Alex Opdam

Well I guess that sort of seals it then. I'll be dropping by my local rental houses to try out lens/mattebox combinations shortly. Thanks again people!

Thanks for that Jon. I'm going to make my way into some rental houses next week and see what sort of deals I can get for the superspeeds with a follow focus and mattebox. Do you recall whether you used MK1 MK2 or MK3s for that 'guy in the house segment'? I think I'll actually show those few shots of yours to my DP as a rough idea of the lighting style I might go for - were they complicated setups for the through-the-window shot or the kitchen sink? It looked like you were going for a fairly naturalistic use of practicals etc which I intend to do.

Thankyou all for all the helpful points! I must admit I'm with Tim in that I much prefer the look of the 'depressed people' footage to the 'rooftop comedy' footage that follows. The general feel of the rooftop/zoom footage actually reminds me a lot of the footage I shot recently on a canon zoom - I too had it telecined on an older Diamond URSA machine so I guess it's hard to say what exactly causes the look. I guess it seems to point towards the zoom though. Jon, would it be possible to know what lenses/telecine (if you remember) were used for the other portions of your reel? The 3 singers and the lady who drives to a shopping centre both had a bit of a videoy look to them I thought, were they with the zoom? I really like the footage towards the end of the guy in his house, outside on his mobile, and then the hand washing in the sink - I gather those were again done with the primes? To be honest that is pretty much spot on the look I'm going for with this project so I'm very interested to hear.

So I guess the general concensus is that even though it's going to cost me extra to rent a matte box, follow focus attachment and a focus puller, the primes are a worthwhile direction picturewise, even if they are just a basic arri kit?

Thanks for the replies - I guess this means I'm going to need to rent a follow-focus attachment aswell..

I'm planning a low budget super16mm feature shoot in the next couple of months (think 'Primer' budgetary wise) and one of the decisions yet to be made is whether to go the direction of primes or a zoom. For reference, I'll be shooting on a s16 modified Russian Kinor @ 25fps, which has a 10-100 zoom, although only the longer half is usable at super16 (vignetting). This is the weigh up as I see it: Zoom (Canon 7-63mm F2.6): + Easy/quick framing, no lens switching + Comes with a clip on mattebox + Can zoom in and focus quickly (without measuring) Primes (Probably a basic arri kit): + Better quality + Extra 2~ stops, down to F1.4 - I'll need to rent a mattebox/baseplate combo aswell Now the DP I've been talking to about working on this has said that if we can go primes he thinks it would be worthwhile, though admits it would slow things down a little and he would have to have a dedicated assistant (rather than just a general lighting assistant) to help with measuring focus and so forth. I guess my question to you guys out there is how much difference I'm looking at quality wise from using a basic set of primes against what I figure is a relatively decent zoom lens. My post path is pretty much aimed at ending up with a graded master on HD from which I can go to DVD/TV or _maybe_ theatre (an off chance admittedly). Lets assume that I don't *necessarily* need the extra 2 stops and could live with F2.8 (although the F1.4 could be handy obviously). Thoughts and suggestions?

I'm actually in Australia but thanks for the tip - I was going to go in there and see what sort of deal they would do me for renting some stuff for a couple of weeks, but I'll definitely give them my story now and see what sort of deal they can cut me.

I'll have a camera assistant, but at this stage unless I rent/buy a mattbox plate with rods and a focus wheel, it would be a case of the 1st AC just twisting the barrel of the lens which I might as well almost do myself. I should apologise for not being more clear in my first post, when I say this is a low budget feature I mean in the sense that a film like 'Primer' is low budget. A sound guy is going to be paid up front and all the rest of the shooting budget is going towards film costs and food/catering. At this stage the skeleton crew is looking like it will consist of myself, a gaffer, one camera assistant, a sound guy and a 1st AD/producer. This is something I was thinking of pretty much improvising on the zoom while operating, weighing in the chance that the odd shot or focus pull might come up a little soft during certain actions. It is far from ideal but for the style of film I'm looking at shooting, I don't think it would be the end of the world if some of the shots came out a little rough. I guess I'm trying to guage if the difference between a decent zoom or a prime is going to be a noticable difference in image clarity. I have already resigned myself to the idea that my lighting will not always be ideal and much of the shoot will be relatively rushed, so I wonder if this (along with the film speed) is something I'm going to need to sacrifice in order to get the project to happen at all. I understand that for many of you you probably have certain minimum limitations under which you will refuse to shoot. For myself, however, I'm at the point in my career where I can afford very little and am just trying to guage whether this decision will be a noticable or negligible difference in quality, given the scale of my production. If a set of primes/mattebox/focus wheel adds $1000 to a $14,000 budget, it could quite possibly be worth it if it gives the images a less amateurish (less soft) look. If it adds $2000 to the budget and another 25% onto the shoot length, it may be too much considering the other technical bottlenecks that the film will already endure. Perhaps that is too subjective a call to make, and I naively thought it may have been a little more clear cut. I do thank you all for your help though and will keep all of your thoughts in mind when I examine all the final factors and come to my decision.

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. First off, I intend to use a mattebox regardless of whether I got for a zoom or primes - I'm well aware of the necessity for ND and 85 filters etc, it's a just a matter of whether it will come with the zoom or be an added cost. Would you say that image quality between say a zeiss standard prime kit and a decent zoom like the canon 7-63 is not as much of a significant factor then? After taking all of these suggestions on board I'm still torn on a couple of things. If I go the way of the primes and 200t (which should technically be a better quality image than 500t and a zoom) I imagine I would end up working regularly at the 1.4-2.8 end of the lens. Given that, I'm a little concerned that with my fairly ordinary viewfinder (russian kinor -> super16 mod) I could find myself having the odd problem with focus - especially given the narrow margin for error when shooting so wide open. With a zoom lens at least I'd have the ability to zoom in and focus on eyes etc to make sure. I guess what it comes down to is how much quality I have to gain from shooting with a standard primes kit, and what I can get away with in terms of lighting levels. Again, your thoughts are all much appreciated.

Thanks for the advice Kevin. Assuming I was to go for a set of primes that won't totally break the bank but will be noticably superior to the canon zoom, is there anything you can suggest? I had a look through an older set of zeiss primes (just through the viewfinder) and wasn't hugely impressed by what I saw but maybe I was mistaken. This is very encouraging to hear Adrian, is there any way I'd be able to have a look at some stills or footage of the stuff you shot? The lack of grain you describe is quite encouraging to hear - were you shooting through expensive glass? Thanks again for the replies guys I'm taking it all on board here.

I am planning to shoot a low budget super16mm feature beginning in about 2 months time and there are some things that I'd like to run by some of the wise minds of this place before I commit to them. First off, when I say low budget I mean I am basically just going to pay for the film costs and the sound guy, everything else will be deferred payment. Fortunately the story has been written with a low budget in mind so a lot of it occurs in residential apartments and houses which should be easy-to-get/free locations. 1) Lighting style: My locations, as mentioned, are predominately residential apartments and houses, with the odd quiet street shot or public car park. Given this, I'm inclined to think I'll end up shooting at a pretty quick pace and the lighting work done will be pretty naturalistic and really whatever can be achieved in these real-world living locations, with the equipment we can get. The lighting in the first house scenes of Little Miss Sunshine seems to be a good target to aim for. They appear to be using a lot of practicals and haphazard lighting and I understand shot on 500t (albeit 35mm). I'm a little concerned that even if I mimicked the lighting and went 500t, I'm still shooting on a smaller guage film and with poorer glass and film grain could get out of control. What are the thoughts around here about shooting in this high speed/practical lighting style? Any good places to check up info on it or maybe specific editions of American Cinematographer that would be worth reading? 2) Lenses: I have shot some footage recently on a canon 7-63mm zoom lens which I was relatively happy with. I guess I'd consider spending a little more and try shooting on a set of primes but last time I was relying on the mattebox that came with the zoom to hold filters etc so I don't know what I'd do otherwise. I think that the zoom would allow me to keep a big more pace up with organising shots and so forth so I guess I'm trying to work out how much benefit I'd get from a prime set. 3) Film stocks: At this stage I'm leaning towards shooting 500t for indoors which makes up the bulk of the film. I'm almost thinking though that if I end up allowing sunlight to flood in, and am forced to 85 the lens, wouldn't I pretty much be better off just shooting 250D for indoors and using daylight lights (or gel some tungsten ones?) Are there any good examples of super16mm projects shooting naturalistic indoor stuff on 500t? If the grain is going to get out of control I guess I'll reconsider and try to accomodate 200t or so, but at this stage I think it would be quite convenient for my purposes. -- Apologies for the length of the post guys, but if anyone has advice or suggestions regarding what I'm proposing I'd love to hear it. I'm going to have to square away some of these decisions now since it will affect what I need lighting/location wise, and I'd love to hear past experience or opinions!

Hi Christian, I am also very interested in your kind offer and, if there are still rolls remaining, would be very grateful to get my hands on some. I'm in Australia but would be more than happy to pay for shipping if there is any available. My email address is aopdam@gmail.com Thanks again.

I do feel like a film snob saying this, but I confess that I feel a little mislead when I discover that a person's "film" (in their words) turns out to be shot on video. Admittedly this is more a reference to XL1 (or similar) projects, and hypocritically I think I'd let the faux pas slide if the project was shot on high end video like HD :) I do agree with Phil's logic in that use of the word "film", regardless of the photographic medium, can help convey the project's format. Nonetheless, I believe there are a lot of circumstances where the word "film" is thrown around in an attempt to generate unwarranted credibility for what is creatively (and technically) of a low caliber. I guess that I'd prefer that people (talking about their video production) referred to it as a "movie" or "short" or some term that doesn't intrinsically insinuate a certain medium. However, the term "film" has become so overused I think it would be impossible and fruitless to attempt to enforce its proper usage. I can't believe I just wrote all that.

DC im curious about a couple of things you have said. When you talk about the films on the shelf of your video store which you've never heard of but are 'lucky enough' to be in the marketplace... would you say these films are on average better or worse quality than those which you make? I'm not talking about technical specifications here and i obviously you are going to be unintentionally biased but im trying to get an idea of general viewer enjoyment. I'm just trying to get an idea of whether or not it is actually 'luck' as you say that gets these films where they are. Are you saying that every film there is there because of a lucky break of some sort? I just can't understand why film distributors wouldn't jump at the chance to take on an original low budget film idea over the same 3rd rate straight-to-video garbage that seems to continually be made. Is it a case of short sighted marketing or are quality independant films just not being made? OR is it that distributors want to be in the driving seat of a young idea rather than buy a completed product? I know that was a lot of questions but i'm just trying to get an idea of the situation.

I'm not too sure but i read somewhere that they are making an American version (produced by Ricky Gervais etc) but i think with a new cast and set in an American office. I'm a little skeptical since Ricky and Stephen have already said that they've used all their office ideas up - based on their own office experience in the UK. Where are their new ideas about an American office coming from?