James Visiano

I am positive he had some sort of control over either the modified camera or lens or both. I wrote "copyright" when I should have used what I believe to be a "patent." I am trying to remember where I read this, which text or magazine, but I am having difficulty. It for sure came from a reputable source. I've read so much on Kubrick that I just can't remember which publication. Yet, it is possible that the patent is on the modified camera and not the lens. I do remember the text discussing the control Kubrick had over the technology and that this was the reason why no one else has been permitted to use the equipment.

That is impossible, Kubrick had the camera and the lens (a 50mm) copyrighted. That is why no one else all of these years were allowed to use them.

Switar c-mount lenses or Canon FD lenses, which will be sharper and have better resolution for a super-16mm camera?

If you shoot at 30 fps, then you would be shooting in slow motion!

J. Lamar King, How did you create those diagrams, does a piece of software exist that allows you to create those diagrams?

Wendell Greene, you say they gave you a great price, can you mention the price?

An answer to my question(s) would be a big help and greatly appreciated.

On average, what is a good price for processing 16mm/35mm per foot? AND What is a good pice for Printing or Telecine 16mm/35mm per foot?

What are the rates at Moving Images?

"we used to expect him every day to arrive in the printing room to check that the neg was laced up correctly for the answer print." Dominic, did you work with Kubrick?

http://www.dalsa.com/dc/dc.asp What do you think?

What is it like working with Terrence Malick, even if it only entails tests?

I read that Super Balters were the lenses used in the film. They were formated to fit the Aaton camera body, the film was shot in super-16mm. What do Super Balters have that Cooke S4's and Zeiss Ultra Primes don't have? I also read that the camera was sent back to Aaton to make it quieter and the Barry Lyndon zoom lens was used on the shoot; I saw the package on sale on ebay a while back. "I designed an equipment package specifically for the film and purchased everything. The entire package including one motorcycle and my crew had to fit in the black van, which was the picture car. Therefore size and weight of the equipment was a concern. I chose Aaton cameras in the super 16 format. One XTR Prod and one Aminima. I owned two sound recorders?a Nagra D digital recorder and a Nagra 4STC analog recorder. Both had the Aaton timecode system installed. I had converted an old set of Mitchell lenses made by Bausch and Lomb to Pl mount type, which would work with the Aaton cameras. I had a large assortment of Cooke zoom lenses and a very special Angeniuex large throw zoom . I shot with all Kodak stock. I had a very minimal lighting package and only used it in the interior of the motel. Everything else was natural light. I shot for a total of about 18 days spread out over 2 months. I used an excellent lab in California named Fotokem to do all my processing. My only mistake was renting the Avid because I required it for such a long period of time I could have simply owned it. The process for doing the Super 16 to 35 millimeter was new. In fact, it is the reason that the film was shown unfinished at the Cannes film festival. The plan was to shoot in Super 16mm and to use a new non-linear digital intermediate process to generate the 35 mm negative. I was to use the new British system called an IQ that would include scanning at 2K and staying in 2K nonlinear algorithm digital form, work on all the color corrections and effects and then output to 35 mm negative stock. The problem was that in late March, I was notified that the proprietary software required to operate the system was not yet ready and would not be ready until nearly September. This created a dilemma. You see, I was required under contract to deliver the finished film in July 2003. With the equipment not available until September, the earliest I could possibly deliver would be late October. The financiers made it clear that an extension of my delivery date was unacceptable. I had to accept doing a traditional 16 mm to 35 mm optical blowup or a 1K linear digital intermediate. Both those options were not part of my plan and had already been deemed in my mind unacceptable." http://www.gawker.com/topic/vincent-gallos...ebay-014723.php

The international 70mm community is currently buzzing. New Line Cinema a division of Warners is producing (unconfirmed) a 65mm production for 70mm release next year. The Panavision 65mm cameras (unconfirmed)are out shooting the film titled "The New World". There has been a significant "buzz" about 70mm venues by Panavision, DTS and exhibition trade publications. More info as soon as it becomes available. Synopsis: Terrence Malick's take on the Pocahontas tale. The project is set against the backdrop of 17th century America in the nascent Jamestown, Va., settlement where the culture of European explorers collided with that of Native Americans. It focuses on the relationship between explorer John Smith and young Indian princess Pocahontas.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/nab_access_hd.asp What do you guys think of this?

Thanks for the post Paul. Can you post a picture of the blimp? How much would the blimp cost to make? How much time does it take to construct?

How much does the 400 ASA Filmotec stock go for?

I just found a roll of this film on ebay! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WDVW Mr. Pytlak, can Kodak still create this flm?

Why was that film discontinued? I think there is a market for such a film in 16mm and 35mm, if it is as fast as the Reala stock.

Has anyone seen those new household bulbs in home improvement stores that project the equivalency of sunlight, has anyone used them as practicles? http://www.sylvania.com/home/daylight/ What do you guys think? Could they come in handy as practicles if shooting near a window(s) during the day when using Daylight stock? Back to the topic of Tungsten vs. Daylight Reading about the Fuji 500D Reala stock, it does appear more versatile than our Tungsten stocks, that cannot be disputed. Daylight stocks handle mixed lighting much better than Tungsten stocks.

From what you are saying, Tungsten stock is only useful in night interiors and exteriors. When I use Daylight stock in these settings without filters or gels, the image looks fine. Conversely, when I use Tungsten stock in daylight or under fluorescents without filters or gels, the image is off-key (unless of course you want a blue or green image). One could shoot an entire film using Daylight stock in practically all situations, one couldn't do this with Tungsten film without filters or gels being used in every set-up other then night Int's and Ext's which Daylight film captures fine without any color correction on set. This is why it is more versatile. Yes! The majority of scenes I see in movies are photographed in daylight, why would anyone want to work around the sun just to use Tungsten stock?

I do not understand why the majority of filmmakers chose to shoot with Tungsten balanced stock when most scenes in a film (both indoor and outdoor) are photographed with the sun as the main source of light. Why bother with the 85 filter (turning 500T TO 250D) when you can just shoot with Daylight stock? Daylight stock looks good in all conditions, even under practicals and flourescents (unlike Tungsten stock), and if you want to use Tungsten lighting you can always place a blue gel in front of the light and you're good to go. It is much more versatile and less of a hassle to use Daylight stock. Does anyone concur, if not, what makes Tungsten stock so appealing?

Hello all, I am a long-time reader and first-time poster, this is by far the most informative discussion panel about cinematograpahy on the net and you have all taught me alot. I have two questions that I will place in the same post even though they have no relation (to save some space, I think). From what I have read so far about these two mediums, both require an optical printer since films are released in 4 Perf. But what if the film is being made for the video market, using telecine, I transfer the footage to a mini-dv, edit, and export onto a DVD; is another process required when using telecine on film shot in 2 or 3 Perf? I am uncertain as to how a crystal motor can be attached to the bottom of a Arriflex IIC camera and still be able to fit inside on of those blimps. Is there a certain blimp model that allows for such a configuration, or is a certain crystal motor to be used? I watched Schizopolis and was impressed by what a IIC in a blimp can do using Cooke Speed Panchro lenses. Also, I once read that Garrett Brown constructed a barney for this camera that was only 5 pounds and it silenced the camera completely, does anyone know the materials he used to construct that barney?