Saul Rodgar

I am not sure what you mean, like a 35mm adapter on an 8mm camera without the actual 8mm camera lens?? :huh: Never heard of a way to bypass the camera lens. Regardless, the biggest problem you will have is, whatever you are using cannot be too heavy or you risk breaking your adapter or the camera.You see, C-Mount was not designed to hold large, unwieldy and heavy lenses. You'll be better off getting a set of support rods, and although they can be expensive, they make it a lot safer when using large and heavy lenses / adapters. I had an Angenieux 15-150mm zoom on C-Mount for S16mm that was so large and heavy every time I used it I feared it would break at the threads at the slightest knock or pressure, even with support rods.

Yes it will work. I am assuming you will be using 35mm lenses on it, since 16mm M42 lenses are quite rare these days. The only difference is that the field of view of your lens will be half as wide as in 35mm mode. So if your 35mm lens is a 50mm one, your 16mm FOV will be roughly 100mm.

The tarantula featured crawling along the miniature set at the end of the night vision video is hilarious. Like a cheesy 50's B-Movie.

Hey, maybe they'll even produce some more 3 strip Technicolor movies, wouldn't that be grand? A pipe dream in every way, to be sure. But then, not even the largest Monstro sensor could compare to the quality of 3 strip film film production ;) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_en_...echnicolor_gift

Thanks for posting, David. As Adrian suggests, we suspected that the EX1-3 would win hands down on sharpness vs the Canon 550 DSLR. But it is nice to see side by side comparison. Perhaps the Canon DSLRs wouldn't match the sharpness of RED, but it could maybe match 3 perf 35 mm (in terms of sharpness only). Some people who are routinely using the 5D and 7D in professional settings, most notably Shane Hulbut, ASC, hint as one of the main reasons they use them is not necessarily their sharpness --but the softer more film like quality to the image, digital artifacts, picture limitations and tight post options notwithstanding.

For the record: Disk Utility handles somewhat simple hard drive repairs. For more complex repairs, Alsoft's Disk Warrior rules unchallenged.

What I like about Disk utility is that it is a dedicated one-task-at-the-time app, unlike the Finder which does many things at once. It was specifically created by Apple to handle hard drives, form repair to creating mirror disk images. So far it has not let me down, the Finder has. If the Finder gets over whelmed by other tasks, it is likelier to botch up a file transfer than Disk Utility. From wikipedia: A disk image is a single file or storage device containing the complete contents and structure representing a data storage medium or device, such as a hard drive, tape drives, floppy disk, CD/DVD/BD and key drive, although an image of an optical disc may be referred to as an optical disc image. A disk image is usually created by creating a complete sector-by-sector copy of the source medium and thereby perfectly replicating the structure and contents of a storage device.

I'm pretty sure it was in the compare file size mode. It was also set for fastest verification. It did not warn of the problem. the Log text file was fine. I caught it because, since we weren't on set, I tried transferring the files to FCP, where it gave me a "Invalid Format" warning. So, we were able to look for the card (which its always id'd by serial number on the backup), and go from there. The reason it was on fastest verification mode is because it takes long enough as is, if it took any longer I would rather use Disk Utility --which does take longer--but like I said, it has never failed me.

As Phil says, the key to success is verifying the transfer. Which in the case of oft chaotic on-set circumstances is easier said than done, unfortunately. A piece of software called Shotput Pro allows to back up to several hard drives at once. The software allows one to choose formats, like SxS, P2, Red, Canon 5D, etc. It is $90 to buy online, and it gives you plenty of control and a log of your transfer at the end of the card back-up process. However, it is not fail proof. Recently, we were transferring a bunch of P2 cards to hard drive with it, but one of them failed without the software warning us about it. It was caught before the card was reformatted, so we were safe, but we weren't on-set. But it is certainly something to be aware of. On Macs, I like the Disk Utility app for creating .dmg's, it has never failed me.

Short answer: ADR. At 25dB, the SL is not too bad. There are noisier cameras, to be sure. It really depends on the specifics of your scene. However, inexperienced filmmakers can and will overlook the importance of good clear sound at final cut stage. I see it all the time. If the camera self noise, as picked up from the mics, is distracting from the scenes in post, it must be fixed. Audiences are very unforgiving with poor sound. If one is in doubt, as you seem to be, it is safer to make sure that it won't be a problem later, when it will cost more money to fix. So if there's any doubt, I would ADR it in post and get stellar sound. A short shouldn't be to terribly hard to ADR, as long as you have the scratch on set sound recording.

Maybe you could tell us what model of Canon camera you are using?

Seriously now, thanks for posting. At minute 1:51 of the comparison video, where the gentleman is sitting at the table, the top image (MX) is set to 3200 ASA while the bottom one is set at 800 ASA. The top image (MX) exhibits some weird halation like artifact at the top, directly above the man's head. Any idea why this is? Otherwise, the MX image grabs look much cleaner noise-wise at higher ASA values.

"All of cameras now upgraded with Mysterium X sensor. NOW" Is that film speak for "All your base are belong to us?" :P

If the camera is anything like the HPX-500 and HDX900, then yes. But you will likely need to use Firewire 400, unless they changed the computer ports on the 502. If your computer has PCMCIA capabilities then you can insert the card into the computer directly and bypass the camera or similar interface (P2 Store or Viewer, etc). I don't use Windows, so I can't advice further.

<_< That is all the info you can post so that other people help you?

Yes, you do not give enough info on your project, film format. You do say it is your first experience shooting film. If that is the case, have you ever shot any still film? do you know how to use a light meter? etc. etc.

Technically, I agree. Wholeheartedly. However, what I meant is that RAW may not be the best choice for every type of project out there. As you know, it is up to the director, DP and producers to choose the best format for the project at hand based on cost, conditions of filming, post-processes, audience delivery format, etc and not necessarily RAW for the sake of RAW. Just like one would not necessarily film every webisode project on 70 mm film, RAW recording may not the best choice for them either. As an extreme oversimplified example, it's a bit like the joke of the webisode cameraman who is turns up to set armed with an iPhone for filming and when questioned by the stunned direcor, he says "Well, most people are going to watch this on an iPhone, so might as well film it on one!" ;)

Ultimately, that is the litmus test, if no one can see the difference, why argue tech specs until one is blue in the face? Also, does every frigging project out there really benefit from RAW recording? Let's face it, for projects other than movies that will be historically archived or digitally or traditionally projected, the answer very likely will be no. For bigger size recorders, but up to 10 bit 4:4:4 3D dual HD-SDI signal input capability, try some of these Wafian recorders. http://www.wafian.com/Products.htm

' . . .the astronauts, as they did in "Space Station 3D," acted as camera operators. They prove extremely capable. In fact, the American Society of Cinematographers should make these six men and one woman honorary members.' I wonder if these astronauts will start their own "Extra Terrestrial Camera Operators Union Local 2001?" :lol:

And a good assistant director / production dept. It is done everyday all over the world.

So you mean to tell me that despite rising from the dead, you, Stanley Kubrick (a highly experienced professional and award winning still photographer before becoming a film director) you don't know the answer to this question? :lol: Please change your alias to your real name as per forum rules. A double polarizer should only be used after extensive testing and as carefully as possible. Two polarizers in front of the lens, depending how they are positioned, could prevent most light from reaching the image plane, causing some serious underexposure. Try holding them in front of you and turning them slowly to see what I mean. Also you would need to add 4 stops to your interior restaurant exposure as compensation, making it very impractical all around The easiest thing to achieve what you want is to keep the camera at off to the side so as to not see its reflection in the shot while using one polarizer only. If the camera must be at a right angle form the window, then cover the camera, tripod and operator in black duvetyne or camouflage cloth or whatever is needed to make it blend to the surroundings outside the window while only using one polarizer. If the camera is positioned somewhere inconspicuous in the frame and movement is kept to a minimum, you should be able to keep attention away from it.

Personally, I considered myself a "filmmaker" for many years, doing pretty much everything myself. When working for other people I gravitated towards camerawork and tried to do only that professionally because one was supposed to do one thing and do it right.. Lately I am moving back into directing, DPing, animating personal and some professional short projects more and more just because it can be really streamlined process: I know what I want and I can do it mostly by myself, and it saves time, money and headaches. I can settle to be a DP only when there is enough money and talent to keep things flowing creatively, if the "director" is not very resolute or experienced and he or she is wavering, then things can get weird. As they say "power hates a vacuum". So it just depends on the circumstances surrounding each project.

With all due respect to Mauro Fiore, the Academy seems more interested in rewarding the technical advancement of the craft and not so much the artistic accomplishment of the entries. As I see it, it seems the digital modeling and compositing artists were pretty instrumental to creating the look of the movie, more so than grips and electicians are in non-digital animation projects. Sure, the Fusion 3D system is a breakthrough, or whatever, but best cinematography? I guess cinematography really is not what we have been used to anymore.

I will assume that nothing gets Jannard going worse than an old film camera manufacturing company's claims to true 4K video images from their equipment: "4K? Uncompressed? Bah! That is nothing, RED will soon come out with 16K sensors that will produce images with 30 stops of dynamic range and hard drives the size of matchbooks." "DPX? Are you kidding?? Why use an industry standard format when you can start from scratch and use a proprietary (heavily compressed) RAW format --an oxymoron if I ever saw one-- that people will have to decode at painfully slow speeds to use!!!" And on and on . . . :P

I seriously think it won't happen, certainly not this time around. National debt, government deficits, huge military spending, a tax cut-loving electorate, wishful thinking from the some on the left, disinformation campaigns from most on the right and political pandering from both sides makes it a huge liability for Obama and the Dems, as the news of the day illustrate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100304/ap_on_...h_care_overhaul After all, hey, it is America, where we all have the freedom to be unlucky enough to die like dogs curbside if we can't afford ever increasing insurance premiums! Let (traditionally heavily gov't subsidized) Capitalism REIGN!