Jump to content

Saul Rodgar

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saul Rodgar

  1. I have not seen heat do that to image compression, but it could very well be it. Particularly if both your cameras were acting up. If that editor is worth his salt tho, he can cut around the nasty bits. Sounds like a prima donna editor to me. It's not like you were trying to mess up the footage . . .
  2. Looks awesome. An combination of a Penelope (the actual body) and a Dalsa Origin (the chip). No other video camera that I know of has an optical VF. That (among other things) should be the benchmark by which other pro video cameras are measured against when it comes to on-set functionality. By that standard only the Alexa and Panavised Sonys come close. And at "beyond 4k" probably only RED cameras cameras, maybe Alexa, come close. But instead of the heavily compressed RED "raw" footage one gets today, the Delta's SSD recording media, will actually enable one to record fully uncompressed files on board. Just its ability to be switched between film and digital acquisition alone will make it the best camera on the market, IMO. SWEET!
  3. Call Les Bosher, I don't think he recells batteries, but he is the ACL authority in the UK, so he will direct you where to go. www.lesbosher.co.uk
  4. You did a good breakdown of the pros and cons of the two camera systems. The A-Minima ((A-M)) is a very nice modern film camera, but besides the price, it has a big disadvantage over the ACL --which I own and love, despite it's 30 years in use and its general quirkiness-- namely the A-M requires its own special A-winded film, which it is generally harder to find and more expensive than the B-wind used by all other cameras. For some of us, this is a big thing, since re-cans of B-wind film are infinitely easier to find than A-winded re-cans. Given your choices, I'd go for the ACL with the fast glass and spend the difference in actual film and telecine. In North America, techs like Bernie O'Doherty and others will keep any of these old and newer cams purring along, so fear not. BUT if you must consider an Aaton, have you priced LTR or XTRs? I have a fairly earl model LTR in addition to the ACL that I also really like, again, it being really quirky and in need of pampering, even more so than the ACL, really. But later model LTRs and XTRs are more reliable and a joy to shoot with hand held. Not to be overlooked, Arri SRs are getting really cheap of late, and they are great reliable cameras, if less "hand-held friendly" than the LTR/XTR Aatons. It really is a buyers film camera market out there, it has been for the last several years. You may want to keep on doing research, you'll thank yourself for it later.
  5. Truth is, while most ACL mags are interchangeable, it depends on the actual magazines themselves. There are plenty of minute factory variations / 3rd party modifications that I have seen. I have never encountered two completely identical mags aside from a few ones bearing sequential serial numbers, eg. 0001, 0002 or mags belonging to a kit. Some fall of easy, and some munch on film, or make spaghetti on the take up side, etc. I'd have a reputable tech look at them before you film so you can get the best out of them.
  6. I'd get a Beachtek adapter, they make one for HDSLRs: http://www.beachtek.com/dxaslr.html
  7. Yes, title didn't help. But here I thought we'd read something we HAD NOT read before . . . Instead we get Jannard's puffy ego drivel: "Like 65mm film. Better." As usual. YAWN! At the end of the day, Red remains a manufacturer of cameras that have a place in productions but do not slay any other technology. No one can fault Jannard for being a good marketer of his products. We've said it before, we'll say it again: One is best to choose a Red if the camera is the best tool for the job at hand. Here is hoping everybody could move on and shoot some pictures with whatever camera suits our current projects.
  8. Amen to that. Finally we agree on something! We just need the couple of million of producers and execs around the world to think like that and we'll be set. B)
  9. Some of the shows that started on film are going to digital too. Crash was S16 originally and then moved to D21, but then Dennis Hopper died, so that was that. In Plain Sight has also reportedly gone (or is going) to HD from S16, but I can't confirm that.
  10. And here I just got rid of all my film equipment and was planning to buy digital-camera-industry stock. :o :angry: :D
  11. Yeah, unfortunately the filmmaking group-think is bigger sensor / aperture is always better, when in reality few low budget / indie productions who dream about showing a print on 35mm on a 50 ft screen are prepared to deal with the focus pulling equipment and talent for acquisition on 35mm and larger film or video formats. A talented cinematographer / director team can get great "shallow focus" images on 2/3" or 16mm cameras.
  12. Several years ago, a friend of mine did a project that did that, but I think he used Technicolor (it is a ll a blur now). I'm not sure if they are still doing that, I couldn't find it on their website. The results are usually good, but it really depends on your source material and the method used to transfer to film -- particularly, if the footage has a lot of blown out highlights, you'll never recover detail there, and it'll look well, like crappy video. There are these guys, which seem to have a good track record: http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm Alternatively, you can do it yourself with a sync film camera, a steady tripod and a decently calibrated LCD HDTV. Do a test before you commit to it, tho. I have done it with good results, and there was a movie released 5-6 years ago called Nine Songs whose print was screened at festivals in Europe using that method. Some of us discussed the subject somewhat extensively a few years back on these boards, including the DP for Nine Songs. I'd search the archives if you want more information about it.
  13. You certainly are not giving enough information about your project. Is it HD or SD? Interlace or progessive, etc? So from in general terms: If you have a version of DVD Studio Pro 4, you can burn an HD DVD from it, but that is not a broadcast standard, not even a consumer playback standard, and you can only play it back on a Mac with certain hardware and software specs. "In April 2005, Apple updated DVD Studio Pro to support authoring HD content. DVD Studio Pro 4 allows for the burning of HD DVD content to both standard DVDs and HD DVD media (even though no HD DVD burners were currently available for Macintosh). For playing back HD DVD content burnt to a standard DVD, Apple requires a PowerPC G5, Apple DVD Player v4.6, and Mac OS X v10.4 or later." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Studio_Pro Pro Res encoded DVDs (playable on standalone DVD players) are impossible to achieve since Pro Res is a variant of the DNxHD Avid codec and HD DVD uses Mpeg2 and Blue Ray uses Mpeg2, AVC and Mpeg 4 for encoding and playback. So there aren't Pro Res DVD players, standalone or otherwise. To summarize, Pro Res is not a distribution format, it is only an acquisition / editing / post production format, not designed to be released for public consumption as such. If you need to come up with a broadcast / archival version of your (HD) project, output to a (rental) Firewire deck, something like a Panasonic AJ-1400 DVCPRO HD deck. Or you can take your (SD or HD) Pro Res movie on a hard drive to a local post production house for them to output to whatever (tape or disc) format you need it on.
  14. Yes, S16 charts will be very close. It will be a while before someone makes specifically-made charts for a newly developed variant of and old format that very few people use.
  15. There are at least now 7 full feature film crews ready to film anywhere in NM, that is just one state, mind you. Same goes for the soundstages. Big, shiny, and in foreclosure. I have personally heard it from producers who claim it was still cheaper to produce in NM than in Vancouver, notwithstanding the fact that NM does not have a big processing / post houses. That is why hundreds of movies were filmed in NM during the last decade in the first place. In 2007, I worked on some movies stateside that would have gone to Vancouver otherwise, so I am not sure if your theory works across the board. One thing the producers liked and explicitly mentioned about NM was the relative close distance to LA, and its year round filming (sunny) weather. On the minus side, the dearth of tall buildings and urban setting were the things they mentioned most. But NM did successfully compete with Vancouver mostly for nearly a decade. Until local conservatives and their politics of envy took the film credits away. You can "buy" talent cheaper if your funds originated in Canada. Same goes for the tax credits / exchange rate. If you are using US dollars, as most Hollywood films do, then you could lose in both counts, because you first have to get your US money to CDN to spend it in Canada and then back to US to take home, so if CDN is higher than US dollar, the profit could be minimal, if at all. And if the exchange rate is fluctuating between the two exchanges, that could be really bad or not good enough to be an incentive. If Canadians (anyone really) were smart, they'd start their own big scale funding for the movies they produce there and cut Hollywood studios completely out of it (except for the problem of distribution). I know that is what Richardson tried (and failed) to do: Build a homegrown industry, where the production money is local, so are the jobs, and therefore the profits. Alas, until there are truly independent film distribution channels, that is going to be hard to accomplish.
  16. The issue for most low budget people here really is the codec itself, not necessarily the chroma subsampling of the footage. Yes 4:2:0 footage can look really good if the codec that it is being recorded as can be handled properly by the NLE. Apple's Final Cut Pro (FCP) has generally been absolutely lousy at handling (transcoding) AVC based codecs, and given FCP's ubiquity in low budget post processes, this creates a big problem. FCP handles the 4:2:2 codecs a lot better, mostly because FCP was never future-proofed by Apple. Avid and, surprisingly enough Premiere CS (who would have thunk?), can handle just about anything that one throws away at them natively. In my experience, therein lies the difference between good looking 4:2:0 footage and lousy looking 4:2:0 footage.
  17. Gloating is never good. Particularly when the US and Canadian dollar parity is so close. If the Can dollar goes higher, things will start looking bad for all of you up there, incentives or not - especially when those same incentives can be found stateside.
  18. In Plain Sight and BB both look like they are coming back to town. Judging from the link, I guess it isn't quite as bad as it could be, yet . . . http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/abqnewseeker-mainmenu-39/25332-tnt-police-drama-to-shoot-pilot-in-abq.html
  19. Film production in New Mexico is in big trouble. Gov Richardson is out in January and the honeymoon is definitely over. The newly- elected (Republican) NM Governor campaigned hard against movie company tax credits. The state legislature also has been trying to get rid of them for a while. So the writing is on the wall: things are not good now in NM film production wise, but after 1/11 things are gonna look even more dire. I imagine film production will taper off to the 1 or 2 film productions per year that would set up shop in the state before the boom. With some multi-million infrastructure built at the height of the boom now sitting idle and at the verge of (or in) foreclosure, it is clear that people grossly overestimated the commitment of film productions to the state. Some other states that didn't gamble as heavily as hard as NM did, will be a lot better off. Those who didn't are now paying a heavier price. I hate to be cynical, but I simply couldn't imagine hard nosed Hollywood film producers committing or investing long term anywhere when history has shown repeatedly that since the late 80s they are constantly looking for the best bottom-line deal they can get, be it in California, NM, Canada or elsewhere out in the world. The days of filming solely in one given place for long periods of time seem to be over, for better or for worse.
  20. I know Ward Russell. He is interesting to work for. One thing that strikes me about him is how good cameramen who have done big budget blockbuster films sort of just go away quietly into the night, so to speak. Maybe it is due to the fact that he lives in NM as opposed to LA, but he really should be getting more features, I think. A couple of years back, he sold all or most of his camera equipment to a school in Kansas, IIRC. And I really haven't heard that he is working on bigger pictures. Last I heard he was doing mostly commercials or operating on TV shows, but even then he seems to work a few times a year. Sad really, because I don't think it is his preference.
  21. Yes, fast or high speed (200 ASA +) 16mm negative stocks will be plenty grainy, low contrast and with (generally) soft tonality, more or less depending on the brand and type of stock. If you really like grain, I still wouldn't push fast Vision 2 or Fuji Eterna 16mm speed stocks without doing a test first. They can get plenty grainy as is. Cheaper than shooting 35mm, but with obvious differences due to the smaller picture area: less resolution and more depth of field compared to 35mm on both counts.
  22. In terms of grain, it really depends what camera you shooting on. What you may want to do is to give depth to your shots, as opposed to just faces lit by torches surrounded by pitch black darkness. So generally speaking, bright torches and some distant daylight-balanced back lighting and a large fog machine go a long way for night-time forest filming.
  • Create New...