Christian Janss

I was just at Abel Cine today and they said that they've requested a LUT from Sony but the company refuses to release one. Abel is working on one of their own currently.

http://cgi.ebay.com/120mm-f2-8-lens-in-ARR...#ht_9059wt_1282 All they say is "Arri PL" type mount. And that it's a 2.8

Does there exist such a thing as an edison plug (male end) adaptor for use on a commercial outlet (female end)? By "commercial" I mean the kind of outlet that like a big landromat dryer might plug into or some kind of big equipment. Thanks! Christian

Does there exist an adaptor for what I'm guessing is a commerical outlet (the kind you'd find for a heavy duty washer/dryer or piece of equipment) to an edison plug? Or is that impossible and/or dangerous? thanks C.

Cool! gracias.

Hi I think my variable speed motor is concking out. It's controlled by this weird box that attaches by a cord, retrofitted by a place called STS I believe. I've called around the Birs & Sawyer, Allan Gordon, and Arri LA but they don't work on these cameras. Does any one know a place/guy in LA or So Cal that works on these cameras? It could also use a little clean up too. If not I'll have to send it to NYC. thanks! Christian Janss

Much obliged for all the advice/suggestions/information. I'd forgot about taking one tube out of the kino, that is very handy. Turns out we're getting the funds for renting one after all, so that's the best of both worlds. I'll have to look for the fast falloff vs. gradual falloff as mentioned. I understand what that means, but seeing it side by side would be helpful. thanks again- CJ

Everybody loves kinos because they are easy to use soft lights that you can put very close and don't get hot. But doesn't the same thing go for china balls (except maybe the heat thing), and for a fraction of the cost? So, I guess my question is what will I be giving up if I forego renting a kino and just rely on my plain old china ball for soft, somewhat directional light & fill?

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated. The shoot was harrowing but ultimately successful. Now that I've seen what those things can do with my own eyes, I'm in love with Maxibrutes.

I've got a night exterior in the forrest with super 16 500T. Of course, the bulk of the action takes place under medium tree cover. But there is a place slightly up hill, and maybe 60 feet away, that is clear enough for a 9-light Maxibrute and a diffusion frame or bounce. I've read up on the maxibrute postings and the night exterior postings, but what I'm wondering is how much does either bouncing or shining thru grid cloth cut down on the exposure level of the maxibrute? Or should I scrap the maxi because of the trees and just use 5ks and 2ks as like rays of moonlight hidden in and behind trees? Sorry if this question is too broad, I guess I just have to make the call. thx

Sorry if this has been addressed already, but I searched and couldn't find it. I'm wondering if anyone out there has tried to match footage shot on a DVX with and without a 35 lens adaptor (whichever one)? I'm planning on using an adaptor on a feature, but I'm afraid the loss of light will be tough for a night scene. There's only one night scene so I was thinking of shooting all the night stuff with a stock lens and all other stuff (Day ext. & all int) with the adaptor. So, will it be too noticible a difference if we segregate all the stock shots into their own scene and only cut between the adaptor once or twice? Can these two be cut together at all? It'll be in Standard Def so that might help. I do plan to do some tests, but any opinions and advice now will be much appreciated. thanks in advance. CCJ

X-files!

Can some one give me some examples of cinematographers (and good examples of their work) who WERE from the classic Hollywood studio era? The kind of "lit" look that all the new cinematographers were rebelling against in the late 60s/70s. I seem to know only the Roizmans/Kovacs/Willises who were active in the realism or American new wave or whatever you want to call it. I can only think of Gregg Toland off hand as an example, but that's too obvious.

I own an Arri SB and I've shot lots of film on it and I love it. But, often if I'm shooting regular color film (i.e. Vision 2 500T or 200T or even 50D) I can't shake the feeling that the footage looks like it was shot in the 1970s. It's not the grain really, because I notice it with high and low speed stock, it's something about the saturation of it, or maybe the softness of the image... I know I'm being vague, but the impression I get is a vague one, but definitely there. One issue I'm considering is that I'm shooting all this thru an Anginuex 12 - 120mm zoom which came standard (I believe) with the camera way back when. So, my question is this: if I got a newer, sharper lens would that make my stuff look less 70s-ish? If so, what type would people recommend? Or is it the plain fact that 16mm is 16mm and I'm thinking it looks "70s" because soooo much 16 was shot then and my mind has just made 16mm synonymous with 1970s footage? anyway, thanks in advance.

So if this impending writers' strike brings the industry to a grinding hault (as some have predicted) there's bound to be a lot of DPs with some time on their hands... Anybody know any good bars where out-of-work / between-jobs Cinematographers like to hang out in LA? I figure we can all commiserate and buy each other rounds. C.

OK, I have that book. Great resource, I wish there were more like it with explicit diagrams. I'll check out that chapter. It just seemed like the color of the light was different, but maybe I'm reading too much into it. thanks C

There are some interior scenes from Cronenberg's recent films History of Violence & Eastern Promises (History of Violence in particular) that have a striking look that I'd like to try to identify. The characters will be in say a living room, standing more or less in the middle of the room, away from the walls. Their faces will be well illuminated but their surroundings (walls, floor, etc.) have this kind of muddy, muted look. Like a Rembrant or something. I was wondering if anyone has any ideas as to how they did this? I know the walls must be underexposed but it looks like there's something more at play there. It's the color of the background as much as the lower illumination. Thanks!

I think it has come to the point in my career where I need to buy a color temp meter. Filmtools has the Gossen color pro 3F for $1350 new but I saw the same one or nearly the same one for around $450. Two Questions: What brand / type of meter would people recommend? Is it a bad idea to get one used? Sorry if this has been discussed before, I tried to search for it but couldn't narrow my parameters so I got hundres of postings. thanks in advance! Christian Janss

I'll be shooting inside a short pedestrian tunnel and it needs to look black on the inside leading out to blown out light outside. Kind of like a near death experience of entering the "light". I'm planning to shade as much light out of one end of the tunnel, to keep the inside as dark as possible, and shoot the other direction where the sunlight will spill in. I'd like to do something that will decrease the latitude of Kodak's 250D or 50D (this will be on 16mm) so the light will really blow out and the darks will stay dark. Does anyone know any tricks that will do that? Thanks folks- Christian Janss

One more question/issue. I plan to test the steps in my previous post. I read in one of David's other posts that a good way to do a pull/push test is to do three tests: normal exposure / normal process one-stop over / one-stop pull 2/3-stop over / process normal What would you recommend to include in the frame? I was thinking of using a white subject on a dark background and vica verca, one ext. & one int., and maybe include something red too since I've read pushing/pulling effects the reds. Any other ideas/recommendations/things I should test for? thanks again, Christian

So, there is a lot of information here, thanks to everyone for contributing. I have one question that I hope will be fairly simple, if I have my vocab mixed up I apologise, please correct me. This much is clear; pushing/pulling only happens in the bath, and for the entire roll. But as I see it there are different ways to get that pulled/pushed stop(s). The common way is to expose the film one stop over or under the recommended ASA (i.e. set the meter to 1000 or 250 for 500T), then tell the lab to push or pull one stop. They will leave the film in the bath for either more or less time as appropriate. But, what would happen if you exposed the film normally (rating 500T at 500ASA on the meter) but then asked the lab to push or pull one stop? Would the outcome be the same as adjusting the exposure on my end (i.e. in camera by changing the meter's ASA setting)? Also, what about exposing the film one stop over or under (again, set the meter to 1000 or 250 for 500T) but have the lab just develop normally? I'd imagine that the film would look either over or underexposed and basically look like a mistake. Or am I missing the point... Is the key to pushing/pulling, returning the film back to the recommended ASA via time in the bath? Would pulling/pushing when not originally over/under exposing make any sense in the real world, or am I just over-complicating things? As a side note, since most labs won't push/pull more than one stop, this could be a way to get a two stop pull/push by rating the 500T as 1000 then telling the lab to "pull"(?) one stop (this is where my vocab may break down, I don't know if I'm using "pull" correctly). I guess that's a lot more than one question, but thanks in advance. Christian

I know this is far off topic, and may be asking to reveal too much, but... David, how did you manage to get on two and 1/2 features a year doing freelance? That seems a remarkable feat. I've been looking on LA Craigslist, Mandy, etc. and all I see are shorts (where they want you to have your own HD camera and work for $100/day) and only the occasional feature. I know you have to start small, and I have absolutely no problem with that, but 25 features in 10 years is a damn fine thing. I'm not asking for a whole life story, or a "how to succeed in Hollywood" lecture, but tossing a few tidbits and advice would be very much appreciated. And of course if anyone else has some input please reply. thanks mucho- Christian

This is a good post, I have a question about flagging, too. I've read interviews where DPs have referred to adding flags to remove multiple shadows caused by using multiple lights, like when blasting many high wattage lights thru windows. How is this done? Is it possible to really get rid of multiple shadows when using multiple lights? They usually are complaining about having to do it, or are trying to avoid it, so it must take time and is probably not the best tactic, but I'd just like to know if it ever comes up. thanks Christian Janss

Well I for one liked it, both films. But then again I've seen nearly every euro-Zombie flick in existence, and I still think fast cars are cool. Technical Question: How did QT get the very heavy crushed blacks on Death Proof? As I under stand it he shot on 35mm but some of the shots in the Austin bar in the first half have a look like 16mm blown up. The blacks in the shadows and the girls' hair are really rich & deep. Some of the colors are really striking too. Did they pull the film like a stop or two? I just thought that scene really captured what it's like on a hot wet night down south, bravo. CJ

So I've got the I-cuff. And I'd say I'm not totally happy with it. I haven't actually tested it shooting a roll yet, but I'm not confident that it would block 100% of the light. It seems like there needs to be a more adjustable side wall to fit to the side of the face, like some felt or something. As it is, the shape is roughtly a square and the side that fits along your temple is too rigid to shape itself around the glasses. But the second problem is that it doesn't stand up off the eyepiece with enough rigidity, so if you press your temple to the side, or if you push your eye down onto the cuff, to try to create a light-tight seal the whole cuff just collapses down onto the eyepiece. Again, I haven't actually tested a roll with it, but for the timebeing I'm just adjusting the diopter to fit my naked eye (which it just barely fits). The thing with that is that I have to keep taking my glasses off. I think I'll just have to go under the lazer one of these days.