Saul Rodgar

Actually, I read somewhere that there was more digital footage used on the final version than film. Mainly because of all the TV segments, but also because it was easier for them to run around with the smaller cameras than the 35 mm ones.

I agree, digital isn't quite there yet. However I remember reading somewhere or by watching one of the "making of's" that they were quite pleased with the performance of the SI 2Ks. And they did win the top cinematography award with the digital and film combo, so it clearly, digital delivered. Just trying to be fair here and give due credit where is needed. That is what I hope happens, not that I get that feeling by reading Red User or similar forums, or by talking to 99% of younger film makers. And now, here in the US, at least most TV shows have gone digital after the strike wars of the earlier part of this year. So will see.

As a FCP current user and Premiere former user, I have to say Premiere is really a powerful and versatile app, so much so I am thinking of switching back, or at least using the two instead of just one. Premiere boasts native support for AVCHD, P2 DVCPRO HD, XDCAM and RED, etc. Try outdoing that, Apple. http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/supportedformats.html

Uh, oh. I don't think there is hate for digital here on these boards so much as push-back disdain for the (kinda also ran) medium that is near universally hailed as the "film killer." Particularly when it is clear to some of us not only is not quite there yet in terms of picture quality and overall image rendering but also in terms of archival longevity, etc. There is not doubt that digital technology is getting better and bigger all the time. Who knows, great engineers may soon come up with technology that offers better all around image performance than film (analog) technologies? Pictures such as Elswith's There Will Be Blood are testaments of how all-path analog film processes are still very much relevant. And yet, this year's Cinematography Oscar was given to a feature that was shot on film and HD. So, clearly, digital technology is here to stay -- yet I think it really needs to mature before it really overpowers film as the film making standard Hence, I would be tempted to call this the "Decade of the Contained Digital Cinema Onslaught." Question is, how long until film is completely phased out. Boy, that will be a sad day . . . My preference is that they both could co-exist in the future and be treated and perceived as merely another tool in the film makers' tool bag.

By D5 I assume that you all are referring to the Canon 5D mkII?

In terms of visual styles, yes, there is truly a sense of post-modernism, where everything goes and one movie or television show will have several different looks going on at the same time, going from one to another back and forth. I'm thinking movies like Traffic . . . In terms of sound, most American movies and TV shows all sound the same, loud, compressed and every visual special effect (from a punch to an explosion) is accompanied by a larger-than-life sound effect. I personally think that the C/U (close up) in modern TV and movies has become overused to the point of banality. Most scenes invariably use at least one C/U. It seems directors have lost the ability to tell a story within a scene using a master shot only, or is it being used as a crutch? Maybe this decade could be summed up as the Decade of CGI and over sized Sound Effects?

Indeed, that was the thing I neglected to mention. There is something to be said about renting lenses, and most cine gear, for that matter. One can get the right lenses for the project, and not be married to one set when another one could work best. "The right tool for the right job" type situation.

I don't see any info on what cameras were on the gear heads David Mullen and Chris Keth used. My experience with lower-priced camera support is that the camera weight sometimes needs to be just right for the camera support to operate smoothly. So the same tripod head may operate better with a fully-loaded ENG-sized camera, but now with a camera kit weighing 10 lbs less, and vice versa, sometimes despite specs. Perhaps this could be a similar case? I mean, the Film Tools website lists supported cameras anything from tiny 1/3" chipset cameras all the way to RED One and 2/3" ENG cameras, as well as lightweight 35mm and 16 mm cameras. And the weight limit on it is listed at 75 lbs. That is quite a range. So who knows where the "sweet spot" will be in terms of weight for the darned thing to operate properly. As David Mullen suggests, trying it out, especially with a similar kit as one intends to use on it, may be the best option here. Oh, and asking about the warranty on it may not be a bad thing either.

Good job overall. Looks really pretty too. I particularly like that it is silent. Did you shoot it on XDCAM?

Hmm, see, this type of post is unnecessarily feeding the flames of controversy and discord (trolling). Can we please all agree not to delve into the hot topics of religion and politics in this cinematography forum? Please use PM, email or other internet forums for this type of conversation.

Interesting, the stills didn't load all the first time. Personally, I am actually liking more the less-contrast still of the girl from the un-retouched Pro Res file. both her and the background look very natural in my monitor, the way you timed it in Photoshop really makes it a bit garish for my taste, but the rest look good with more contrast.

Ditto on that, but that is the only way to move forward. There is always room for improvement, no mater how good the results. The sure sign of a true professional, or so I have been told. :) Stills look very good. Love the fall off light on the kids face in the second still. Your overall style (of what I see here and in the past) reminds me of Lance Accord, which is good, not too many people can claim that. I always hate it when the colorist ignores the DP's instructions. The grain doesn't bother me here, (although it does in my own pictures sometimes :P). But hey, if we didn't get grain, we'd be shooting HD, right? Looking forward to seeing the finished product.

I would really look at some HD primes on B4 mount, if you haven't done that. The consensus around here is that putting a 35mm adapter on a 2/3" chip camera is not ideal for a number of reasons (with the right fast HD lenses directly on the 2/3" camera, one can get close to the DOF look of 35, size and weight of the camera with the adapter and lenses on, etc) That said, affordable 35mm cine lenses are somewhat a thing of the past, as RED One and other large sensor cameras have kick started the market for older, sub prime 35mm lenses, bringing up prices. Anyway here are some vintage lens names in no particular order or detail: Bausch and Lomb Super Baltars Kowa cine lenses. Zeiss Super Speeds Cooke Panchros (first generation) Cooke S2s and S3s Various Lomo Russian lens types. Canon K35s Older Illumina sets Angenieux Zooms Fujinon Zooms, etc Here are some hopefully helpful links: http://forum.mflenses.com/manual-focus-lenses-f3.html http://www.cinemalenses.com/ http://www.visualproducts.com/store04.asp?...t=8&Cat2=18

D. Rakoczy: When the subject in discussion is cinematography, you have been very helpful in the past to very many people --myself included-- for which I thank you. But, if your approach to discussing politics and religion around here is not paying off, why keep doing it over and over? This is a privately owned forum dedicated to cinematography in all its shapes and forms (as the name implies), so if the powers that be think that the discussion is dangerously veering off topic, they have every right to stop it in its tracks. And it is up to them to decide what exactly needs to be stopped, like it or not. Just like if you invited some people over to your house and they kept constantly arguing about something in a manner you think is offensive and disruptive, you would have every right to ask said persons to keep it down (observe your rules), or leave your house. We are all guests here, and it is up to each one of us to maintain a level of civility and respect towards others who don't agree with us. Those of us who aren't continuously willing to behave according to what the owners of this forum and other members agree is appropriate, are free to espouse our views in the manner we so choose elsewhere. Sincerely, Saul Rodgar

Sweet! I really like the overhead shot and the third image from the top, in particular, the color palette and art dept choices are nice. I would be interested in seeing some of the stills from the Arri Scan, as these look grainy and low res, it almost looks like 500T S-8 at times.

The Panasonic HVX 200 and 200A, the HPX170 and 500 do time lapse. The Sony EX1 and 3 I do time lapse on camera as well.

Hi Folks. Adrian Cranage has shot some comparison tests of the Canon 7D, 5D and Red One. He originally posted this on the CML and after I approached him, he has been kind enough to allow me to repost them here for the benefit of us all. Please note that on the side by side 5D-7D comparision, the 7D, on the left side, the sequence reads +3, +2, +1, Even and so on when it should say -3, -2, -1, Even, etc. This was a mistake, and the 5D side is correct. Mr Cranage is a member of this forum and should be around to answer any questions we may have. http://www.cranage-dop.com/links/Links.html

Just be aware that it is my understanding that the AVCHD (non Intra) format needs to be transcoded to ProRes by FCP 7 (like FCP 6). You mention SD, I don't know what pitfalls you may find there, but HD can be a bit of a pain to deal with in AVC format. . . Of course, one could potentially work around the (last time I checked, painfully slow) AVCHD transcoding by capturing the footage real time through a Matrox, AJA or similar capture card. Premiere CS3 and 4 seem to be able to handle these formats natively (DVCPRO HD, AVCHD, XDCAM, etc), if that is an option for you.

Yup, that happens all too often around here. Try to get a bunch of anal retentive Alpha camera guys and gals such as ourselves (lol) to agree on something and things get hot real fast. Gotta take the good with the bad.

My friend runs a local repertoire cinema. Lots of classics, out-of the-way documentaries, foreign films, cult midnight movies, children matinee shows, DIY activist movies, local indie festivals, comedy and variety shows, you name it. That is what he has to do to stay in business. The upside is that his movie theater as an A/V community center that caters to the local tastes and needs is hard to compete with. So by diversifying he has a better shot to withstand the advent of "internet cinema" (Netflix does pose a more serious threat to him than the big multiplex theaters). Sometimes he soberly thinks he's got another five years or less in the business for other reasons as well (space rental, etc), but let's not make mistake about it, the threat to movie theaters is all to real. As for the big multiplex cinemas, 3D may do the trick, but the larger problem is that there are too many movies competing for a smaller pool of viewers. TV, cable, the internet, DVD rentals they all take away viewers from movie theaters. I personally think that soon most smaller movies will be released online only (PPV style) by web-savvy distributors. Hulu definitely is a model to follow, as long as they make profits. Eventually, the internet may be the only place to watch movies from, for better or for worse. I hope I am wrong and there are always small indie movie theaters around to go hang out and watch some celluloid. If the return of older "dead" technologies, such as vinyl is any indication, I am sure film movie shows at movie theaters will stick around for a while still . . .

Yup.

I would try Film Workers in Chicago. There's a few others, but can't remember their names right now.

This film is a clear example of how crew members and workers in general are plain lazy and demand longer turn-arounds, overtime and such nonsense. And to top it all off, these lazy workers create unions that just make life very complicated for honest-to-god producers and bosses everywhere. "Safety, you say? Nonsense! Why, you insignificant drone, soon you will be making a living wage! Some folks really have a lot of nerve!" Who needs sleep? If the workers do, they should have thought about that before taking the job and stayed home to get all the sleep they need.

IATSE local 600 (ICG) is the camera department union in the US (and its territories) and in Canada is IATSE local 669. If a movie is union in the US, IATSE 600 will cover, and if it is in Canada IATSE 669 will: http://www.cameraguild.com/ http://www.ia669.com/index.php?option=com_...2&Itemid=28 And the rules regarding unions allowing "non-union members to work on union shows, and union members to work on non-union shows" are very complicated, but for the most part unions won't allow non-union members to work on a union show unless it can be established that there are no union members available to work on the show, or if production really wants someone non union to be part of the project and a few other situations. If a non-union worker joins the movie production, the local covering the worker's craft will almost certainly offer said worker the opportunity to join the union asap and sometimes the union will require the worker joins the union then, depending on the situation.

I usually use colored filters in B/W to lighten the tones of similar objects in the picture. So if I am photographing something with green in it, to make the end result a little better to my eye (more contrast) I will use a green filter on the lens. Also the use of colored filters may enhance certain complexions. Green filters sometimes help conceal skin blemishes, etc.