Adrian Correia

Please contact me at my email AdrianCorreiaDP@gmail.com

I own a set of super baltars although my 20mm is a Kowa....the 35mm is softer and I usually do not shoot it wide open - but look of the lenses are wonderul

how was the grain at that speed? what format did you shoot; 4,3,2 perf? can you post some stills?

Grain is definitely prevalent - more so than our tests of 5219 pushed two stop. Still we were shooting a horror film so I wanted more grain. Regardless, it was still very pleasing to me even at two stops pushed. Higher key scenes the grain wasn't even that bad tell you the truth. Colors are definitely more vibrant than 5219. Sorry, can't post stills...it is being released in October though! If I get the OK I will post.

I visited the KODAK website yesterday and learned that the 5230/7230 filmstock is now available in 35/16. I called KODAK and spoke to a customer sevice rep that gave me pricing info.

I cannot find any info that seperates this filmstock from 5219,5229 or 5260, regarding image quality. It is cheaper than 5219. It IS NOT a member of the VISION3 family. I have yet to hear from my KODAK sales rep. Does anyone have anymore info? Thanks.

Just shot my first 35mm feature on this stock - pushed two stops rated at 1200.....what would you like to know?

Thank you John for taking the time to answer. Also, apologies for the "boys" remark....no offense intended to anyone, regardless of gender.

Hey guys...some confusion between myself and post has me a little flustered. Ever think about something for too long so you begin to forget anything you thought you knew? That's where I am.

So, shooting on the HDX900 tomorrow...interview subject...producer wants 720P 59.94 (29.97 for broadcast) - but 24P filmlook.

So I should just shoot 24P mode 720P/59.94 and the tape will record 29.97 and then everything is about the import, right....please bear in mind that I am not post on this. Please help me clear my brain boys....

Hi,

 

The Technovision one is quite rare, not as rare as the 14-70 version if the Cooke 5:1.

 

It depends on which end of the zoom you think is more important.

 

Are they about the same size or is the Technovision one any bigger?

 

Stephen

I was looking for a good all-purpose zoom for production...I may not be purchasing the zoom from Red (18-50 or 50-150) and was looking for something to replace those in my package.....

I already own a set of K35s...

In terms of size they are comparable.

Is there another zoom solution you would recommend?

I am in the process of purchasing a zoom lens for use with my camera and was wondering between these two and if anyone could weigh in on them.

A Cooke T2.5 18-90 Zoom (Technovision) in immaculate shape for 7,250.00

or a Cooke T3 18-100 (in excellent shape) for 5,000.00

I already have one person's opinion who I respect....anyone else care to chime in on these and which one would be the better purchase?

rob -

I will keep my eyes peeled for some of the K35s, but it looks like Dan might be able to help you.

Hey Max! How have you been? No, they are Arri Standard mount....but they come with an adapter...i was wondering how difficult they would be to change to PL mount. My K35s were a bitch and a half to remount...

I may possibly buy a set of these lenses and was wondering if anyone could provide some feedback in regards to these. They are from an old friend, and in excellent shape and for 3000.00 it seems like a really good deal....any thoughts on this glass?

you should also look for the AC article on The Thin Red Line where Toll talks quite a bit on his use of negative fill...good stuff!

Most of my shoots involve smaller units with 1.2K and 2.5K HMIs and 2K tungstens usually being the biggest units. My question is...how do you know what larger units to use if you don't really have the opportunity to use them? I mean...how do you discern wheather a 5K would be enough or you really need something bigger. There is a feature I am shooting in April where this could be a concern....I know I could rely on my gaffer but you know the deal...always looking to better myself. Thanks guys!

Stuart - this is very, very good work. I echo Chayse's statements aout the jungle scenes...is there any type of color correction on the lighting or just to the image itself? I love the diffusion on the CUs too, just takes the edge off.

Don't underestimate Spielberg's knowledge and respect for cinematic history. He will dealing with the legacy of three of his most loved films so I expect him to shoot film and possibly anamorphic...with the advent of the DI who knows. I for one hope he utilizes the visual template established in the previous films and maybe tries to craft something that complements the series.

Jonathan,

Max is right, you should check Cyclo - stunning work. I loved The Proposition also...wonderful widescreen compositions and the interiors are fantastic as well - the bar scene with Hurt in particular. The entire photographic asthetic of that movie is perfect.

Chris,

I liked the reel. I think it has a good balance of all the necessary things - day and night interiors, night exteriors, etc. Also, I think it shows a good range of your lighting skills, particularly the night exteriors. I too would be interested in your compression settings, as this looks very good for an online file. My new reel is quite long too, and I used different songs to break up the pacing of the reel (in addition to cutting style). I think this might also help to alter the feel of the reel as it does move slowly. All in all, a nice reel. Good luck and keep shooting!

Apparently - Stump will be posting an more indepth analysis and results on cinematography.net - that information coming from a Jannard post on dvxuser.com

The whole reason I ask is that I have never really seen an example of digital grain that felt organic enough to me. I second Max's request for some examples of both photochemical and electronic grain. I know that choice of grain is project specific, but I think artistic choices like Savvisdes' are pretty remarkable. I loved the fragile feeling of the image in Birth....grain at its most artistically motivated.

Richard may rub some - but that is pretty funny. Me thinks Tim may have painted himself into a corner...(just kidding Tim! We love you!)

I must admit right now that I do have a Red reservation...so no secrets here. I have been searching a lot of the video forums and there seems to be a real, palpable resistance to what film grain does for an image. I always see people exalting a video image that appears "Clean". I don't know about most people, but I really love the look of film grain.

It seems to me to have a more organic and psychological effect in the imagery than the cleanliness of HD. It is something in the photochemical finishing, the intangible nature of film (whether 8, 16 or 35) that I think really helps bridge the gap, making the material of a story, into a film. For my money, it seems that films made in HD have to work harder for me to see through their digital origins and forget I am watching something created. Obviously, content plays a huge roll in that also.... Maybe it is the insularity of the two worlds (film, video) that make people so opposed to the specific characteristics each offers...

I anticipate that I am probably going to spend a good amount of time with the Red camera, beating up and rounding off the image to mimic the look of film. I like what I have seen so far in terms of imagery and moving footage, but it still strikes me as a video source. I would love to see if I could manipulate it to have the look and feel of something like Babel....I guess we will have to wait and see. I have the funny feeling though that I will be pushing the camera to go towards what film stocks I love to shoot with...

Oh, and please stop the madness (baseless personal attacks and insults) on this board! It's getting brutal up in here....

Rest in peace Jim. I'll have to throw in some Deadwood tonight to honor him.....and About Schmidt

Stephen - sorry! No disrespect intended! I diid see the answer you had given. I was just trying to compile as many theories or possibilities as possible to try and nail down the reason. The seller of the lenses is on vacation in Seattle and will be back this week, so I will have some idea then. I have asked him to send those two lenses to my tech in California and then he will be able to do side by side tests. We shall see. I have actually directed my tech to your answer....hopefully things will work out, but I will keep you abreast of the situation. I may do some 35mm tests when I get the set....

I recently bought (about two weeks ago) a set of Canon K35 lenses from a retired DP in Florida. I got a 14mm (I believe this is EOS glass) in a PL mount and a complete set of K35s (18, 24, 35, 55, 85) in BNCR mount. I sent them to a friend in Los Angeles to be inspected and remounted to PL mounts. The lenses are in excellent shape, but the 35mm and 55mm have a "yellow tint" (the techs term not mine) to the image.

My question to the members of this forum is....what is that yellow tint? What could it be? Is it correctable? I was told that it is a slight shift in warmth to the yellow side. Could I match these with the rest of the lenses in the set with some simple color correction? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. The man I bought these from also has another set of K35s - should I try and exchange the 35mm and 55mm for the corresponding lenses in that set? Thanks!

I'd have to agree that a functioning Red certainly is not going to cost 17.5 I have already bought a set of prime lenses (Canon K35s) for 8,500.00 - plus the cost of having PL mounts on them....add that to a Red Zoom and the Red itself, sotrage, accessories.....it is a sizable investment. I wanted to have my own camera package. It certainly, in my market would allow me to take more jobs. It will enable me to have a versatile camera that can shoot a number of formats, with close tangibles to film (although it won't have those very nebulous, but very important intangibles that make film the prime format). I hope that this camera will help me make the next step in my career, project-wise. It sure as hell is not going to make me a better cinematographer. I was considering a HDX900 - but I went with this. Of course, all this rests upon the camera actually being produced....which it isn't, yet. I make no judgments, and certainly no predictions. I just hope to be able to shoot with it someday. Regardless, it is a sizeable chunk of change. I don't care who you are, that type of investment always should be measured with caution.