Phil Savoie

A bit off topic but I spent considerable time (months) researching HD during Planet Earth pre-production - at the time I was BBC staff . One on the things I learned during the process was HD monitors require a different viewing distance to check critical focus. With SD monitors one sees the best picture at 6-10 times the picture height. With HD monitors one sees a critical picture at 3 times the picture height. This closer distance is a challenge to viewers eyesight, one needs good close vision to critically assess a HD picture. With a 17 inch monitor which has a picture height of 7 inches high one must view the image from 21 inches away to check fine detail. A 24 inch monitor requires the viewers to be 3 feet away - a 32 inch monitor yields a critical image from 4 feet away. Rarely do I ever sit this close to watch TV but when I spring for a new HD tele I'll try and get the biggest I can afford because of the much closer viewing distance. Planet Earth was originated on 16mm, 35mm (the majority 3 Perf) and HD. How much film origination is difficult to say as there were contractual obligations, but its safe to say there was a significant percentage of film (the sequence work I did was all 3 perf 35). The production purchased two 3 perf Aaton 35 cameras that were working for three years. Well crafted Super 16 looks great transfered to HD, IMHO the 3 perf 35 is mind blowing. I mention this because I'm still a fan of film and it isn't normally noted that PE used quite a bit. Mitch I'm with you, I never get tired of Sir David.

Hi Nick, I would not recommend changing the port ? it?s a fiddly job and the domes are usually designed with specific lenses in mind - most often wide-angle lenses for UW. I?m not aware of problems with the 26mm and find this surprising as the gearing works but have no reason to doubt you. Although this housing is designed for both lenses I?ve only used the 10mm. Perhaps the dome on this housing has a curvature specific to the 10mm and another dome was used for the 26mm but this seems odd. As long as you?re sure the lens is seated properly I'd next check if the 26mm focus problem occurs through out the entire focus range. You may want to contact Mark Utter at the Bolex factory Bolex@bluewin.ch or +41 24 425 60 21 for advise as this housing was sold through the factory. With most UW shooting you want the widest lens you can work with as it allows the steadiest handheld image and shooting in close. Due to debris color and overall water clarity, or lack of, one often wants to get the lens in tight as possible to the subject. The short answer is I would advise against any dome port mods and shoot the 10mm. Sorry I can't be any more helpful Nick. cheers

Sure you are.... Let's agree to be both right. ;-)) CHEERS!

Tony my Dear Chap, Thanks for your advice. If you review my posts on this topic please take on board that I have advocated in camera filtration from the start. I don't feel I'm missing the point of NDs as you put it, how we choose to use them creatively is up to us as cinematographers. NDs are used to control exposure, be it the entire image or parts of it. Period. If you want to use this exposure control to limit DOF fine, if I choose to use an attenuator on a landscape to control contrast that?s jolly good too. It?s all about exposure control, strait ND, hard or soft grad, attenuator or blender. Obviously we are controlling the exposure to get the most out of the stock/image. When transferring during post one may also control exposure on the entire image or parts of it with mattes or keys if you choose to. But this is very different to in camera treatment, which I also mentioned as it?s the point of the thread. Clearly we all strive to get as much information on the original negative, which is why we filter in camera in the first place. I'm sorry in my original post I penned focus pull when I meant to say exposure pull, if you read through it this was clearly my meaning. My mistake, due to jet lag and not enough coffee. Perhaps this is where our mis-communication started. I've got a good idea Tony, with respect please understand, a cup of coffee for me and less caffeine for you. ;-) Failing that how about a jar sometime, I'm in country, just back from a shoot, at my home in Wales. Was Gunther Zoeh at Arri able to assist you with your neg scratching problem?

Ahhh, My mistake I ment to say extreme exposure pulls - NOT focus pulls. My mistake. Appologies to all concerned!

Hi Tony, In the nicest possible way your incorrect and inaccurate. Many NDs such as Attenuators and Grads are designed specifically for exposure control. And although you may use strait NDs, which is what I assume your refering to, for DOF control I use them more often to shoot at optimized stops in outdoor locations where light control isn't possible or cost effective. In these locations, where we often find a 15 stop difference in light levels, we commonly use ND masks in post during telecine to additionally control the contrast. With experience you'll find many cinematography tools have multiple uses. Cheers

I second the Honda. Very quiet and reliable. Just what you need.

Although I have a full range of ND filters, that see steady use, ND in post is possible and effective. I take your points John and agree fully on the use of polarizers but I differ on post-production ND ? or the exposure differences within a single frame, which is really what we are talking about. The combination of the outstanding latitude of today?s film stock and modern telecines, like the Spirit, offer the ability to correct extreme exposure differences during telecine. If we were working and posting in film this would be different, however I shoot on film and deliver video and am speaking from this prospective. To be clear I prefer in camera filtration but I am continually amazed by what the latest stock/telecines are capable of in terms of exposure and latitude. cheers

Although you may add filter-like effects in post it is the general perceived wisdom to add the filters / effects in camera. Like most shooters I prefer in camera filtration. Post added filtration ? either electronic or physically adding filtration in the telecine light path looks quite different. Having said that I often find during telecine we can make the image that bit better with massages during the transfer. ND mattes (with and without color) come to mind as well as excluding or toning down certain colors to hide blemishes for example. Additionally dynamic ND added in transfer is lovely to assist in masking extreme focus pulls ? as much of my work is outdoor location 4-8 stop exposure pulls during tilts, pans and jib shots are not uncommon. The ability to add dynamic ND during a running shot / move in post is a very useful tool. It can smooth out any bumps in the pull. At times I?ll shoot some shots without a pull ? sometimes we won?t have a gear/motor for exposure when the cameras 25 feet up on a jib ? I?ll shoot it at the minimum, maximum and middle exposure and add the correct ND to bring it in line during telecine. With a skilled Op on a Spirit you often won?t know the difference between the three takes. As a producer/director/shooter I?m very lucky, I get to shepard the image every step of the way. The key is to work with one telecine Op for a number of years ? a good one will have a number of tricks up their sleeve and can really make your images sing.

Check out the crew links page on CML there's about 60 links to DoP?s pages. Its great to see others work - inspiring and at times quite humbling, there's some sharp shooters out there! http://www.cinematography.net/camera_crew_cml_links.htm Cheers

Thanks for your note. If I make some I'd try to get them to attach to the outer front of the box - like the Arri mattes - with a bit of a lip so they fit over the opening. I'm fairly confident I could knock some up out of thin aluminium sheet metal and shoot them with flat black. The trick is the opening for the different focal lengths for the Super 35 format - trying to modify Arri plastic mattes may be my easiest path ? I?ll try them on my box the next time I visit Uxbridge / Arri Media. I was hoping some after market company made some without the Arri price tag?.. Cheers

Hello, I have a Chrosziel 16x9 dual stage matte box that I use for Super 16 and Super 35mm 3 Perf formats. I asked Chrosziel for hard mattes but they don?t make them for film. This seems a bit silly as they make the matte boxes, go figure. I use Zeiss Super Speed 35 primes on both formats. I?m thinking of making a set of hard mattes ? it would seem strait forward ? just cut out a hole ;-) - Arri is looking up the opening dimensions for Zeiss Super Speed mattes 18,25,35,50,85 (Mk III). But before I do my arts and crafts bit I was wondering if anyone has done this before. Any suggestions on materials? Maybe I can rig a set of Arri Mattes for the Chrosziel? Thanks in advance.

Hi, Sorry I?m late in seeing this thread ? I?ve been on a shoot chasing Mountain Goats for the BBC. As Logan says we offer an MFA that focuses on Science and nature filmmaking at Montana State ? the link for the program is http://naturefilm.montana.edu/index.php The fun of this specialized work is the constant challenges and problem solving to get subjects and their behaviour on film. Portraits are a breeze; it?s the behavioural sequences that put you to the test. We use every technique, lens and odd optical system out there. At times we invent tools for specific shots. Most successful nature DPs have a scientific background as well as photographic skills. The work keeps you on your toes and you travel to magical places to see, and often film the rare and wonderful. For me it?s a dream job. Contact me directly if you want to chat more about it. To view some of my work you can see clips on my website www.philsavoie.com. cheers

Its correct the volatility of the nitrate film makes it classed as flammable/hazardous cargo. I don?t think ground shippers will handle it and if you place it on an aircraft your libel for a $250K fine and some jail time. Why don?t you get some super high-speed 35mm still neg to cut down. Eric Valli got some 3200asa stock from Eastman to shoot bird nest gatherers for Geographic a few years back - the images looked great.

Howdy Jon, I perfer lens tissue with good cleaner - like Pancro Mirror cleaner. As Patrick mentioned each new sheet of lens tissue is clean and free of any abrasive particles. Like you I have used microfibre in a pinch on glass but for a good cleaning session tissue and cleaner is the way to go. As lens surfaces are delicate little dears you never want to clean with a dry lens tissue. First blow off dust particles with a blower, clean brush or indirectly aimed canned air. Wet the tissue and starting in the center slowly and lightly wipe the lens in a circular manner. The fact that the micro-fibre cloths hold the dust and dirt particles would make me shy away from using it as my primary cleaning method ? I worry that the trapped debris would scratch the coatings and or glass. As different countries get tougher on environmental regulations lens coatings tend to get softer and will require good care to gently wipe front and rear elements. A few years ago the EU (European Union) enacted strict regulations on lead, manufacturers like Zeiss put significantly less lead or none in their multi-coatings, this resulted in the newly released Ultra Primes being very scratch and scuff prone due to the delicate multi-coatings. The micro cloth is still useful to wipe down barrels, camera bits, etc., but best to stick with tissue and cleaner for your glass.

Your post reminds me of when we wanted to show our student films in their best light ? literally ? we used to go into the screening room and check the projector was putting out 40 foot lamberts to the screen with our light meters. Those were the days?.on some DPs websites you?ll find a grey scale to calibrate your monitor before viewing, so the tradition continues. The Internet as a delivery platform is still in early stages. Speaking for myself I really don?t worry about calibration issues. People in the business know they are seeing a fraction of the resolution, color, bit depth, etc. The trade-off of films not being shown in their full glory is surpassed by the ability to get the work out to the vast international Internet audience, potential clients, etc. For my website film clips are in Flash format and fairly low quality ? but they are good enough for the viewer to get an idea of the work. Flash doesn?t take a long time to download but on the flipside Flash can produce some very nasty compression artefacts ? anything with fast movement or something like moving water blocks up horribly. Quicktime has better quality but they usually take quite a long time to download. We Pod cast films via I tunes in Quicktime, with small viewing devices the quality is surprising. The best I?ve seen are two shorts I did for Apple, you can download them in HD in two different sizes from their website and they look good ? but they take ten minutes to download. For years I worked for the BBC and would cringe when I saw my work transmitted in the US on 525 NTSC. As a DP no matter what viewing format it?s never up to par with the original work screened properly.

Arri Media in London had a 3C fitted with a hand crank, I was told it saw a good bit of action. I'm not sure of the gearing ratio or set-up. As it was only a few years back I'd bet they still have it - both Andy Subratte or John Duclos are good chaps, it may be useful to have a chat with them for operating tips.

Cheers for the kind words. As for the bears they're relaxed and lovely. I'm much more wary of many of the two legged creatures I meet! ;-)

My first head was a 50D - I still have it and still use it on occasion. The drawback is the older heads are quite heavy. Once you weigh your kit you?ll be in a better position to shop and compare specs. A fluid leak usually just means a seal needs replacing and the fulid needs changing - no real harm done. O'Connor designed the first fluid head and IMHO they are still the best. They are very well thought out and have (in most models) a greater tilt range than other heads. Every few years when I'm flush and want to buy a new head I prove this to myself again by lining up the completion, putting a 800mm Canon with a teleconverter on the SR and operating. The O'Connor always beats the other heads hands down. There?s a reason Sachtler bought them a few years ago. You can always contact O'Connor and get their advice. By giving them the serial number they should be able to tell you the last time the head was serviced ? good to know when buying used. And they are very agreeable folk

As its akin to Super 16 I've always used the term 3 Perf Super 35. I'm not saying this is correct - if anything, to me, it sounded a bit more marketable to producers hiring the package in - wink wink ;-) Both the Aaton page http://www.aaton.com/products/film/35/3perf.php and the Arri link http://www.arri.com/prod/cam/technology_3_perforation.htm label it Super 35. Whatever the name it's a outstanding format for HDTV origination.

Reminds me of the following, especially number six. The Six Phases of Film Production 1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic 4. Search for the Guilty 5. Punishment of the Innocent 6. Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants --Anon

Hi Jerry, Most successful nature camera people are very good field biologists. They not only know the craft and skills of cinematography but can find animal subjects and film behaviour as well. For me it all started out being a good old frog hunter! I would recommend the following; getting your biology, ecology and animal behaviour background up to speed in the classroom. And work on putting this into practical practice in the field, perhaps with a still camera to start. Get to know the flushing distance of different types of animals and try to shoot them. The best way to learn is by doing mate! The challenge, both photographically and practically, of filming nature is infectious. The career will allow you to visit locations and see things few ever do. I've always thought of it as a great privilege - and when you?re outside you've got the best office in the world. Click on the link to my website if you want to see examples of my work. I hope that's helpful. Feel free to contact me off list if you want more information. Good luck and all my best

Depending on the level you want to work at it can take years. And more work than most imagine. Having said that it can be a very rewarding career path. When I started out I asked an ASC fellow the same question; the old boy looked at me and smiled, he said, " It's only knowledge, it's easy to get." I remember it to this day- years later I'm still learning. He recommended getting a job as a broom pusher at the local rental camera house. I did. It was a great intro to the gear and the community. I went to film school as well, and for me it was a good experience. I worked quite hard, shot many of my classmate?s films and just soaked up information. Today I'm back in school as a film production professor, still learning. From my POV it's all about putting your time in and realizing it will never stop. Start reading everything you can get your hands on - the trades, texts and these days lists like this one are an absolute goldmine of information. Find your way into getting on shoots by whatever it takes. News, docco, commercial, music vid, feature, whatever they always need worker bees. Show up ready to work with a good attitude and on time. No matter what or where you'll learn something on every shoot. I do. The previous posts are right on. Get out there and get into production by whatever means necessary. So you?re in the right place, the rest is all up to you.

A bit off topic - but if your on a smooth floor surface sitting on a sound/moving blanket and having a grip or two pull you along works well.

John, Please rest assured that your in our thoughts and prayers. Sincerely, Phil Savoie