Landon D. Parks

Why are you transfering to 16mm film? Transfering to 35mm is not that much. (HD - 35mm $50,000.00 @ www.dvfilm.com)... I dont know about 16mm. If you transfer to 16mm for the purpose of a 35mm blow up, then Youll get a LOT of added grain, and also spend more than you would to just transfer it to 35mm. If not however, I cant help you.

You can buy an Arri 435 camera from www.cinevision-ny.com for $105,000.00... Includes a lot of accessories. I cant imagin how much a fully loaded Arricam would run!!! Id say at least $200,000.00....

I have not brought on a DP to this Production or that would be what would happen. Personally, I dont care what Camera it is. Im more concerned with the look of the film and the Actors. I was just curiouse as to the different Cameras. I may even still go HD... it depends. I just got offered a new script that I think would look good in a "Documentary" style look. While keeping it a feature. Cant say what the script is though, You would all be paying me Millions for it :lol: :lol: :lol: :( Thanks again.

Ok, Call me dumb. :rolleyes: But I'v never worked on a shot with a Video assist before. And I was watching the Makeing of the Lord of the rings a few nights ago on PPV B) and I noticed they showed Peters video assist Monitors. Is this really how a Video assist looks? :( http://www.geocities.com/director_by_nature/123.bmp (Image has been Virus Scanned by YAHOO.... Dont worry) Thanks

Cant be any worse than having one shipped from LA. Does Panavision even ship to the middle of the sticks? If not, Im out of luck :-)) In the end I dont really care. Im the Director. My DP probably even has a 16mm package, most do now days. I was just wondering about the Panaflex 16. In the sticks, where im at. there Aint to many of them there Motion Picture rental shops sonny. :ph34r: :rolleyes: Im just going by what I hear. Usually people refer to use Panavision. However, with MAJOR films turning from Panavision to Arri (HP 3), I dont think It really matters. What kind of Camera is it?

Personally, 24p is the only way in my opinion. Personally, if you have access to 24p, that is your best option. 24psf is also a good choice for Direct to TV release. Just my opinion... However, if you MUST use anything other than 24p, keep it at 30p... :blink:

Well, Im just a fan of Panavision. Arri and AATON are so small. I love larger cameras. On top of that, 100% of the work will be on Dollies or Cranes. So there is no real "Portability" Problems. Panavision cameras have better lenses, they have better Mags and the like. Now on 35mm cameras, Arri and Panavision are both good, but on 16mm, it seems to me Panavision has Arri and this AATON beat. Of course, not everyone will agree with me. it is just a personal thing. Anything Panavision is great to me. Arri is good too. Panavision is just my 1st choice for anything. Of course, if you can get me an Arri or ATTON w/ color video assist for under $250.00/day.... then I'm willing to talk about them.

Best editing setup? MAC pulling 2 x G5 Processors at 2.5GHZ each... with 8GB RAM and 1TB HDD. Also run Final cut Pro on it with an HD 4:4:4 capture card, and you have a complete workstation that will suite you need even on the most demanding HD situations.

This is for sure of the topic of Cinematography... However, Im not sure where else to ask this. One of my assistants came to me today and asked me how they could go about getting a PA or low end job on the Harry Potter Films... I told her I had no clue. Perhaps you can fill me in, and I'll pass this on to her. Thanks

Do you think renting a 16mm from Panavision would be cheaper than renting a 16mm from Camera Service? Arri s16 w. Video assist is $650.00/day!!!

Thank you much.

Can someone tell me where I can rent a Panavision Panaflex Super 16mm Camera? I looked at both Panavision Uk, Austraila and New york. None have them listed on there websites. Any Idea where I can find one?

The Producer and I sat down and Descided we are going to use Super 16mm. We figure if we are carful enough, we can get it for $.12/foot new. In which case for the cost of HD we could get 40 hours of the stock. which is MORE than enough for this production. We do plan to use HD only on the 10 shots that require Blue/Green Screen work. All Live action will be s16 Film. In which case we will use the HDC-F950 4:4:4.

Can someone tell me some recent MAJOR films that got wide release shot on Super 16mm? I know "Never Die Alone" was shot s16... but have there been any others recently? :blink: P.S) John, no I really didnt like the look of Spy Kids 2. You could tell it was video. It just didnt have the Depth and the look that film has. however, I dont judge films by how they look. I'll sit through a movie that looks terrible if the sotry is good, But i wont sit through a film that is the best quality if the story sucks. Just my way of thinking.

The NLE is on-set durring production... so every time the HDD fills, I just load it into the NLE and then record again. I had figured more than one HDD anyway.

and again, this is just from my experiance. Some people do stuff different than me. However, with my addings... even the TOTAL cost of the film comes to cheaper on HD.

The reason I dont include a DP in HD is because I can do DP then. Where are in film, I dont feel safe. and would have to hire a DP. And Hiring an HD tech would be Too Expensive. On Hd I can experament, and then say, no that dony look good, give me a wider lense, or add another filter... and I can see what it looks like before I shoot it. On film, you have to know what you want. And Know how to get it. and personaly, Im not a DP. So, I dont know a lot about a DP's job on film sets. Yes, I would edit either Digitally. Well, either way. once you scan the film and edit digitally. If you want to go to film, you will have to do a HD - Film Transfer. Which will run about $50,000 in my experiance. So, lets add that to the line: $70,000 + $50,000: $120,000.00 $46,000 + $50,000.00: $96,000.00... HD is still cheaper. All color timing will be done Digitally, even on film. So again, no added fee. This is may Post-Process: on Film: 1. Send film to lab for Telecine. (Cost: $10,000.00) 2. Load Digital film into NLE. (No addded cost) 3. Devinci CC. (Up to 5k) 4. HD - 35mm Transfer. ($50k) On Hd: 1. Load Digital into NLE. (nothing) 2. Devinci CC. (up to 5k) 3. HD - 35mm Transfer. (50k) either way, Film is still more expensive. not by a whole lot, but it still is technically more expensive. Again, If I forgot somthing, or Am not doing somthing right.. alert me.

Ok, I have heard a lot of people say that HD is just as expensive as Film. I cant see the to be true. This is my figures for my upcoming production. If I left something out. please alert me and I'll correct it. Now, Tell me. how is $70k less than $42k? Please, If Im not understanding somthing... let me know. Disclaimer: I am not battling film here. I still love film. Im just tired of people who say Film is cheaper than HD... sorry.

Georgy used HD because he could... and he wanted to... and he saved millions in Telecine fees considering he would have scanned over a million feet of film to the D.I... And on a film like SW.... Who really cars if it was shot on film... only 3-10% of the frame is actually live action anyway. Landon D. Parks

Alright. I must say, kodak really made it with this 320 stock. WOW. Love it. Who else agrees or disagrees with me? Landon

P.S) I dont intend to do any Ramping or any kind of effects that Film can do more than HD. :blink: It will be shot 24p 100% of the time. Im not a slow-mo fan, or a speed freak. and this film does not call for any special Ramps either. Landon D. Parks

John, Im refering to ease in the fact that I can get instant Dailies, I know what I got. And since im acting as DP also, I can play with the lighting and camera tricks a bit, and see what it looks in real time. With film, this would not be possible as I would only be able to afford 10 hours of it in 35mm and maybee 15 in S16. And we are working with children in this film... that worries me with Film. We onyl have 10 - 15 hours of it, and kids cost a lot of film. with HD I can just say "Retake" Rewind the tape if we run out, and shot again. And really, the only time I was able to tell the difference in HD and Film (Besides resolution) was on Spy Kids 2. When comparing the shots after the title, where the camera "Flys" in the window, I noticed immediatly that the Color on SK2 was dull. Compared to the SK1 scene... all the colors where bright and cheerful. (This may have been intentional though, so I cant say for sure that it was HD that made it so dull.) Other than that, I never could tell the difference. Dont get me wronge here... I LOVE film... I love the look, the Contrast, the color reproduction and the like. However, I have never been more limited on the amount of stock I would have to get the story told. And working with kids, I am affraid we will run out of stock without getting what I want. Under normal conditions, I would not be having the conversation, because Film is still better. And I would shot film. However, Im feeling the presure on this production. Landon D. Parks

Exactly what Camera where used for HD in this film? Viper, HDC-F950, HDW-F900??? And what type of lenses did you use? Landon D. Parks

Im both Director and DP... But my "Image Quality" I mean is the end users take on it... what the mass of people think looks better when they go to the theater and see it. I mean, you have to please so many people. You go to the IMDB Message boards on films shot in HD... and some will say they have never seen anything so pretty, and other will say they could not sit through 3 minutes of it. I know a lot of people who go see movies dont care what it was shot on... however, there is always the judge in the crowd that makes some snide remark about how ugly it looked, and then that spreads around and soon everyone thinks it looks ugly. I really want to shot HD for the ease of it, but I want the film qualtiy. :( Landon D. Parks

You can only use Panavision lenses on Panavised Sony HDW-F900 (Unless they have Panavised somthing that I dont know about yet :( )... which is now outdated. with the release of 4:4:4 HDC-F950 and Viper. In which case, you best bet is Zeiss Digiprime. If, however, you insist on using the outdated Pana/sony HDW-F900.... then by all means, Panavision Primo. I dont think any other lenses compete with Zeiss and Panavision. So I cant tell you about the Cooke S4HD Zoom. These are just my ramblings. Landon D. Parks :blink: