darrin p nim

Hows the DOF with HD Cinestyle zoom lenses? Compared to 35mm. Is it more or less shallow? I figure less but how much less, is it drastic? I need fairly shallow DOF and im trying to figure which lense will give me what i want. Im considering something around the ballpark of 11x 5-55mm with a min. T2. Ideas?

I would love to shoot with the Zeiss DigiPrimes and be stress free knowing i had a set of great lenses but they are undoubtedly out of my budget. When you say that most rental houses have "them", you are refering to the Zeiss lenses? correct? Not the Canons? Im looking to get a very clean image and HD Primes can very much pull me away from the HVX. What are the Canons comparable to? You dont buy chance know of any other rental houses that have the Canon Prime Lens set? Id like to have a little variety to choose from plus I'm not exactly fond of Birns.

Hey guys, im shooting a car commercial spec in a few weeks, im still trying to figure out my camera budget, i need to figure out by this week. Im planning on shooting with an HVX, P+S and Zeiss SS's but it may turn out to be out of my budget. It how ever gives me what i want as far as quick play back, easy work flow, 35mm DOF, and etc, although i could work without the "film grain". I can get the HVX for free but the P+S and Zeiss lenses and acces. will cost me. Now Im considering the SDX because i can also get that for free but i am very opposed to using the Fujinon zoom lens that accompanies it because i want better glass. Birns & Sawyer has this Canon HD Cine Style Prime lenses set for a decent price, and i wanted to see if anyone has ever used them with the SDX and if they liked them or not. Im aware the SDX uses a B4 Lens mount and i am unsure if these Canons will mount but i can, at the moment, only assume they will. Any opinions? Any other HD Prime Lens sets that you would suggest for the SDX? Possibly with a Camera House in/around LA? Thanks, D. Nim.

yeah, hmm what if the blacks werent so blue? would the over all look be something like pulling? i understand that it could be post processing and a good part of me says that it was. i could see flashing be used but im always iffey about flashing my film, hence my inexperience with the method. would you really suggest skip bleach along with pulling to achieve this look? i was considering shooting experimental footage on Fuji Eterna and overexposing by a stop then pulling 2 or 1.5 depending. i guess my question is what does pulling usually look like?

ive never personally shot a car directly into the headlights but i dont honestly think a filter is the best idea, i think the lights are causing flares into your camera and some how creating "stars" (i cant really explain that). To be honest if you want to keep the headlights "contained" i would suggest looking into putting ND Gels over the headlights enough to take them down enough to have less flare and possibly keep the starry effect down.

no one?

Ive never really worked with pulling in processing before, and very little with pushing. I couldnt help having noticed "The Killers" new music video. Looks to be shot on film and has a very milky blacks and overall underexposed look, i can only assume it was pulled in processing, i think this because it seems to have its highlights and accented tones (sorry if thats not entirely comprehendable) but no grain. mainly from the looks of it, it looks to be pulled. Is this correct or what? Music video teaser: http://www4.islanddefjam.com/media/killers...ler/mpegmed.mov The MV looks similar to this photo: Thanks. looking it over it may be only some of the shots. mainly the performance shots.

pretty sure that you are wrong there. its possible you meant 35mm SLR lenses, which "breath" when pulling focus.

bumping up an old post. Im from Portland, but as of now trying to work LA and surrounding areas, and go to school at brooks institute of photo. for film studies, im in my last year. i miss the environment in Portland, and am surprised there arent many things shot up there. I hope to take advantage of the area, once i either write a script that is practical to shoot up there or, what will mostlikely happen, have a director who is interested in the area. I am always eager to meet and create contacts, i made alittle contact at Koerner Camera in NE Portland, which surpisingly carries a handful of film cameras. i also got alittle aquainted by finding Hollywood Lights and Pacific Grip.

bump. i would assume with all the DPs and ACs on here that some one would know something atleast.

rent or buy a barney. its a sound deadening cover for cameras, you will most likely have to rent one specifically for the camera. Ive hear of people using dynamat in some sort of way, i dont know how practical that is.

I have made a few, fairly simple and really useful for practicals. The dimmers that i have made are rated for lights 600w and less, though on a short term can dim a Mole Tweenie which are rated @ 650w. I dont really know the names of the parts off hand or what the specs are on each but im sure Mr. Hartman could help out. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to make one.

CTS = Color Temperature Straw

any visual examples, im curious about this look.

agreed, i personally prefer CTS on skin than CTO, CTO can be too orange for my taste, CTS gives a nice glow that is warm but not over board. like Mr. Mullen said, shoot a color chart with 18% gray under your un-gelled tungsten light the the beginning of each roll before you shoot, i should atleast 7-8 seconds. your timer will correct to it in telecine. EDIT: If you have time and money i would also advise you to shoot a film test with your film stock and play there so you are content with your look.

i agree but have to mention that gaffer reels do exist, not that you're saying they dont and if a DP is looking for a gaffer that is relatively new to him a reel definitely helps one get the job. I believe that if you have a reel that shows you can make various situations of light look great you have yourself a good gaffers real. Though, like i said a DPs reel and Gaffers Reel surround the same idea but are completely different presentationally. They should never be mixed together. EDIT: Gaffer reels usually show that they can effectively achieve the look that the DPs want and in as many situations as possible.

i would think that you are talking about vignetting. from my limited experience with vignettes, it occurs when you use lenses for a smaller format on a larger format camera. some one correct me if my examples are too general, or indescriptive. Situations such as using 16mm lenses on Super16 camera/gate, that causes vignetteing. although vignetting will occur on zoom lenses on a long enough lense the vignettes can be hidden. as far as filters, i personally would like to know myself. im not sure if it is easily achievable on a 16mm camera tho... Apparently you can get the effect in processing, but heres a good website on it: http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html

Oops, double post.

I don't think it was keyed either. A majority of photographers i know, they would rather physically light something and know that its how they want it before they gamble too much with post/photo-editting. that screen shot of the kanye west music video, looks like the same idea but approached differently, blue pigment backdrop with what looks like to be an uncorrected tungsten light. blue subtractive pigment plus yellowish additive light equates for a white reflectance, hence the whitish spot on the wall. and no rotoscope here, the shadow gives away the blue backdrop, unless they played with the shadow aswell. whats really picking my head apart is the short shadows coming off of her legs. another light? if so, how is it hitting?

doesn't look like colored gels to me, the backdrop looks to be of yellow pigment. the light covers the entire backdrop and doesnt seem to show any real falloff that would suggest otherwise. EDIT: This is if the the photo's backdrop is lit physically and not keyed.

sounds about right, for that photo looks like it could be a fresnel light source with a snoot from a far distance, considering theres no kick from the background on to the model. looks like it was hitting from the right of frame, if you look at the light on the background the left side is spreading and is softer than the right.

cinematographer reels and gaffer reels should be two seperate things. unless you gaff for yourself, you should not put any gaffing footage onto your DP/cinematographer's reel, it is mis-representation should not be condoned whether or not a gaffer feels he/she had "significant contribution".

And as far as comparing type of diffusion whether it be a silk, grid cloth or diffusion gel. If you compared all types with the same light, all the same size and at a the same distance each would show a different quality, intensity and color temp. (color temp. does change and must be regarded, although it is the least effected).

Not really too offtopic but as far as quality, i dont know if this applies to diffusion but i think it would. Colored gels made by Lee arent as durable as Rosco Gels, atleast as far as color goes, apparently Lee sprays the color onto there gels which under enough heat can cause them to run/deform/lose color and etc. whereas Rosco bakes the color into their gels creating a more durable component in a longer lasting and higher quality gel.

Im looking into buying a pda smartphone, and a benefit to buying one is definitely the ability to use pCam, pCine and Eubanks Log, etc. Though, I dont want to necessarily limit myself to Palm's smartphones, so Ive been looking into Blackberry phones and other style pda phones such as sony ericcsons and etc. Now as far as program requirements pCine lists the use of atleast Palm OS 3.3 (or 3.2?). Now, im not really too sure what phones run on palm os or if pCine can run on other phones. So, I guess my questionis, can pCine run on a phone thats not a Palm? if so, what allows it to? Is it nessecary to have a phone that uses a stylus pen with the programs? Thanks, D.P. Nim