Jonathan Bowerbank

There was a great documentary made here in San Francisco called "The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill". It was all shot using the Eclair NPR. Its worth checking out if you are interested

I'd recommend you just ship the film to yourself through FedEx with the "do not X-ray" label on the package. That, or you can find a lead box with at least 3 inches of thickness, place your films inside and weld it shut. That way the x-rays won't harm your film. ;) But seriously, there WILL be damage if you take your film through any airport x-ray. Take the necessary precautions.

Looks like you'll be needing an HD-SDI card installed onto your Mac. You can use firewire if you're fine with it being downconverted to SD for a DVD release only. But to preserve the HD, and still use your JH3 deck, you'll need the HDSDI card. After looking for a bit, I found one, but I haven't read any reviews on it. But you'll want the "Fury" or the "Vengeance" types of cards as described on this website, also, I would suggest you upgrade to FCP 5 if you're working in HD: http://www.digitalvoodoo.net/products/hdrange/

I can't help you directly, but you should check your local rental house or photo store, they probably have the means of sending your meter in for a repair.

It's a personal preference of mine. If I'm in a studio, where the environment is 100% controllable, and I have full control over what my lights do, chances are I'm not going to put anymore glass on my lens. Unless I'm trying to achieve a dramatic color shift in my overall image. Do as much as you can with your lighting scheme, then if you feel the gold diffusion filter on the lens will help, by all means do as you will. Oh, and you're right about the chimeras. I hadn't noted that in my previous posting. But those 1k's should get you into the 5.6 neighborhood if they're just beauty shots and you can get the lights as close to the actor as you need them. Also, always, if you have the ability, shoot a couple tests and see what difference filters make in your image.

I would shy away from placing any filters over your lens. Less glass is always better. You're already using a couple of CTO's in your lighting setup. If you want an even warmer and softer look, just get a couple of darker CTO's and diffuse your lights to soften up your actors. The diffused light on your actors with the sharp undiffused lighting in the background might give them more presence on the screen. The amount of lights you're using for one setup seems like a lot of over kill. I hope you're not planning on having all of those on just one person at one time. The Kinoflo & ringlight being used at the same time with your CTO gelled key & fill lights was what threw me a bit. Maybe you need explain your setup a bit more, what lights for what shot, etc.

Who are these Pyramid people anyhow? I've seen all the equipment they sell on eBay. I love how low their prices are for old but quality tungsten lighting equipment. But does anyone know where they get this stuff?

First of all, have you seen the film? It's a beautiful sequence and a good use of day for night. But, no, the sun was not in the shot. The polarizing lens just made the sky a deeper blue, and with the direct sunlight shining on the actor, horse & tree, it created a dramatic separation to make things easier when they saturated the blues and inserted a starry night sky in post production. Not to mention, the sunlight created a great moonlight effect after the shots were finished in post. There's another shot in that sequence of the little brother in jail, and the moonlight is shining through the bars on him, which was probably also a day for night shot. When he said he "angled the camera", it just means he really got the camera low and tilted up so they had more sky in the shot to work with. To get the polarizer to work more for you, you would only really have to rotate the filter to get your desired effect.

Andrew, this really isn't the place to argue or get offended by what anyone says. Fact is, nobody's seen your film yet. Get your DP, make the film, then let THAT be your definitive argument. good luck! Jon

Here here David, the film was hilarious, but also quite disturbing in parts.

I couldn't understand why. It's not as if it required any special color correcting or effects, it was mostly shot as a low budg. documentary. Is it just common practice now for all films to go through the expensive DI process?

No 400' mags?

You may want to check out your local non-profit filmmaking foundation. A lot of times, they have their own insurance, thereby making it easier for filmmakers to check out equipment from them. Just be sure to respect the equipment, take really good care of it, and return it in better than you got it. Insurance shouldn't be too scary though. Find out what agencies in your area offer insurance on camera rentals and find out what the premiums are. Usually, if the equipment is worth less than $2000, then insurance isn't even necessary. But if it's over $2000, then you may have to pay a reasonable premium. It's not scary, just sort out the figures and start filming.

The Bolex is a fine 16mm camera. TONS of beautiful independent shorts have been shot on it. But as usual, what REALLY matters is "the glass". How good your lens is. If you have a low quality lens, and run an HD telecine, you'll see the lack of quality in your image. What kind of film are you hoping to make? The Bolex is only good if you're making a film without any sound, as it is a very loud camera.

It just depends on whether it's appropriately done. I watched a few minutes of "Friday Night Lights" the new TV show, and it was SO annoying. People claim it as "documentary style", but really sometimes it seems more "home movie" style with the constant zooming in and out. I usually don't mind if there's an occasional zoom in a scene, but when there are 2 to 3 zooms in every shot of every scene, it grows tiresome.

Hey, maybe you can get Prieto's cam op, Xavier Pérez Grobet. He's done some great DP work as well, along with his cam op work on 21 Grams. Good luck!

The NPR's a great camera. If you're in a studio and sound is crucial, you might wanna get a barney to muffle the little noise it DOES make. Also, it's a bit awkward for handheld stuff, for me at least. So you should try it out and see how much you like it first. The adjustable shutter angle and film speed are its best features.

Thanks, yeah, I just bought a repair manual for this specific camera. I will for sure take strict precautions if there is any danger in playing with the spring, hopefully the manual includes warnings such as this ;)

This thing was runnin' like a champ, until a couple years ago when I ignorantly ran the thing dry at 64fps. It's a great workhorse of a camera that my uncle used as a newscaster in the 60's. These cameras have gone through wars and come out alive. http://www.tfgtransfer.com/70dr.gif Does anyone know of a place that does simple repairs such as this? I'm pretty sure the spring's just wound too tight, or something. Or, if you have any instructions for doing it myself, that'd be even better. thanks! Jon

I'm no Math major, but isn't 2/50 the same as 1/25? ha ha Are you shooting still photography? What camera has a 160 degree shutter? Anyway, yeah, 2/50 (or 1/25) won't do for 1/85. You can make your own compensations in t-stops though. He'd have to open up, what, 1 2/3 to 1 1/2stops more? People? Tell me if I'm way off.

a cookie's not the effect I'm goin' for. The curtain in the shot is going to be blown around a bit by a fan so there's a nice moving shadow of it on that wall.

Thanks all for your invaluable suggestions :) Here's an example of the type of setup I'm doing, from Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/rem...girlbedwDad.jpg The curtains' shadow to the right is what I had in mind

Thanks Stuart, I figured as such. Did a couple lighting setups today in prep for the shoot and found that out. I'm still not sure how big my set's going to be, so hopefully I'll have enough space to do it. cheers! Jon

Awesome, it's already in my Netflix queue, I'm trying to see everything Storaro's done...this'll help :)

That photometric calculator is pretty awesome, if it is indeed accurate. It seemed so at least, when I put in a couple of setups that I'd done in the past with some Arri lights.