Jim Keller

We have quite a number of astrophotographers here, and I've been assured that the only way to do it is to expose once for the moon and a second time for the stars, and then composite. :(

I'm selling my Arri IIb and my Arri 16 (ST?). I'm a digital video guy, but I've always loved film. I bought these two cameras a few years back with the hopes that I could use one of them on a feature. Well, that never happened, and now my bravado can be your gain! Now, I have to start with the caveat that I bought both cameras used (and they're clearly used, with a good amount of brassing evident) and have never shot with them. I was assured that both were in good working order and had been recently serviced when I bought them (I'm told the IIb had just finished shooting a German direct-to-video feature and the 16 came from an Australian film school that was going digital), but I can make no personal warranties about their production-readiness. If you're an ambitious filmmaker who (like me) is less familiar with these cameras, I suggest partnering with someone who really knows the Arri before buying. But if you're a collector, skilled repairperson, Arri guru, etc., this is a great deal! Here are the details: Arri 16 package: Ariflex 16 (serial number 6934) with variable speed motor Angenieux 12-120mm zoom (serial number 186052) 8v 4A Battery 120/240 switchable battery charger hard metal case 400' Magazine (I have powered this camera up and confirmed that the mechanisms all work, but have never pushed film through it.) The Arri 16 has been a workhorse in film schools for decades. (I personally used a 16M and found it quite easy to work with.) I see no reason why this one should be any less indestructible. --------------- Arri IIb package: Arriflex IIb (serial number B6769) Carl Zeiss 50mm prime lens (serial number 3342030) 25fps motor (serial number 3628) [yes, 25, not 24. 24 and variable-speed Arri II motors crop up on eBay from time to time and generally sell for $100-200.] hard metal case 100' magazine 200' magazine (I do not have batteries or cables for this camera and have never powered it up.) As you can see in the last image, this appears to be one of the rare Pilotone models, intended for sync sound production. --------------- I'm asking $1000 for each package, or $1800 for both of them. I live and work in Pasadena, California, and if you live in the area, I can arrange for inspection and local pickup. (I also have a home in Fresno, and can arrange local pickup there, but on a much more limited basis [read: one weekend a month].) Elsewhere, shipping and handling will be your own responsibility. If shipping internationally, I WILL declare the full purchase price as the value for insurance and customs, and WILL NOT send it as a "gift." I WILL NOT ship without receiving CONFIRMED payment. I can accept PayPal as well as cash, check (which must clear before shipping/pickup), and money order. You can contact me here, or call me at 626-786-3483. Thanks!

Very simply, cinematography is the art of recording motion picture images. When I was in school, we used the term only to refer to motion picture imaging on film, and referred to motion pictures on video as "videography," but those lines have blurred to the point that they're really no longer as relevant, and cinematography is now popularly used to describe both film and digital video. Still photography is not really part of cinematography (though I have yet to be involved in a project that does not involve still photography as well, and frequently the Director of Photography -- that's the lead cinematographer on the project -- takes responsibility for that as well), however you cannot understand motion picture photography without first understanding still photography, and so there's a lot of overlap. In terms of what the job actually entails day-to-day, the full-time cinematographers here can probably answer that better than I can. But when I hire a cinematographer I expect him or her to be able to operate the camera competently and capture a usable motion picture image that has an appropriate look and feel for the project (which, for the stuff I do, is very different from what you see in the movies). I know that's very broad sounding, but it's actually a very broad field. The same way one photographer may be very good at landscapes but terrible when photographing people, or another photographer may specialize in "glamor" shots dislike "candids," a cinematographer will have different strengths and skills, and no two cinematographers will create exactly the same image on film/video/digital. Also, the same way one photographer prefers to work with a 35mm camera and another prefers to use an 8x10 view camera and yet another swears by the latest digital camera, different cinematographers will specialize in different types of motion picture cameras. So it's important for me to get to know their work and hire the right person for the job. Editing is generally a different field from cinematography, done by an editor, but again, there's going to be a lot of overlap (especially on smaller projects like I work on). The Director of Photography will frequently supervise portions of the editing process, making sure the finished product has the intended look and feel, but for that end of things you'll want to research motion picture editing separately. There's tons of information available by browsing the topics on this website. Many if not most of the topics are above the level you'll need, but many general cinematography/life of a D.P./basic editing questions have been asked and answered here. I know Kodak and ASC (American Society of Cinematographers) publish articles geared at student filmmakers, so they may also have stuff online that will be helpful (though last time I looked at either website, the pickings were slim). But "cinematography" and "director of photography" will be good Google keywords for you for the areas where this site fails you.

It's important to remember that Adams and the rest of Group f/64 were radically rethinking how to take a photograph. Personally, I could do without the hordes of Adams wannabes still working today, but Adams himself deserves to be highly regarded whether you find his stuff aesthetically pleasing today or not. I think we really need to divide "good" cinematography into two parts: 1) Is it aesthetically the right choice for the project? 2) Is it innovating or otherwise pushing the limits of the medium? If you can't do both, I feel you should do #1, but a cinematographer that does #2 at the expense of #1 will probably have hordes of followers citing him/her as an influence years down the road...

I'm afraid my knowledge comes from film classes many years ago. Only ever handled 8mm film personally, as I'm young enough that I primarily learned on tape and then computer (and, yes, I have done split screens on 8mm, with razor blade and editing glue -- the effect was atrocious. but it "worked" in the broadest sense of the word). If you have more or more accurate information to provide, I'm sure the original poster would appreciate it. That's the whole purpose of these forums...

The traditional "split screen" was, in fact, razor blade and tape. Optical printers quickly replaced that technique, however. People have done the effect with in-camera masking, but that works best on an infinity set, because it's hard to get the exposure right at the edges of the mask. Today it would all be done digitally, of course.

There's a really funny story, I think I read it in William Shatner's autobiography, about when Star Trek decided they needed a green woman. They mixed up some green makeup, and shot a test. The footage came back and she looked perfectly normal. So they mixed up some greener makeup, and shot a test. The footage came back and again the green hadn't photographed at all. Finally they mixed up some makeup that was ridiculously green and downright noxious, and shot a test. The footage came back and again, the actress still didn't look green. So they called the lab to see if something could be done in post. They explained the situation, and there was a long pause, after which the voice on the other end said, "You mean you wanted her green?" The moral of the story is that you can trust your lab to default to making the colors look conventional. A quick note that says "shot tungsten with some fluorescent" wouldn't hurt. When you need the extensive notes is when you're going for something unusual. The color card just makes their job a bit easier, and gives you a standard reference when you're talking to them. But as long as you trust their judgment, you'll be fine without it.

I've had horrible luck with Sony media across the board, regardless of price or supposed quality.

The same reason every time I do something set in the 1940's, the director objects if the 1940s style furniture looks new.

There are actually a *lot* of different approaches that can be done to get these sorts of shots, and a good film uses them all. Want to be astounded, rent an old film called "Big Business" and watch as Lily Tomlin and Bette Midler walk around themselves and cross through the same crowded spaces. The simplest way to do the effect is with a stand-in and clever camera placement. A simple two-shot can be done with a split screen. In the old days this was done by physically cutting two negatives down the middle and putting them back together (The Patty Duke show was done this way), but that technique leaves a visible seam that needs to be masked (usually along a vertical piece of architecture). Today a split screen can be done much more easily digitally -- you simply layer the two shots and put a mask over one of them. Since many post-production software packages let you animate masks, some simple interaction may be possible as long as the characters never obstruct one another. More complicated shots are most easily accomplished by compositing. That allows the two characters to interact much more, but is an effect that requires someone with much more visual effects experience than I have. :) But, ultimately, the best tool in your arsenal for getting shots like this is simple creativity. Know your tools, and then use them however you have to in order to get the effect you want.

FLIR is now making a 640x480 infrared camera that we've been using successfully for a few months now. http://www.goinfrared.com/cameras/P-Series/thermacam-p640 It's not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, and you may run into some export control issues, but it will meet the level 1 requirement of being able to shoot in total darkness. Mind you, my real advice would be for the director to trust the actors to act and shoot the thing with lights on (for safety reasons if nothing else), but that's not your job...

I need to tell my husband I finally found someone who loves hazers as much as he does. :lol: Seriously, though, great work!

For a more severe effect, I've also had good luck using pastel copy paper (available at most office and art supply stores). That said, with the newer versions of Final Cut Pro capable of doing an excellent job color correcting, I no longer bother.

Now that's entirely possible. I speaking out of year-old memory, which I freely admit will often result in mush...

Unfortunately, our English-language copies of the documentation appear to be MIA at the moment, so I can't look it up again. It was one of the first things we looked up in the white papers when we got the first of our two cameras, in determining which shooting mode we wanted to use. Upon realizing that all the 1080 modes were actually interlaced, we discounted it as an acceptable mode (and didn't think about it again). My guess is that it's probably a 30i/60p mode and a 24i/48p mode, both scanning 540 and offsetting, because that would be consistent with how the camera works in its other modes. The 1080p modes are then most likely every other frame interpolated up. But, again, I'm not looking at the white papers, so that's a guess. We generally shoot 720 24pN. Excellent balance of quality and file size. And while I was initially ticked off when we read that it was actually interpolated from a 540-line chip (again, that fact is well hidden before you buy it), I have to say I have never seen an artifact, and I habitually resize for my one series. My biggest issue is that the 4:2:2 compression means my green screen work isn't as clean as it could be (exacerbated by the fact that I'll always choose to light my talent properly even if it will make pulling the key harder, and our "studio" is way too small to be doing greenscreen work), but for the price it's a camera that can't be beat.

That's how the 720p works, yes. The 1080p modes are, in fact, interpolated off of a 1080i image. At least in the generation camera we're using here.

Um, I assume you're asking if it does 24p in 1080 mode. The "p" in 24p stands for progressive. The "i" in 1080i stands for interlaced. If it's shooting in 24p mode, it is not shooting in 1080i mode. We've been using this camera for about a year now, and I have to tell you that despite what the online specs tell you, it does not have a true progressive mode in 1080. It's all done with frame interpolation based on the interlaced images. It's an excellent 720p camera, however.

Most of those presets to reduce file size make assumptions that may not apply in the real world. Broadband medium I think defaults to assuming a 4:3 aspect ratio. Start by clicking the "options" radio box after you've selected Broadband Medium, and then click on "size." Remember that just because it says 16:9 after the size does not mean it's putting out a 16:9 image, many of those options are anamorphic (720x480 16:9 for example). You can always put in a custom size. If that doesn't work, you may be running up against a bug, and you may have better luck using Compressor (or Cleaner if you're old-school).

Never underestimate the ability of Kodak to shoot itself in the foot.

What version are you using, and which export workflow?

Before making a decision, I'd suggest talking to your lab. They may make the choice very easy (by saying they don't do black and white anyway, or offering you a screaming deal if you shoot in black and white).

As long as you're professional and polite, not interrupting someone who is clearly working, etc., you won't piss anyone off. I've seen people try this from time to time. I've never seen it work, but in the off chance that they're actually short some help and you can truly drop everything and sign in, you never know. But, remember, professional and polite. And when you're told, "Sorry, we don't have anything," say "Thank you" and walk away. Many sets also don't mind people hanging around to observe, if you want to get a vibe on the set before approaching people.

Dang, and I complained about having to learn to drive a stick... ;p

This is a very broad question, and what audiences read as "real" changes over time and based on genre. But, in general, today, for the majority of projects, it's not that you want actors to speak more quickly, it's that you want them to "pick up the cues." If you were to just tape people having a normal conversation, they would either overlap when they speak to each other (because they're not really listening) or there would be pauses in the conversation (because they are listening, making sure the other person is done speaking, and processing what has been said to them before responding). Well, unless you're going for the "drama in the silences" a la Pinter, for dramatic purposes we generally compress the pauses, or "pick up the cues." This requires actors as the characters to process what's just been said to them a little faster than we do in real life, and to psychically know that the other person has finished speaking, but audiences seem to accept that more than they accept the slower pacing the real-life pauses cause. Of course, for a high-paced comedy, a 30's style witty repartee piece, etc., you WOULD want the actors to speak faster than normal, but in general actual fast-talking only serves to reduce understandability.

Only ever done it using 500T as a motion picture film, but I've done it with 500T spooled for my still camera, and it resulted in a significantly lower-grain image with slightly richer colors. The theory is that the additional light creates a denser negative, giving you the advantages, though my brother who used to work at Kodak insists that it's really just because Kodak historically mislabels all its films by at least two stops. :)