Saul Rodgar

Some of the places that convert NPR's to S-16 do fix the turret to the body PERMANENTLY to one of the ports, so you would be able to use only one of the two, in your case usually the Arri B as it is the best one. The reason behind this is that the turret often interferes with the S-16 mod, so it easier for them (and cheaper for you) to fix it to the body than doing a mod where the turret stays able to pivot. Just be aware of this and ask the shop that you are looking at doing the conversion about this to clarify, before you actually do the conversion and are stuck with it.

Most if not all Canon (or Fujinon and even some Nikkkors) c-mount lenses were designed for early TV (c-mount) cameras. These lenses weren't as good in sharpness or coating as the real cine or even still-photo lenses. Your Bell and Howell is a lens designed to be used with Bolex cameras with internal prisms, and compensate the loss of light and other other special problems the Bolex camera design causes. More info here: www.bolexcollector.com/articles/07_03_21.html So, the Canon is not designed for prism-based cameras such as the Bolexes. It may still work though . . . However, I have a c-mount Fujinon that is fast and pretty damn sharp when used with my film Eclair ACL camera. Granted, I have mostly used it for when I need a fast zoom and while I have inter-cut it with footage shot with sharper lenses to good results, I have never intended the footage to be blown up to 35mm where it would certainly fall apart. Think of it as a potentially sharp and or fast zoom lens that could be a steal. Obviously you will have to shoot, develop and project/transfer the footage to know its true worth. I personally think most of these lenses are under-appreciated. I am not a Bolex specialist though, "Go Team Bolex" Nick may have more info about this situation.

Not necessarily, if you ship insured DHL /UPS/ FED EX. The Mexican mail system is notoriously bad, granted. But private courier companies should be fine. As long as the film doesn't go through X-RAY, things should be peachy. I personally don't like the idea of sending film across international borders without supervision. Hell, even carrying my own film makes it sketchy sometimes trying to bypass X-RAY machines. But I am sure things would be OK, should the right conditions arise. Then again, I probably wouldn't chance it. Peace of mind being priceless. Quote: "When I was in film school a long time ago we had a guest speaker from the film Romancing the Stone come and speak at our college. They claimed that no matter how hard they tried to get the Mexican lab to maintain clean processing, after just a couple of days the quality of the processing work would start to diminish. So that was then, who knows about now?" Well, I have had that problem with US labs as well. And I know of a US production that lost 1/3 of their camera original to DuArt's incredible incompetence in processing. So, things can go wrong anywhere. But one may have an easier time going after a lab in the US. I lived in Mexico for 20 years, lawsuits are a lot harder to bring to good end down there. Should one find a good Mexican lab (they certainly exist) and do some test runs, then things may be OK. Like I said I probably wouldn't chance it, too many things could go wrong going across the borders back and forth. If you lived in Mexico and spoke Spanish, well, things would be different.

Hum, K3 cameras take 3/8" screw mount plates. Most or all 8 mm cameras take 1/4" screw mount /plates. There are larger screw mounts for larger cameras as well. Tripods built both for larger, heavier cameras and smaller video cameras ship with plates that take the different sized screw mounts. Bogen tripods are generally good for the price, but you'll have to spend a good $600 bucks for a somewhat decent new tripod with an OK fluid head and a baseplate that takes several screws. There are too many tripods to choose from, and different people have their favorite brands. Look on ebay, I guess, for cheaper used tripods. As an (asking for trouble?) alternative you can buy a $2.50 tripod socket converter here: https://www.micro-tools.com/store/item_deta...?ItemCode=38-14 But a word to the wise: K3 cameras are designed to be used with the larger screw mounts because they are heavier and larger than the 8mm and small video cameras that are designed to be used with 1/4" screw mounts. So your K3 could fall and break should the socket converter fail, since that camera is not designed to be used with it. Just a disclaimer.

If you already have clients in the commercial still photo market you should have no problems getting them to hire you as a commercial motion picture cinematographer. That is usually the hardest part, getting to know the people that hire for top spots in any given production and for them to trust you with the responsibility of making things look good. If you use your knowledge of still photo and apply it to motion picture and do some good looking shorts/ commercial type work on your own for demo reel purpose, you should be able to make a smooth transition. If you don't have any big contacts just keep on working as a low/ no budget film DP like the rest of us until you build a resume and a reputation. I certainly wouldn't go to film school. Most of the people I work with have started working up the ladder in their dept's or made a career move using skills they already possessed. But if you start as camera assistant you WILL hate it. And film school is going to be like hanging out at your local kinder garden. :P So it makes more sense to just use your skills to move from one form of photo/ optical acquisition to the other and work as hard as you did to become a professional still photographer. A number of pro still photographers have become cinematographers/ directors. Anton Corbijn and Larry Clark are the ones that come to mind right now, but there are many more to be sure. It may not be easy, but then again, few things in life worth doing are. Good luck! S

Good job. I like that you have made your reel into a collection of short scenes, and/or trailers of larger projects that cut together instead of just a collection of beauty shots. I am a fan of dark, dimly lit moody images and this reel delivers them in abundance. However, you may want to give it more in terms of diversity. No one wants to be considered a one trick pony, to coin a phrase, especially starting out. But that's up to you, of course. My favorite shot is the one with the guy staring at the fish bowl. There are some shots that are so dimly lit I would have been nervous about them just going to black. So you show some very good understanding of your film stock capabilities . . . Keep it up! S

Good for you! I guess some guys are luckier than others! ;) S

This all makes perfect sense to me, which is what I learned early on. Last week, though, I worked with a DP from Dallas. He was shooting 4 perf 5217 masked 1.85 to 1 at 30, 60, 120 fps in and out of doors, uncorrected, unND'd in the bright New Mexico sun. The interior scenes were lit by HMI's. Also, his exposures were key-fill splits. WOW. I found that astonishing to say the least. When I asked him about his philosophy, he said that for commercials only, he would give the clients middle of the road negative for them to telecine it the way they wanted. So his theory was to be as loose on camera (non-committal if you will) as possible to guarantee flexibility in post. I see his point, but I just don't have enough experience with telecine to be able to go that way. I usually give the colorist as close an image as what I envision, especially if the producers are going to do a cheap one or best light telecine xfer for dailies or off-line. I am curious to see the results of his technique . . .

Jack Cardiff is definitely one of my personal heroes. In the documentary included with the Black Narcissus DVD he talks about something that I found most inspiring and always remember when I read certain discussions in this forum. He recalls the time when he came home from a long day of shooting at the studio only to arrive and have a message saying he had to drive back immediately to meet the Technicolor folks. He lived an hour away from the studios, so he was very reluctant to head back. Technicolor had sent some executives to interview cinematographers (who in those days were considered little better than technicians) to be trained in the then new Technicolor process, but only one candidate would be chosen. When he finally did get back to the studio he was gloomy about his prospects of being picked for training since he was not the most technical of the cinematographers the studio had on payroll. But when he was actually meeting with the Technicolor folks, he was surprised to find them more interested in finding a candidate who was more of an artist rather than a tech wizard. Cardiff had extensively studied Rembrandt paintings and was able to recall where the light was falling on from in such and such painting, the quality of his lighting and like details. He got the gig. And he did so because he was deemed to be able to make the best of the Technicolor technology as an artist, than the other more technical cinematographers. And so I learned that memorizing all the tech specs from manufacturers a good cinematographer does not make; that the aesthetic aspect is more important than the technical, but a good balance helps.

Very pretty, naturalistic English-light cinematography. I particularly appreciate that they let a lot of the outdoor- bright indoor images overexpose in corners and some of the use of tilt & shift lenses towards the end, not terribly common techniques these days IMH . . .

If you haven't tested it, do a test yourself. Get a densitometry-test result chart back from the lab and compare it with modern stock charts. Then adjust as necessary. Otherwise hope for the best and shoot away . . . You will have a lot of grain, as good finer grain-structure 320T stock is only being around for less than 10 years. Some people write down every step of the shooting/ lab procedures in any case. This, to be able to replicate and/ or adjust settings should they feel necessary to repeat, analyze, compare the end results. Last year I tried 10 year old 320T. I shot it low contrast, low light, key was t4 on my lens. Then pulled the film 1 stop in the lab and, contrary to expectations, it exploded the grain and ruined most of the detail on the darker mid-tones areas of the image. Blacks were bleak and the only parts that remained well defined were the lighter mid-tones. I would shoot it late afternoon exterior, sun-lit interior (not dusk) daylight with filtration to compensate, based on my previous results. Or if you have big lights, shoot night/ lower lit indoors. I would stay away from low lit, shadowy, deep contrast situations, and or pushing/ pulling lab processing. Good luck.

Yeah, so if you cameraman shoots garbage and your actors are stiff as wooden toys your "business" then flourishes, right? Why aren't you in pig farming then? You are defending the indefensible here. Without art, motion pictures are nothing. But you -and the rest of the producers out there- just live in denial and you'll be fine, eh?

Unfortunately couldn't watch it. I have the latest version of Flash Player, but it didn't play, and since I don't read Russian, don't know why either . . .

Well if you don't think motion picture -which includes TV- is art, why are you working in the industry? What motivates YOU to get up and the morning to try to get your pictures made? Come on, you can do better than that . . . Need I cite glaringly obvious examples of why motion picture is an "artistic" endeavor? And not all movies are "Dumb and Dumber." Man, you really know better than that . . .

Wrong. Have you ever tried living without entertainment? Without art? In those conditions the human soul would surely wither up and die. Which is why the current crop of movies about the war in Iraq are not popular with the general public. Most people need something to keep their minds from what is bogging them down. Never underestimate the healing power of laughter. Watch Preston Sturges' movie "Sullivan's Travels." Why do you think movies are so popular and a billion dollar industry, just because? Surely they are not in the same ballpark to cancer curing, but they certainly contribute to the well being of society as a whole. As for having sense of humor in this business, I am not opposed to it. But you comment was not funny in that it evidenced that you were making fun at the expense of things you don't understand or care about, which is not funny to the people that understand and care about them. Simple.

Do you even understand why the writers are striking? It is not funny, you know?

Amen, brother!

How would you know that? Have you ever worked 14 to 18 hrs a day with one hour commute each way alongside an IA 600 (lowly) camera assistant, while being yelled, "camera moves," "camera reloads," moving twenty or so 75 pound boxes every short while in anything from 120 to -20 degree weather for months on end? Have you lost your mind? How can you be so condescending and cynical to brag how much you know about something you know absolutely NOTHING about? Your American feature film making experience probably amounts to what you see in TV/DVD "behind the scenes" featurettes while comfortably sitting on your plush chair at your warm house far, far away from where we bust our asses so that you can be entertained. Until you acquire FIRST HAND experience of what it is to work in the USA under those conditions for very long periods of time, please stop peddling your sour grapes on how how complacent and decadent us American feature film working people have become. Thank you.

It's December 2007, just finished working on a low-budget regional hospital 35 mm commercial, where is my $10,000 F900-quality camera, damn it?

Oops! Got it, should have read the whole thing twice. I just locked on the whole dramatic project side of production, which is what I do. Sorry guys.

I agree mostly, except in the length of the "pitch video." I think is better to have a short, entire key-scene done as a standalone piece and pitch that, than a one-pager that may not make sense because it abruptly cuts at the one minute mark. I agree with what Walter: "If someone doesn't get the idea in the first two sentences, they will not, so consider how important the two sentences that describe what the show is about." But I think it's important to have that scene carry itself to the end, particularly if you want to direct the pilot. I think of it as a very-tight short film (5 minutes at the very longest) where all the elements of the larger piece would be included to give a real sense of what the TV show will be like. But what Walter might be saying is let an established production company worry about that, you just worry about something small to hook the production company itself. Most Western studio executives first look at the image of whatever project is presented to them. If that is well shot and edited, they look at the acting. If that is believable, then they look at the storytelling. If that is water tight, then they may consider giving you a chance, in that order generally. So, if you manage to do all that, keep people interested throughout and wondering what happens next at the end of the short, you may have a shot at getting some money to produce it. Easy, right? Plus, you would show you can personally produce or direct, if that is anything you want to go for. Or you could do the often-done "Trailer" of a larger piece, where the entire story is more or less outlined with key moments played out for the audience to be hooked on. I personally don't like this approach for no-budget projects for it requires a lot more money/ production value to make in a good-looking, believable sort of way. But it can certainly work. Just remember that for this kind of project whatever you end up doing, for whoever to see, it is got to be the best thing you can produce, otherwise you would probably just be starting off with the wrong foot. The old cliche of first impressions being long-lasting couldn't be truer here. Again, just my opinion. Good luck!

Killer stills. I agree with your grain-texture statement. Some people hate to see grain though, like it is necessarily a mistake. I love S-8 grain and will use the format anytime if I can, though it is hard to convince directors to embrace the notion of grain being beautiful. I just went to see S-8-originated Guy Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain on 35mm. The grain is just plain awesome, but the scenes weren't lit consistently so it was a little jarring at times, besides his trademark hectic editing style didn't help either. I love the pool-as-practical idea. In general, did you print down in the telecine suite, or was it just left as it came off the camera negative? Thanks a bunch for taking the time to answer my questions! S

It looks beautifully subtle, David. Beauty in the every-day-life is just as important to master as stylization, I think. It's all about having range in artistry, which you clearly show. I particularly like the shots of the couple in the living-dining room with gorgeous afternoon light coming in through the windows. Can you please write a bit about the night interior work? You mentioned that you stuck to 500T for both the day interior and night interior/ exteror scenes. Since you were in a controlled environment, I assume it was somewhat easy to achieve the different night/ day look with the same stock. Was it as easy as to just killing the dinos/ spacelights/ 20k's outside the working set to get the results you got for the night scenes? Nothing is as easy as it seems, particularly when it comes to film making, even in a sound stage. Looking at the stills is hard to appreciate much, if any, grain on the night images. The one where I can see some grain is where Chloe Sevigny is in the car, on the dark side of her face. Maybe it is the still, I don't know, but I don't mean this as a put-down at all. So, was grain a concern? I just finished a short where everything happens at night. The director felt 500T was too grainy, so we used 7217 straight-processed throughout, and we still got (some) evident grain. I would have preferred to have 7218 to prevent me from being on the edge of the lens aperture range all the time, but it was a great learning experience. So, we had about two weeks of night work both interior and exterior, and a very limited amount of fixtures to work with, as well as crew to man them. I shot the entire thing at T3.2. It was very challenging to keep the lighting ratios straight, particularly for some master wide angle night exterior shot I had to pull of with just two HMI 575W Arri Suns and a couple of 2k/ 1k fresnels. Hence, I am interested in finding out what you guys thought and dealt with in this night/ day same-stock situation . . . I will post an In Production thread as soon as I get a chance with some stills from this short I write about. In the meantime, I would be interested for you to elaborate on any filtration or processing you might have used to differentiate between the two looks with one stock, if any, or whatever comes to mind about the subject. Thank you, S

Technically speaking they can output to whatever medium the have available. Recording real time to a hard drive though a capture card or similar device is basically the same as recording on to a deck. I know of a lab that uses a Marconi mid eighties telecine machine that they transfer with but they capture on a mac, so you get Quicktime files. So it really just depends what their individual capabilities are, pretty much regardless of the telecine they use; although I am sure a Spirit has all these bells and whistles that I am unaware of . . .

The Phantom 65 is a 10 megapixel 4K camera available at Abel Cine Tech. http://www.abelcine.com/articles/index.php...t&task=view http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?se...e=camera_65_new