Saul Rodgar

Unless your camera has the electronics and video camera inside, and you are looking for a professional set-up, to my knowledge this is not something that can be just bought off the internet and user-installed. Generally speaking, the LTR body must be shipped off to a shop where a tech will open it up. Then a tiny video camera must be positioned very close to the beam splitter and all the electronics housed usually outside of the body. Power usually is taken from the internal camera power supply / socket. This process takes time, experience and pains to achieve. There used to be a number of shops around the country that would do this, but it is certainly not cheap. Last time I checked, AZ Spectrum in NYC had a good price on that service.

I should preface by saying that professionally made and / or installed video assist cameras are not cheap. Have you tried AZ Spectrum in NYC? I have never seen an eye-piece mounted SR2 video assist tap -I did video assist professionally for 5 years earlier in the decade, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. All of the SR ones I have seen are t-bar type video taps. http://www.az-spectrum.com/tbar_v.html

Duclos has a Super Baltar set for rent. IIRC, Harris Savides used them to film Birth. Check it out. In conjunction with some exposure / processing acrobatics, the look is a pleasant soft and creamy palette, prone to flares and glare, as these old lenses do not have much of the modern anti-flare coating that is the norm these days. http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fineline/birth/quicktime_large_new.html

I would like to retract and rectify my original post on this thread. I was thinking of Eclair ACL magazines, not the Aaton LTRs when I made the October 08 post. Since I own both cameras, and to my dismay, I apparently confused them. For the record, the ACL 400' or 200'magazine platters will come out, allowing 100' loads to be easily used on both feed and / or take up sides. As evidenced above, the Aaton LTR magazines are a totally different story. My sincerest apologies for the confusion.

Yessir! I really do think that online distribution is gonna be the norm, at least in the US. Maybe not necessarily youtube. Netflix uses a slightly higher bit-rate encoding, and it sure looks like the winner of the video distribution wars. Only Red Box seems to be putting up a fight in the states. But, to be sure, even Blue Ray does not absolutely need a 4K master to look very good.

Impossible to know what could be wrong with as little information as you are giving.

Oh yeah, I edit my 16K video on my iPod, so there . . . So sick of this small-penis-syndrome video resolution war. For 99.00% of individuals out there who use a RED or similar video camera, 2K workflow would be perfectly adequate for their purposes. I mean, unless you are going to a film print (tiniest percentage of RED users do so, and much to everyone else's chagrin) just how many resolution Ks are necessary for frigging youtube distribution? Instead we got some consumer marketing genius (Jannard) shinning a 20K up everyone's butt with his "my-sensor-is-bigger-and-with-more-Ks-than-yours" crap and most everyone just gets suckered in. :ph34r:

Technically, a zoom lens at, say, 18mm and a 18mm prime should give you the same image. But when the subject is close to the camera, the FOV changes just because the zoom lens is longer and therefore closer to the subject than the prime lens, giving you a different FOV. Learned this first hand when rigging hostess-tray camera-mounts on cars. The shorter-barreled primes of the same FOV as a longer-barreled zoom always gave me a wider image inside the car.

I agree with Adrian and Bruce. Unless there is a damn good plot reason for switching between film and video within a scene, or you can do one complete scene on video and the next on film --less distracting, but still not ideal, unless again, there is a good plot reason-- I'd just shoot on the 7D and finish on video. Then at the end you can transfer the edited HD footage to film off of a flat screen monitor if you really want the "film look." Works pretty damn well and at the very least your project would look consistent.

I agree that the obsession with low light performance of cameras is annoying. I also find it annoying that everyone craves the ultra shallow depth of field look of 35mm at f1.4. That seems to be the "producer group-think" of the day. The infamous "cinematographer vs producer" xtranormal video is a testament of that: "You don't need a G&E crew / package," "You can shoot at night, stealing locations," "super shallow depth of field," etc. Thought the Alexa footage looked nice, for a digital cinema camera. Granted, I prefer film. But from what I can see, it looks better that most RED footage off the bat. That is the ultimate litmus test for me: if the footage from a video camera looks like it was shot on a RED, I won't like it, with some notable exceptions. Too damn sharp and plastic-like. As far as color correcting and color rendition of the clip posted, which is what seems to have ticked you guys off mostly, that is certainly fixable. I mean these guys shot one night and showed the results the very next day, which is what we saw, unless I am wrong. So you guys are being perhaps a bit unfair there. I for one am more impressed by the softness of the Alexa image compared to a RED, and the lack of aliasing of the Alexa image compared to a HDSLR. Hard to judge from the clip I saw, but it seems the Alexa is much, much better than both of those two systems already, IMHO.

I saw someone accidentally record 480i DV instead of 720p HDV (as they intended) on one of those Sony HDV Mini DV-sized tapes on a JVC camera. The 480 footage looked just the same as if it had been recorded on a regular tape. Technically, one could argue that the slightly higher levels of iron oxide on the HDV tape or me more stringent production process and quality control would make a difference vs recording on the regular Mini DV tape, but I couldn't see it. More info here: http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?2844-THE-tape-info-thread/page1

I am not sure I follow. The idea is to acquire footage digitally (on the HDSLR in this case) and transfer that to "analog" film, by using a motion picture camera to film the HDSLR footage as it plays back off a flat screen TV. If he were transferring 35mm footage to video, then yes, he could use the 7D in video mode at 24fps or still mode if the film is playing back at 1-2 fps.

Very nice. What Art does not know is that a RED would have looked better, not simply because of the higher pixel count but ultimately just because Jim says it would. :D

I am not surprised he is getting good results. There have been movies shot on DV that were transferred to film the same way, among them Nine Songs. And I have done similar tests with DV footage shot off an LCD screen on negative film with very good results. I filmed at 24 fps off a DV image originated at 60i at a constant average reflected exposure, meaning I didn't do a "scene-to-scene" transfer. Still, I was blown away by the results. Also, I didn't play back the DV footage filling the 1280 x 720 LCD screen, to avoid "blown-out-footage" artifacts, so it was a 720x480 (480i) frame within a 1280 x 720 screen. Perhaps forcing down 1080p to 1280 x 720 and shooting off it would help with some of the aliasing and resolution if going to 35mm, who knows . . . From what I have seen and tried, the footage does look surprisingly film-like, even for DV. A lot of the aliasing gets smoothed out by the film grain. The dynamic range of the original picture remains the same, of course. Meaning the DV / HD footage needs to be to spec and well shot for it to look decent on screen. But even then, parts of the video image that are blown out, tend to look more blooming that hard-clipped, so it is more pleasing to my eye. I thought to do the tests because the only digitally acquired movies that looked convincing enough to me had been transferred to film. Until I saw RED footage transferred to film, which does not look very convincing to me, with some notable exceptions. So I imagine the HDSLR footage should look fairly decent, if the jello-cam and aliasing can be kept to a minimum on the original digital picture.

One of the best (color) cinematographers, who passed away last year, gets the full feature biopic treatment. This one looks really well done. Just the footage of Cardiff's interviews alone is well worth the price of admission, IMO.

Now, now kids. Don't get so worked up about this. Next thing you'll demand that Fortune 500 companies' CEOs and shareholders give up their lofty lifestyles instead of downsizing their outfits (i.e. firing employees). :blink:

That is the point I was going to make: Good luck focusing on a 6 perf format camera using a F1.0 aperture! That director must be out of his mind, but then, he is a "HDSLR director." :lol: Seriously now, the best way to do this is: get the F 1.0 lens, shoot a test. If all parties agree they can live with the image and processes involved, fine. Otherwise, you all can go looking for the fabled f.7 lenses used on Barry Lyndon by Kubrik, which may or may not cover the 6 perf format. Nasa may still have a few floating around (no pun intended). Or the director can give up his pipe dreams, settle for something else or get creative with it. Or, maybe, just maybe, get proper light fixtures to achieve the desired effect. Totally reminds me of the "with (HDSLRs) you don't need lights" bit on the producer vs cinematographer xtranormal video clip, BTW.

Fred, you'll make a smooth transition to the big time with that attitude: Indie producer's creed: "Welcome to the brash new (HDSLR) movie-making world where everyone works for free, because you are all so eager to be the next 'famous ______________' that our unpaid project will discover! Crew members: you are expected to have your top of the line gear, which you will supply for free. Expect to work 12 hour days, 7 days a week making a film no-one will ever see, a DVD copy may be provided at the end, and your name may appear on the credits. Enthusiasm and 'the-right-attitude is a MUST! If you complain about anything, we'll immediately fire you, because there is someone else waiting in the wings to work in the glamorous world of would-be Hollywood! Oh, working for free is not illegal, because that is how it goes in this brand-new industry" Hollywood producer's creed: "Welcome to the union-busting BIG TIME film-making world: because we really don't think crew members are worth what they think they are, but what we tell them they are worth. You will work 16 hour days, 7 days a week and in often unsafe conditions, but if you complain, or try to form a union, we'll immediately fire you, because there is someone else waiting in the wings to work in the glamorous world of Hollywood! Yes, our show has a multi-million dollar budget, but that mostly should go toward Hollywood casting fees and other important costs (like my salary). We expect to make tens of millions in return, but the crew (those who survive) will never see anything back besides meager wages, except credits at the end of the film, and maybe a complimentary pass to the local crew screening while we attend Cannes." :angry:

It is for an ACL, possibly NPR with the right ACL-style attachment bracket. They are both Eclair cameras.

I checked with some of my NM teacher / TAs friends, and they DO get paid for the Summer months -when they don't work- IF they sign the agreement to have their yearly salary spread out throughout 12 months versus 10. So it seems to be case to case. :ph34r:

Yeah, usually a member (or members) must recommend and vouch for your at a union meeting, if the union is accepting new members. Otherwise it is like knocking on heaven's door. Try to befriend some of the members for the union you are trying to get into. That is the easiest way. It may seem frustrating to try to get into or having to be part of one to get union work, but it is a double edged sword. Has pros and cons just like everything. Producers and workers who are not part of the union don't necessarily like unions (and overstatement), but once you are in, the benefits can be pretty good. Just got to keep on trying.

The following are broad generalizations regarding the two brands: Having used neither on 2 perf, I can tell you that most people who use Arri cameras stick with them. I like and own Aaton cameras, but they are generally need a lot more baby-ing than Arri cameras. It drives some DPs and camera crews crazy. The Arricams are widely regarded as workhorses, and the Penelope is new enough that it does not have a rep that I know of. I would love to shoot 2-perf on a Penelope tho. And I am equally excited about Aaton's new, upcoming digimag for the Penelope.

Unless there is an actual camera or mag malfunction, it generally boils down to loader error / unfamiliarity loading the mags. If there isn't enough slack for the film to form a loop, , the pull down claw will miss the sprocket hole at the gate, while making a lot of noise as it runs. And the footage will look blurry on the projector/ telecine, although it is visible when it is coming out of the processing taks a the lab. Lab techs will generally catch it then. I usually leave enough room for two fingers to fit between the mag and the film at the throat (perpendicular to the mag). Some people like to count the perfs, but I just use the two finger system. Because there are few cameras where the film is threaded at the magazine level and they are closed once the film is rolling (obviously), it is easy to bungle the process. On other (usually 35mm) cameras the loop is formed at the camera body level, and the door can be open as the AC runs the camera for a few feet to make sure the loop stays as it should, check pin registration, etc.

I did think about you when I saw it, but I did remember you are a big 35mm fan, so you are redeemed, sort of . . . :P Just messing with ya.

Race to the bottom. This is absolutely sickening. Let's all shoot on iPhones.