David Cavallo

Apologies in advance for replying to a thread that's nearly five years old. How is the efficacy/strength of the HD Classic Soft affected when used with a S35 size sensor camera? I'm currently using 1/4 Classic Soft and 1/8 Classic Soft on a doc feature shooting on the Amira, and would like an option that's less strong than 1/8 for heavy backlight situations. (I realize 1/8 is very mild, but we would prefer to not shoot entirely clean.) Many thanks, David

Can anyone tell me if Arri SR magazines are compatible with the SR2 body? They seem to look the same as the SR2 magazines, but I know looks can be deceiving. Many thanks, David

I'm shooting a very low budget student film on Super 16 next week, which will be transferred to Digi-Beta. The director is looking for a soft, pastel, low-contrast look, so I've suggested either 7229 or Fuji Reala 500D 8692, two stocks I've shot before to achieve these types of results. The problem is the disparity in the locations; the one interior is a large church, with mostly daylight. And since the lighting package is abysmal--small tungsten fresnels that will require gelling to match the daylight--I'll need every bit of the 500s speed to make the location work. (I'm leaning towards the Reala because I won't need an 85, and thus won't lose the 2/3 of a stop; also, I'd prefer to work with no filtration with Super 16.) The other location, however, is an open field, which we'll be shooting in the summer sun, and either 7229 or 8692 will require some heavy NDs--which I am very reluctant to use--to get down to my planned shooting stop of T2.8/4. Any suggestions on a low-speed daylight stock that might match well with 7229 or 8692, so I don't have to use all those NDs? I wish I had the time and money to do tests, but there was barely money in the budget to upgrade from regular 16 to Super! Many thanks, David

I've finally tracked down all the footage from the shoots I've done over the past year or two and cut my reel. It looks good on a DVD, but we all know the reality is producers want to click on a link and learn all about you in 15 seconds or less...ha ha. Any advice on a good, reasonably priced solution for hosting my own website? (I thought about YouTube, etc. but the quality is just too lousy, and that sort of presentation isn't professional, anyway.) I plan on keeping it SUPER simple--a still on the main page, along with my name, e-mail and phone number, and a few navigation buttons to my reel, resume and some still photography. Anyone had good/bad experiences with any companies they can share? I can do basic-intermediate HTML coding as well as prep my media for web delivery with Final Cut . Many thanks in advance, David David Cavallo AC/Aspiring Cinematographer NYC Area

Thanks for the reply, Jason. With the DVX (or HVX) I guess I was thinking of actual hand-holding--I didn't even consider renting a shoulder mount (PS Technik makes one, I see from their website). Cradling hasn't been a problem in the past with a standard DVX/HVX--I've done a fair amount of handheld stuff with both cameras, with reasonably good results, sticking mostly with short focal lengths where I wasn't completely stable or balanced against a wall. But since it's not entirely comfortable to hold either the DVX or HVX in your hands for a long time--it can get real awkward after a few hours!--I'm guessing that the camera's balance with the PS Mini 35 adapter would be simply atrocious. As you point out, there's no real reason to do "shakey-cam" footage with 35mm format primes--the director wants the shallow depth of field--so I guess the only way to go is with the shoulder mount package. I'll have to look into it, and if I do shoot with it, I'll report back. Thanks again, David

My guess is that the weight of prime lenses and the small size of the DVX make this an obvious "no," but has anyone ever attempted handholding a DVX-100 with a P+S Technik Mini 35 adapter? Thanks, David

HVX Workflow CRISIS - HELP DESPERATELY NEEDED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scheduled to start a TV pilot today but producer, DP, AC have been holed up for nearly six hours last night trying to solve a massive HVX/Drive/Avid problem and are in DIRE need of help ASAP. We have FS-100 drives that have the latest firmware update (3.0.0.0040 etc), and 2 HVX cameras. We are importing into Avid Express Pro HD w/a Power Book G4 w/G RAID 2 500G drives. However, we CANNOT get useable footage from ANY HD mode. 1. 720p Native -- When transferring from the FS-100 (set to P2N), shooting 720/24pN to Avid, more than 1/2 of the MXF files imported get an error that says the audio and video clip lengths (MMF error? it's been a long night) don't match and the clips will not play. We have carefully followed all instructions on how to import into Avid (from this forum.) After hours searching on the web, reading the HVX book, Avid newsgroups and others, and consulting with our editor, we cannot come up with a practical solution. Our shoot is in jeopardy. (The User Bit is properly set to Frame Rate, too.) 2. We abandoned our hopes to shoot 24PN (it's a doc style shoot so P2 cards are out of the question--we don't even have any on set) and tried: 720p/24p (over 60 mode) -- the MXF files imported into Avid (set up as a 59.94 project) stuttered badly--totally unusable!! We tried creating a new project with different time-bases, but, of course, they don't match the clips, so they won't play. We then tried again and again. Same thing. Stutter. 1080i/24p - same result. Same result also when we played with time base. Will not play. So...now we have a system that has set us back several thousand dollars for the weekend that WILL NOT record any useable footage to our AVID system. Has anyone ever had this type of problem? To be clear--we've tried importing and reimporting, and going through almost every user setting in the cameras and the FS-100, but all to no avail. It's truly a nightmarish situation for all involved, and a large number of people are counting on us to shoot tomorrow! If anyone can help, please let me know. We are in the NY area, and will pass along the producers phone number if anyone has real answers. We are almost out of time. Thanks a great deal. --David Cavallo

Thanks, David. Is there a scene in one of the films you've shot that's a good example of this? It sounds like it's truer to the "actual" look of the fluorescent bulbs... Thank you, David

Starting production on a short next week and fluorescents are part of the equation in a number of scenes. I'll need to use a few approaches to deal with them and would greatly appreciate some advice. (I've read many informative posts but still don't have it down cold yet!) I'm shooting s16 7218 500T under cool white fluoros (and filling with a kino fitted with the same) and want to keep that dirty green look (it's a welfare office). Should I still be shooting with an 85 on the lens for the tungsten film? (Are cool whites true daylight balance, just with a green spike?) The dailies will be one light, so I'll make a note on the cam report to leave IN the green. (And shoot a grey card under tungsten light with full (?) CTB for a "white light" reference.) My thought is if it's "too much" green I'll be able to take some out in the final supervised tape to tape session. Any thoughts on that? Will skin tones get too magenta? I ask also because in another scene, I'm using a similar approach (augmenting cool whites with a kino filled with same) but simply want a bright institutional look (it's a waiting room) without the green, so I was planning on shooting the grey card under the greenish lights and having the lab time it all out. Again, wondering about skin tones... Last question--is there a big difference between "cool whites" and "deluxe cool whites"? Any thoughts on how to tell which is which in an existing fixture? What's more common? Just a note--there's a virtually non-exisitent budget for gels--I've barely receieved enough for a roll of diffusion!--so aside from my own small pack, I can't get large rolls to cover the overhead banks of fluoros and deal with the situation that way. Thanks, David

Wow, I really can't thank you enough for this, Tim! I believe those are exactly what the mags look like (I've worked as an AC with the camera a few times) and your diagram is incredibly clear. I believe you've saved me a tremendous hassle. Many thanks! -David

Tim, I'm not sure--I've just never read anything in the XTR manual or anywhere online that said it can be done. But if you're correct it will be tremendously helpful. Respooling film seems truly impractical. I'll look into it today. Thank you, David

OK, I've arranged it so we can use the camera for a few hours and shoot a few interior and exterior test shots. But because of the budget issue, I can only purchase 100' daylight loads of 7218 and 7279 for the test. And the camera is an Aaton XTR Plus, which obviously only takes 400' loads on a core in the magazine. So (and this might be a really dumb question, but I don't want to make any mistakes with only one shot at it)--is there a "safe" or feasible way of getting the stock off the 100' reel and onto a core--in the changing bag, but precisely how? As it's single perf, can it be wound properly from the daylight load onto a core without damaging the stock and keeping the wind the right way? I just can't seem to visualize it. Thanks again.

Obviously a rhetorical question, but still, absolutely not. I understand the tremendous importance and value of shooting tests. The problem isn't buying 100' of film stock and paying the small sum for processing and a print/transfer, but rather the camera. The director is a student doing his thesis film, and due to various problems (nonsense, really) with the school, he's been shut out of using their Super 16 package at the last minute. So now that the camera has to be rented, his budget is maxed--probably even over. I have asked repeatedly for funds for a test, all to no avail. I could probably get access to a standard 16 camera for free--an Arri S or a hand crank Bolex--but only with a beat up lens--would that tell me enough to make a realistic judgement? Just not sure. Nonetheless I will plead my case with the director. Now...anyone know where I can get a 100' load of double perf 7279? Sigh...

Thank you for the great information, Michael. I was basing my description of my planned post workflow on a conversation I had with a more experienced DP (who has worked with the same lab and a similar process) and I clearly I got the specs jumbled. (A little information is a dangerous thing!) If you could answer a few more questions on the process, I'd greatly appreciate it. Is a 2K scan only done to uncompressed data files for a DI, for an eventual finish on film? (Never to video, due to the limitations of video compression schemes?) Is an HD telecine done the same way as an SD telecine--Flying Spot Scanner--but at 1920 x 1080 instead of SD--with 4:2:2 HDCAM compression? If this isn't considered "real" 2K, what is the resolution (in mathematical terms, if possible), taking into consideration the compression? Finally, is HDCAM SR (4:4:4) the highest possible resolution one can finish at on video? Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, David

Thank you for the information, David. I am planning on both underexposing and pushing a stop and using an "available light" look (as well as the appropriate locations and art direction to control the palette, contrast and saturation). But based on what you've said, I'm now wondering if the grain structure of a modern 500 speed film (say, the Vision 7279, which I'm almost sold on) would be close to a 60s-70s stock like 100 speed 5247? Or, because I'm shooting S16 and not 35, should I actually shoot a slower speed film due to the significantly smaller negative area in S16mm? Unfortunately the production cannot afford to do ANY tests. (Except for my own pre-production stills, which are of no help in this regard.) [i suppose I'm thinking (perhaps incorrectly!) that since 35 has inherently much finer grain/resolution than the S16mm format, even if old 100 speed 35mm emulsions have much coarser grain structures than modern stocks, due to the format difference the new 500 speed 16mm stocks would still be noticeably grainier than older 100 speed 35mm emulsions?] Also, from your post I gather the lenses in the 70s played a role in the look too--would they be considered more contrasty or less contrasty than modern glass? Based on my stills, I think excess contrast will be a real burden when shooting in low-light. Do NYC rental houses (like Abel) stock old model primes? Thank you again for your advice.

Thanks for your informative post, Kevin. It's hard to tell from Kodak's site whether the stock has been "officially" discontinued--different pages on their site say different things--it's a bit confusing. But the specific link that led me to believe 7279 has been discontinued is: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.14&lc=en Nonetheless you are correct that it's still available from other sources, if not from Kodak itself--a quick web search turned up plenty. Regards, David

Thanks for your post--that's certainly a possibility. I've been carefully re-reading the great book 'Masters of Light,' which has interviews with so many of the greats of that era--Hall, Fraker, Roizman, Zsigmond, Kovacs, Chapman, etc.--and trying to see what, if any techniques the films with the "naturalistic" aesthetic have in common. But so far I've only come across only a couple of instances where flashing was specifically mentioned--Zsigmond's work on 'McCabe and Mrs. Miller' and 'Heaven's Gate,' and Haskell Wexler's work on 'Bound for Glory.' From what I'm reading pushing was far more common than flashing back then. Michael Chapman was once known to force process most of his work a stop or even two--I'm pretty sure he did it on 'Taxi Driver,' so that's what started me down that road. I guess I think pushing is a grittier look than the flashed films above, which seem softer and more diffused in some ways--they're all somewhat bucolic/western films that center on a 70s interpretation of various types of "Americana" (The Western, Guthrie) and that look suits that subject matter well. Of course all this refers to working in 35mm, which brings me back to my initial concern--how the S16 neg will handle a push. But recent conversations with the director lead me to believe he wants to err on the side of more grain and dirt, and not less, so I think I'll try it. --David

I'm starting pre-production on a Super 16 short set in NYC and the director and I have agreed that a raw, grainy, "realistic" look is appropriate for the story. (Although it's not a period piece, I'm thinking specifically of a number of films from the 70s as points of reference. They were all shot on 35, but are indicative of the style we're going for in a general sense: Panic in Needle Park, Taxi Driver, The Taking of Pelham 123, Mean Streets, The French Connection, etc.) Our budget includes funds for a 2K scan to HDCAM and tape-to-tape color correction. Our first concern has been carefully choosing locations that suit this look, and working to control the colors in the production design wherever possible. The coverage will be hand-held, done with mostly master shots. For lighting, I'm planning on shooting day interiors with a combination of natural light augmented with a large instrument or two through windows where possible and using minimal fill. Night exteriors will be shot almost entirely with available light (greenish store window flourescents, street lights) and no filtration. To faciliate this (and also because we want shallow DoF--not easy in 16, I suppose) we'll be shooting nearly wide open. (The AC has been warned in advance!) Taking these elements into consideration, can anyone suggest a film stock that might be a good fit for the project? Given the minimal lighting I'll be using and our desire for a good amount of grain, a 500 speed stock seems to be a necessity. I was initially considering several older stocks (7279, 7263) but they've been discontinued. Now I'm thinking one of the newer color-negative 500 speed Kodak stocks (7218 or the low-color, low-con 7229) could work, but having shot them before I'm concerned they might be too good--i.e. fine grained and have too much latitude--for what we're trying to do. (Unfortunately there is no money in the budget for a camera test--I know how much it would help!) I'm also curious about the possiblity of pushing the 7218 or 7229 a stop, as I know it can increase grain, and will also help us get a useable stop in the really low-light situations. Has anyone pushed these (or any 500 speed) emulsions, then finished to HDCAM from a 2K scan, and seen the results projected via DLP? Should I expect lots of grain? Tons of grain? (Recently I saw 'Half Nelson' projected--it was shot on S16, 7229, with a bona-fide film out via DI to 35. They didn't do any forced processing on that and it still looked pretty darn raw to me...) Finally, with Super 16 I'd normally think to overexpose about 1/3 of a stop for the telecine or about 2/3 of a stop for a print. But as I'm looking for a somewhat desaturated image, and assuming for now I won't be doing any pushing, should I instead rate the stock normally? Would underexposing by a 1/3 of stop be a mistake with Super 16, given the reduced negative area compared to 35? Or is it safer to expose normally or over-expose for a richer neg and control saturation in post? Thanks very much for any and all advice.

Thank your for your informative reply, Sasha. It seems entirely possible (perhaps likely) that the colorist did their best to, as you say, "play it safe." I'll try and answer some of your questions: - The telecine transfer was unsupervised--it's part of a process/telecine package the lab offers students. But I believe they do call this transfer "best light." - I shot Kodak color separation and grey scale charts (not a grey card, though I had one ready to go and didn't use it. I'm learning that it's very important!) These charts were exposed normal--my shooting stop was T2.8--and I lit them evenly to that stop at the head of each roll. - The decision to bleach bypass the negative was, ultimately, made by the director. Because we knew there was little chance of a blow-up to 35mm, and thus no IP or IN to bleach bypass, it seemed to him the best way to achieve the somewhat radical look he likes. (I'd presented various alternatives, and suggested caution--a test of the effect/stock--but no time or money for this was available.) - I don't know much about creating the look in the telecine, but it sounds completely possible, especially on the DaVinci console the lab uses. The concern now (as students) is lack of funds. Perhaps we'll try something in the desktop NLE--FCP has sophisticated contrast controls, I believe. - The reason I shot so flat with the 8683 was that I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) based on another DPs report, that the skip-bleach process vastly reduces your latitude, to the point that it's almost like reversal. So, I figured that if I lit in this flat fashion, I could rate the stock normally, with the bleach bypass I would get some pretty good contrast anyhow, as well as the desaturated colors and pronounced grain effect. What I wound up with--at least after the telecine--is a flat, dull image that looks to me like poorly exposed normal processing. Ouch. It's a little desaturated (but I think Eterna stocks are already pastel-ish, so it's hard to tell), a little grainy. The blacks ARE a little blocky, but not much else stands out about it. - We do have the negative. If I look at it on a light bench, what specifically should I look for? Density? Contrast? I've not done it before. I will certainly post any extracted still frames (before and after post adjustments, hopefully) as soon as I can. Thanks again, David

Thank you for your reply, Dominic. I've learned a great deal from your Film Technology in Post Production book, and appreciate your posts in this forum. (Just why I didn't consult the book's section on Bleach Bypass and Silver Retention before my shoot, I don't know...) But, no, I didn't give any specific instructions to the transfer colorist. The lab we're working with in NYC does consistently high quality work at all stages in the post process, but as students on a miniscule budget, there was no chance of affording a supervised transfer. And, to be honest, I didn't know precisely how to (or that I could) communicate with the telecine colorist. (It's a big lab, and as they're always doing large scale 35mm productions, it's easy for the little guy to get swept away in the rush.) I'd included some little instructions on the actual camera reports--i.e. "don't time out green filtration on this shot"--but not much else. Another DP I've consulted with reported that the lab in question, assuming that a final tape-to-tape grade will be done at their facility, does the first telecine transfer as flat as possible to preserve as much of the original negative as possible. All of this fits in with your post--makes sense to me. Many lessons being learned today! But now I need to figure out the most cost effective way to get some of those highlights back...perhaps with some NLE color correction tools that boost contrast, as the final project will likely be output from FCP to Mini-DV or DVD for screening. Thanks again, David

Just screened the dailies for a Super 16 short film I shot recently on Fuji Eterna 400T 8683, and was rather surprised by the results. We'd done skip-bleach on the negative at the lab (which was then telecined to DVCAM), and after hearing strong warnings from another DP/various cautionary postings online during pre-production, I'd been expecting (and had prepared for) a fairly radical look. Unfortunately, the dailies (projected from the tapes onto a large screen at school) didn't have the black blacks, blown-out highlights and heavy desaturation we'd been hoping for and been told about--in fact, the image is pretty flat and dull. (Regrettably, although I had strongly advised it, there had been no time and money for a test.) While the colors ARE a little desaturated, but this seems like a characteristic of the Fuji stock's soft pallete and the art direction, and everything else looks like a "normally" processed negative. Now I'm wondering if this is the fault of the way I exposed the film--if I was TOO careful. I rated the stock normally (400 on my meter) and, because of the warnings I'd heard, basically shot it as if it was reversal--where I wanted to retain detail, I kept things no more than 1/2 stop over key on my highlights, and no more than 2 stops under for my shadows. Of course if I know that if I'd been exposing this way for something that wasn't bleach bypass, the result would be a flat negative, low-contrast, and poor saturation--but with the skip-bleach shouldn't I be seeing something more extreme, even with this low-con lighting approach? Is it possible that the telecine colorist reduced the effect? Or that the lab promised something and didn't deliver? Unfortunately I can't yet post anything from the shoot, but here's a specific example: Shot a few sequences in a *white* bathroom, and lit with flat, soft light about 1/2 stop over my shooting stop of T2.8. I was hoping to lose detail on the white tile wall in the shower, almost blow it out, but instead I got detail--and a murky grayish wall. And in a bedroom, areas metered at 3 stops under (where I'd hoped things would go black) instead showed plenty of detail--heck, they almost look LIT. So, if anyone has had a similar experience, or can offer advice, I'd love to hear about it. The director and I are curious as to how we could have been so far off the mark with our intended look. We can certainly make adjustments in post on the NLE, it's not a catastrophe--things are flat enough that we could boost contrast in post--but it's not what the production paid for. Many thanks in advance, David

I'd read/heard in various places that if a scene is being shot with gels on the lights to create a specific effect, the gray card should be shot in white light (properly exposed, of course and preferably in front of the scene being filmed) as the colorist/timer will try and bring the reference gray card back to gray. For example: if I was adding, say 1/2 CTO to my instruments for a "warmer" look, and I shot the gray card under this light, the timer would attempt to "time it out" and make the gray card "gray," thus eradicating my on-set effect. Is this incorrect? In addition, the last time I was in the telecine suite (DaVinci) I watched the colorist make his quick adjustments for each roll based on a Kodak color separation chip chart. (There was no gray card, so perhaps it was the only way?) I'm curious if a timer would prefer to NOT have the chip chart--I always shoot one--and if so, what purpose does a color chart serve? Thank you, David

Hi David, How did you rate the F-400 for the negative skip-bleach? I just shot a Super 16 short using the Fuji Eterna 400T in which we are doing a full bleach bypass on the negative. I rated the stock normally (EI 400) but based on the advice of a colleague I was extremely careful on set to control the shadows (no more than 2 stops under unless I wanted BLACK blacks) and highlights (never more than 1/2 stop over except in the rare instance where blown out white was acceptable). I ask primarily because it appears most folks underexpose between 1/2 stop to a stop for any sort of skip bleach/silver retention process (and then light normally?) and I'm concerned that my approach was backwards. I really made it a priority to create minimal contrast and relatively soft light with carefully placed, but small hard accents that never went more than 1/2 stop over key. (I shot everything at 2.8 so I could use both my eyes and my meter most effectively in this regard.) In addition, art direction was carefully planned so tones would work well with the Eterna's soft pallete and the bypass's skewed color "sense." Of course I had strongly advised a test early in pre-production, and then warned the director that we MUST test as the shoot approached, but the time/money for the test never surfaced. I will confess that the script is a nasty piece (all night interiors, too) that lends itself to a harsh look, and that the director seemed pleased when I said "things might get ugly." (Jarhead's desert exteriors were cited as an extreme example of where highlights can go with a skip bleach.) And I had also advised the director that we find a lab that offered either a scalable bypass or some other silver retention process that wasn't as radical as a full bypass, but the director/producer stuck with DuArt in NYC, which only offers the full bypass. And because we're finishing on video--dailies are going to telecine with only a slight possiblity of blow-up to 35mm pending budget and other factors--I couldn't advise a bleach bypass on an IP or IN. I suppose I can take some solace in the fact that if the dailies come back terribly overexposed, the process (though somewhat costly) is reversible. But then I'd have a flat neg and some relatively dull lighting to contend with. Wish I'd had that test (or consulted this forum first)...sigh. Thanks, David