where the soundtrack would normally go on a 16mm print, so it is not a projection format, though a lab will often have a 16mm projector with the gate filed out to show Super-16 answer prints. But the print will be silent.

 

You could make an optical printer reduction to regular 16mm with a hard matte, but considering that 16mm print sound is lousy and 16mm projection is become more rare at festivals, your options for film festival projection are usually either through a blow-up to 35mm, or digital projection, ideally in HD. More and more people shoot Super-16, transfer to 16x9 HD (1.78), and digitally project a color-corrected HD version which could also be used, if necessary, for a film-out to 35mm, which would probably then be projected with a 1.85 hard matte. So either compose for 1.85 and let it have slightly more headroom in 1.78, or compose for 1.78 and have it look a little too tight in 1.85 (it would probably be safer to compose for 1.85.)

 

Either 50D or 100T is fine-grained for day exterior work.

That answers a lot of questions. Considering the lesser quality of 16 mm sound and the increasing rarity

of 16 mm projection, it seems that we could save money by not making prints and projecting

digitally...and if somebody likes it and wants to pay for the blow-up to 35 mm then great!

Laying out the 1.85 or 1.78 options like that really clarifies things. I think that I would definitely play it

safe and compose for 1.85 but maybe a little tighter up top than usual (I tend to like that anyway.)

That would protect 1.85 and maybe take the edge off the extra headroom in 1.78.

After editing in Final Cut Pro, we can print to tape for digital projection. Is it HDCAM that is used

at festivals for digital projection? I'm sure that i'll be researching this and double checking with any

given festival for its requirements.

Thanks so much!

If money isn't an issue then definitely get the SRIII and some nice 35mm lenses to pop on there...

 

However, I think both other cameras will work for you if you need it.

 

Worst case scenario is that you use the non-super SRII and then just frame in camera for whatever aspect ratio that you are going for.

 

You said you might get a print made? Is this just for personal viewing? Because I think (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) that's it's relatively difficult to find 16mm projectors...besides at Film Schools...I don't think they're that common...

 

Also, to save a little cash figure out what lenses you are gonna need...I've had shoots where the primes have sat in the box because we ended up using the zoom the whole time...a waste of money if you can figure it out beforehand...

 

And now, I am going to Hijack this thread for a moment:

 

Mr. Mullen, I too have read about the Kodak 7212 100T being the sharpest film stock. If you had a choice to shoot exteriors with either 7201 or 7212 what would your choice be and why? I know there are a lot of mitigating factors that come into play...but is there a significant difference in the look between the two?

 

Thanks,

 

John

A lot of good suggestions, thank you!

I don't have a lot of festival experience so I've been inquiring about prints based on the

director's comments but that's a good point about projectors. I'll have to look into it.

Yes, planning can definitely save money and I like to plan carefully. When you had

shoots when you used the zoom all the time, was it because you were zooming or

because you needed to save time and used it as a variable prime rather than change

lenses in which case did you sacrifice image quality that would have been obtained if

you had used the primes?

Why aren't you considering 200T (7217) if you think that 100T is too slow and 500T is too grainy?

 

The only downside to Super-16 is that you can't make a contact-printed 16mm print with an optical soundtrack on it. Otherwise, there's no reason to not shoot Super-16 unless all you want is a 4x3 image. The negative is 1.68 : 1 full aperture and you'd probably compose in most cases for either cropping (slightly) to 1.78 for a transfer to 16x9 full-frame video, probably HD. Or transfer to 16x9 but compose with slightly more cropping to 1.85 for 35mm projection.

 

Unless you mean that the director wants to compose for cropping to the 2.35 35mm anamorphic aspect ratio (actually 2.39..., sometimes called 2.40).

 

In terms of lenses, a few primes and zooms will vignette on Super-16 so just ask the rental houses which ones to avoid. Otherwise, you'd commonly get about five or six primes and one zoom for most projects. The old Zeiss Super-Speeds made for 16mm are fine (they just get soft below an f/2.0.) -- I think it's the 9.5mm Zeiss Super-Speed that will vignette slightly in Super-16; there may be an Optex 8mm or something that would suffice instead.

 

I'd consider using the slow-speed stock outdoors, 200T indoors (or 250D if they are HMI-lit daylight interiors), and a little 500T for low-light interiors and night exteriors. Otherwise, try to use 200T as much as you can, if you are trying to minimize grain in interiors. If you don't mind the grain texture, 500T 7218 is fine for all the interiors.

"Why aren't you considering 200T (7217) if you think that 100T is too slow and 500T is too grainy?"

It's not that I think that; I suspect that but I don't know. I understand that at some point what's

too grainy may be a matter of opinion but in general, getting a good exposure and not

pushing anything, is 500T much grainier than 100T? I believe that faster stocks are usually

going to be grainier but my impression is that newer technologies and manufacturing of stocks have

changed that somewhat. For example, I'm going to price stock and am wondering if maybe 500T

might be more expensive if it can give greater speed without five times more grain than 100T.

The director is saying that he may want prints for projection at festivals. Does "The only downside

to Super-16 is that you can't make a contact-printed 16mm print with an optical soundtrack on it."

mean that there's an alternative to contact printing or that no matter what an optical soundtrack is

out? I've heard about magnetic soundtracks? What about them? Are they a historical item or still

used? What are the options for shooting Super 16 and

making a print(s) for projection? Is it going to require some compromise of the soundtrack?

I wanted to ask about the aspect ratios because I'm simply ignorant here but I think that 1.78

will be ideal! Just to know though, what if we composed for 1.78

and then some producer with a bag of money

says please, please let me blow up your film. Since it had not been composed for 1.85, I can

imagine that making it into that might make some head room tighter but it sounds fairly close.

Have people encountered this and made out okay?

The guy at the rental house, whom I know somewhat and have had some good conversations

with him, recommended the 35 mm lens package, saying that it's extremely popular for

people shooting Super 16 but of course budget is always an issue and if you say that the

old Zeiss Super Speeds are good then I think that I'll go in that direction and ask him what

he can put together for us (and maybe save some money and buy more film.)

When you say slow speed for outdoors, you're saying the 50D 7201? I think so

but just want check.

The 7217 is a great suggestion. The interiors will be Tungsten at night and that would give me

a T2 at 25 footcandles which would be cool with me (if I have the lenses that get to a 2; some are

2.8s.) If we do anything in the street at night, then I'll go with the 500T.

As always, thank you so much for your help!