Christian Janss

First, I do understand the difference between incident and spot metering, generally, incident readings give an over-all measure of the light falling on the dome like that falling on a human face, spot readings give a precise measure of exactly how much light is bouncing off the subject/object and hitting the lens. My problem is that I'm confused as to which reading to go by when measuring the same subject, or piece of the subject. I may be overly obsessive about this but it's been bugging me for a while. For example: There have been times when I'll take an incident reading from right under a light at height X, and then a spot reading of a person's face (say the person's illuminated cheek), also at height X, and the spot reading will be 1 or even 2 stops above the incident reading. People have always told me to go with the incident reading, since it better approximates the human head, but I'm wondering if the spot reading is more accurate since it measures the precise area I'm looking at (i.e. if I wanted to expose for the highlight on the cheek) and it also takes in to account the distance of the camera from the illuminated object. Would the answer be different if we weren't talking about a subject's head, say a chair or something less round and dome-like? If for example, if someone is wearing a dark shirt but has pale skin. An incident reading would give you an overall exposure but a spot reading would give you a more accurate idea of the difference between the shirt and skin. (This could be the same for a light picture hung on a dark wall) And if the incident reading is best, should I just use the spot reading to get an idea of the relative ratios that different areas of the frame have as compared to other areas, and not for the actual f-stop readings? Or should I just not use the spot meter option at all unless I'm only measuring a perfectly flat surface. Anyway, these questions keep bugging me. I don't want to rely on my meter as a crutch, but I don't feel like I can let it go until I've understood this. Any clarification would be much appreciated. thanks Christian Janss

The i-cuff, that's what I was looking for. Thanks. I ordered one so I'll let you know if it works or not. C.J.

I wear glasses and have had trouble tollerating contact lenses lately. I know there is an attachment out there that allows you to wear glasses and look thru the eyepiece without light leaking in, but I can't remember the name or who makes it. Does any one here know? thanks Christian Janss

One funny-but-not-that-informative one was from Soderbergh on The Limey, the write constantly complains how these minor characters didn't have enough backstory and Soderbergh finally just gives up defending himself. One second thought, not so much funny, more just depressing... Can anyone list some that are heavy in specifically DP/shooting/lighting information? One I saw was in a special feature on American Beauty (Hall does little things like highlighting roses and little pools of light in depressing offices). -Christian Janss

Tim: I have an Arri S/B and I love it, but I don't want to be restricted by the 4:3 ratio. I want to shoot an upcoming project on regular 16mm film (hopefully for cable distribution), but I'd like to keep my options open for a 16:9 / HD format. I plan to use a slow ASA (50 or 200) so grain won't be much of an issue. I have two questions regarding framing thru the viewfinder: 1. Specifically for the Arri S, how exactly do you use scotch tape to show you the 16:9 area of the 4:3 box? Do you have to take the eyecup off and tape or do you tape over the lens shade? How do you know if you've got exactly 16:9, or do you just take a rough guess? 2. If you are shooting for 16:9 and you accidentally frame too low say, can you avoid cutting off the actor's head by cropping a little less off the top and a little more from the bottom for that one take/scene? Or would that mess up the whole cropping process? Basically, are you committed to cropping equally from the top and bottom or can you make a sliding scale adjustment to give a little flexibility to the frame? But this may beg a broader question, specifically, if I choose to frame for a 16:9 image and it turns out I still use the full regular 16mm 4:3 ratio, won't it look a little funny to have massive space between the actor's head and the top of the frame? So, basically, once I choose to frame for 16:9, scoth tape or no scotch tape, I'm committed to it, right? While I fully appreciate how fear and confusion about the aspect ratio question can be used as a crutch by those hesitant to shoot their project for other reasons (i.e. weak script, lack of commitment, etc.); concern for these issues should not be misinterpreted as "stalling" -- a charge I would resent personally. In this uncertain age of the emerging HD paradigm shift, resolution and aspect ratio issues have the potential to derail an otherwise perfectly good project. Especially for those of us who are committed to, and love, shooting on film. One must to be careful about these details, especially on a tight budget. Thank you very much in advance for all your help. - Christian Janss

I got fired for something like that once. So it may be best to keep your opinion to yourself...

I'm trying to find an equation that links lumens output and the corresponding t-stop. I'll be using 200 ISO film and I'm trying to determine what type of projector I'll need to use to get a certain t-stop on a screen at about 10' - 12'. If anyone knows where I can find this info on the net I'd be much obliged, I don't have access to a cinematographer's manual. thanks.

We'll be shooting a screen with a 16mm film projected onto it. The projector is just a run-of-the-mill projector so it doesn't have any timing adjustments on it. I'll be shooting super 16 on the XTR prod. What is the best way to adjust the camera to ensure that the shutter isn't cutting off too much of the projected image? Some options I've come up with are: 1. Undercranking -- Shoot slower than 24 fps to have the shutter open long enough to get more of the projected image onto the neg. Problem -- the projected image will be moving faster than normal, but I may be able to live with that if it's not too jarring. 2. Trim the Shutter -- the XTR prod has an adjustable shutter, I read in another post that some one set the shutter to 210 degrees. That would give more light to the neg but would it help with timing to the projector? Also, as a bonus, both of these would help since I need to squeeze more light off the projector's screen. Any help would be much appreciated. thanks- Christian

Yah, I think the rear projection stuff is too complicated for this. But I have ordered a brighter screen, it's glass beaded and puts out a rating of 2.5 gain (as compared to a 1.1 gain from matte white). If that's not enough I'll have to rent one with a xenon bulb. I have a line on one here in Philly, but I'm afraid it will cost a pretty penny to rent. Be that as it may, thanks a lot for the advice. As far as timing the projector to the camera, could I do that by undercranking the camera? That would make the projected image look speeded (spead?) up but would it ensure that the camera shutter didn't block out the projected image (or at least not block it out too much)? I just read a posting where they trimmed the shutter to 210 degrees, what would that do? An added bonus of these approaches would be to bring in more light, which I need anyway. Which will be all the more tough since the director now demands we use 200 asa as opposed to the original 500. yikes.

First, thanks a lot for the recommendations, I'm on the search for a more powerful projector or bulb. The projector I tested is basically the old kind they have in high schools, a Bell & Howell (I think) with a 750w bulb. It can be relatively close to the screen, say 6' - 8', but even then I'm not getting much out of it. Question: Where can I find a "3M scotchlite screen"? For rent? (I'm in Philly, but I can drive up to NYC for it if necessary) It sounds expensive, is there anything short of pro-quality rear projection I could substitute. Also, do you think B&W would help more than color?

I'm shooting a scene where a guy is watching a 16mm film projected onto a screen or white wall. I've done some tests and all I can get from the projector is about a T2.0 on the screen surface (read by a spot meter), using 500 ASA film. Question: How can I get more of an exposure off the screen? I'd like to have the screen one stop overexposed, say at a T4 or ideally at a 5.6. The thing cutting down the light the most is the lens of the projector, but without that the film can't be focused or even projected very well at all. I was thinking of using B&W print that was overexposed, but I can't think of any other tricks to do... any suggestions will be much appreciated. thanks Christian Janss By the way, I'll be shooting on Super 16.