Saul Rodgar

Operating off a monitor has pros and cons. I only do it if I can't look through a VF (jib shot, etc), or if it is a video camera and the VF is a pain in the ass to operate off of. RE fast stocks on bright light, what I usually do is rate, expose and pull process the stock 1-2 stops, which helps tame the grain and reduce the ND filter factor to help operate off the VF. In my experience, a 500 ASA stock exposed at 125 ASA (2 stops for pull processing) in bright daylight without the use of ND becomes a lot more manageable once other filters (color correction, ND and polarizer) are added to the mix than merely exposing and processing it normal and having to add massive amounts of filtering that would darken the VF to uncomfortable degrees, as you have experienced.

The grain structure of pulled film is generally tighter than normally exposed and processed footage. The stocks you want to use are lower contrast stocks to begin with, and the 12 is the tightest grain stock currently in production as far as I am concerned. I have pulled 7205 2 stops and it looked nice, sharp and very low contrast. I increased the contrast in post, so if I showed you the results, it would not be indicative of how it looked off the negative. I have not pulled 12-17, but I would expect them to behave somewhat similarly to 05. I would not use a low con filter with the pulled stock, unless you have done testing beforehand. I would also shoot exteriors without a polarizer filter, for less contrast.

My understanding is that the Viper uses a 3 ccd block, therefore a PL mount lens image would be out of focus due to flange focus issues if used on that camera, or any other similar prism camera. Try B4 mount Digi primes, or as a somewhat less desirable option, a 35mm adapter.

Forgot to mention we were using HDX900s.

I operated on a show last year where we were filming inside of a moving bus. At my suggestion, we hung the cameras with bungee cords from the overhead rails and the seats below and operated sitting on the bus seats. The director was sort of pleased with the resulting shots then --they were nixed later in post-- and we moved on to straight hand held camera work, which ended up being used in the edit.

It does seem odd. Also, the addition of a front of lens filter would also need stop compensation, making it more cumbersome for studio filming than electronic white balance, and I can't imagine anyone setting up green screens outdoors. I prefer blue screen than green screen for chroma key for a number of reasons, but I can't figure why anyone'd want to use the 85 filter with green screen.

Words of wisdom, if we only had more of that on set sometimes . . ! Camera department can be a drama-laden place to work, most of the time unnecessarily.

I agree, camera operating is one of, if not the best job on set. One gets to go home early, arrive on set fresh and well slept, the DP deals with all the on set politics, the assistants deal with all the camera gear and the camera dept drama. Then, as David suggests, one can learn tons by virtue of just being there, in the thick of it. Need I add that operating is loads of FUN???!!! Cam op = dream job!

I would advise anyone having these issues to be really careful. Disclosure, I am not a tech. That said, first thing I would do is try the motor with a 12V battery, and see what happens, i.e. process of elimination. If it works correctly I would use it with a 12V battery only. If it continues to act up I would check the green 9 pin connection Bernie alludes to or ship it to the ACL tech of your choice before attempting to use it again. Several years ago, I had a similar problem with a CP mod ACL motor (8-48 fps) paired to its recommended 12V battery. The electronic board fried immediately (with smoke coming out of the motor) after the first 5 seconds of the camera running wildly, but I couldn't make it stop once it ramped up after the 2-3 second. It ran for about 15 seconds after smoke came out of it, but then it was dead. There was a short circuit on the board, triggered by who knows what. It cost me $400 plus to fix it, and for a while it was uncertain if it would be fixable at all, since parts for these cameras / motors are hard to come by.

Why, that sounds like a lot of us . . . But, Glen, why is it so hard to believe that they just couldn't afford to stay in business anymore. Why the continuous "something smells" suspicion?

The one suits your needs best. That is impossible for anyone else to answer for you. A lot of reading and poking around on the internet will help. Try editing and post production forums, that is where you will have best luck.

My understanding is that Scarlet's 2/3" chip would need the 2x squeeze to work best, if the sensor can be unmasked top and bottom (from 16x9 to 4x3), that is.

There's good stuff there. I like the jelly fish images a lot. The last shot and the macro work are really good. The only thing I would do is put more people (and / or stronger) shots at the beginning, soon after the jelly fish. To me, it slows down and takes a while to pick up between the jelly fish shots and some of the stronger material towards the middle. I would re arrange it so that it doesn't seem like that, unless that is your absolute intention.

Apparently, (and I have read this not so subtle hint by several people now) the answer to your question depends where you post it. If you post the question here on cine.com, very clearly, the answers will be: shoot film. However, if the question is posted on reduser, then . . . well, you understand.

London also boasts one of the highest concentrations of CCTV cameras in the world. It seems old George Orwell was not so wrong after all. http://londonsentinels.blogspot.com/

While I agree with the above responses, part of the allure of x-processing and alternative processes is the sometimes unexpected results. Obviously this could spell disaster if the powers that be hate the results, hence the reason one should test, test, test . . . But then again, that is how a cinematographer learns: by experimenting. The trick is trying to not doing it when the stakes are so high, which they seem to be in this case.

For out-of-the-box native editing of "exotic" formats (Panasonic P2, XDCAM, RED, AVCHD), the only game in town is Premiere CS 3-4. It definitely lacks the film editor refinements of AVIC and FCP -- but for those who use said formats, its a very strong contender in the crowded field of NLEs.

Remember when nearly all decent-budget productions were shot on film?

My simplest explanation for US-centrism is: "If you lived here, you would understand." :P Seriously now, I agree, definitely there are some awesome looking pictures from around the world. Too many to list though . . .

They sure are Bruce, I am expecting an XL1 style camera with a larger sensor anytime now. Apparently, Red (among others) have been caught by surprise by the advent and popularity (and price point) of these DSLRs, so much so that it looks like the Scarlet is gonna be radically different once (and if) it is released to counter that threat. Talk about stealing one's thunder. Also, there is a Canon to Panavision lens adapter floating about, for those feeling the Panavision lens love: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=11...739&p=25635 http://blog.planet5d.com/2009/04/panavisio...non-5d-mark-ii/

I am sorry. I didn't mean to imply that the EX1 or HVX170 were the only alternatives. Panasonic has the new AG-HMC40, which retails for about or under US $2,000. It uses AVCHD compression (which Premiere handles natively, BTW), so if you edit on FCP, I would stay away from it. Canon, JVC and Sony all have pretty decent HDV cameras in that price range. Ultimately, you have to ask yourself what you want to do with the camera. Stealth, versatility (great stills, OK HD video), ability to use existent still photo lenses and a larger sensor for super shallow depth of field are the pros of the 7D. It's cons would be the somewhat exotic codec (at least for editing), the fact that it was not designed to be (or replace) a primary video camera, focus-pulling issues, smaller recording intervals and the fact that the image is not "true" 1080. If you can live with the trade offs, then go ahead. Here are some comparison 5DmkII, 7D and Red One tests shot by Adrian Cranage, so you can get an idea of what this camera looks like in a controlled environment: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=43077

Wow, now I am really impressed. Good job!

A couple of quick points: As posted on these boards, the 5D and 7D aren't true 1080 cameras. Also, they shoot H.264 video, so depending on your editing software, you may have issues there. IRC you can only shoot in 15 minute increments on these DSLRs. And some get very hot in hot weather and shut down before you can shoot anything. Focusing issues will be a problem, especially for people moving up from 1/3" chip video cameras, like yourself. Trying to get good focus off of a larger sensor by looking at a 3 inch monitor can be challenging at best. I try not to think of these cameras as replacing true video cameras. They are really hybrids --and they are great at that, despite serious limitations-- but they weren't designed to replace video cameras. I wouldn't get a 7D and expect it to replace a HPX 170 or EX1, say. They are more complimentary systems to each other, IMHO.

That is where I saw it. Looked for it online, but couldn't find it in the AC archived articles . . .

I agree wholeheartedly. However, it very often feels that film vs video is a battle for Hegemony or Survival (to use Chomsky's title). And that is a real shame. I, for one, am not getting rid of any of my film cameras in the hopes that I can convince producers that it is a viable format. That said, for us bottom feeders, production is always looking at the proverbial "bottom line," and that is where film falters . . . And yes, would I love a digimag for my Aaton!!!