Bryant Jansen

Hello! I am doing more and more full frame work, and doing some research about the optical full frame Directors Viewfinders options out there (non-digital). I was wondering if anyone had any particular insight into the various options that exist? I am aware of the: Denz "Director's Viewfinder OIC FF" Lindsey Optics "Large Format Directors Viewfinder" and PS Technik "Optica Magnus" Are there any that I am missing? Would love to hear if anyone has experience with any of these. I think the Denz and PS Technik also support anamorphic, The Lindsey Optics does not currently support Anamorphic. Any insight would be appreciated! (not looking for any "you should just use a digital finder, app, etc") Bryant Jansen

In my opinion, a good Cinematographer should know as much about stereo photography as they can if they are shooting stereoscopic 3D. The more knowledge the DP has, the better they can use the tools at hand to help tell the story. I see the role of a Stereographer much like that of a Camera Assistant. They should be there for technical support in terms of the equipment relating to stereo (working with the rig, adjusting interaxial and convergence, etc), as well as have a good working knowledge of stereo theory and practice (if a certain effect is required, they should know how to achieve it), just like the AC should have a good working knowledge of filmmaking elements relating to the camera being used. Again, I believe a good DP should know the gear and theory behind the medium he or she is working with, as well as understand how it works in order to best utilize the technology in terms of storytelling. Of course, filmmaking is collaborative, and all positions should bring as much as they can to a project so everyone can work together and create nice images.

Not that this question is illegitimate, but I feel it would be better suited for the Beginning and Student Filmmaker forum, or even the 8mm specific forum. Bryant Jansen

Not that this question is illegitimate, but I feel it would be better suited for the Beginning and Student Filmmaker forum, or even the 8mm specific forum. Bryant Jansen

Hugo, Exposing an 80 asa rated stock at 250 asa is underexposing the stock by 1 2/3s stop, so to reach the recommended asa of the film you would need to push the film that same amount: roughly two stops. I'm not exactly sure how the stock will react because i have not pushed 7231, but the general effects are an "increase in contrast, graininess, and fog level" (that's a quote directly from the ASC Manual). I have pushed 7212 (100T) one stop and was quite happy with the results. Pushing a stock by two stops will definitely increase these effects, but it will still be acceptable. I wouldn't go any more than two stops though. Hope that helps, Bryant Jansen

With flicker free, you shouldn't have to worry about it. Bryant Jansen

http://kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/bw/...4.6.4&lc=en - There are some curves and other technical data on the Kodak site, but perhaps you should do some latitude tests yourself. You will probably get a lot more practical information from your own tests than from technical readouts and graphs. Bryant Jansen

It was cut on Final Cut, not Premiere. Bryant Jansen

Nice work. I agree that the music is a bit much, and the compression of the video is quite distracting as well. Looks great, but I would consider taking out ANY shots that you do not find interesting or that seem bland (there were only a few). Its a good idea to show coverage as well as just single shots (which you have done). I really think that if you find a more compelling song and shorten it up a bit it will really make a big difference. Hope that was helpful, Bryant Jansen

I have not tried to light anything to look underwater, but i have noticed that hanging down larger sheets of gel and moving them slightly (wave-like) in front of a light can give you the look of light reflecting off of water. I would of course test this out, but it looked pretty neat.

Doug Heart's book "The Camera Assistant" has a wealth of information on camera tests. It is a great resource to have around anyways.

Thanks for the replies! It could very well be from tightening the film, though I only tried to tighten it enough to pick up the slack, and again it is pretty consistent throughout the entire roll. Needless to say I am going to be much more careful about downloading next time. Another odd thing about this roll was that it was lost by DHL on its way to the lab. It was supposed to be sent to Seattle and ended up in Ohio when they found it. Again, thanks for the replies.

We recently got our film back from the lab, and while reviewing our telecine we noticed that in the darkest parts of the film there is noticeable blue "noise" along the right side of the frame. The blue only seems to be in the darker areas and does not look like a flash. It was shot on an SRII, and the mag has since been fully tested and the footage came back clean. The nose comes in cycles, and even when things were shot at 60fps it looked like the same cycle rate. We have asked a few people and some say it looks like the film was dished, but I had loaded and un-loaded and do not remember dishing it at all. Any ideas on what this is? This picture is not the best example, ill try to get a better one up soon.

On the Aaton website it does not say anything about it shooting 4 perf. Does anyone know if it does or does not?

Why does overexposing help, David? Is it just to get the aperture open a little bit more and thereby getting a shorter depth of field? And if I do overexpose, should I do anything differently when processing?