David Regan

Good to know thanks for the tip, unfortunately we are already mid-production, with film at the lab we are using now (Postworks in NYC) but I'll definitely keep that in mind for next time. Have you worked with Bonolabs before? Any idea on how good a job they do in transfer/timing? Ok thanks, so I take it as long as our editor keeps good track of things, and edits in 23.98 timebase we will be all set. And yes we plan to get our HD transfer at 23.98.

I know this topic has been discussed before, and searching for it led to some clarity but I still have some questions, also prompted from what I read in people's replys. I am about to start shooting a film super16, and we want get a 1080p transfer, first to tape and then it will be put on a hard drive. However due to costs concerns, getting all our raw footage transfered to HD was too pricy, so we are getting the raw footage on miniDV, then sending the EDL to the lab and getting the cut transfered to HD and the drive. I have never done this workflow before, and to be honest am somewhat daunted by the entire post-production/lab workflow, as I am not extremely experienced with it. So my first question is, what frame rate should I get it transfered at? Is there a difference between 24p and 23.98PsF? I noticed on another thread the terms were used interchangably, so should I specify one over the other? What about Timecode, when sending out an EDL, is there any specifics I need to inform the lab of to ensure the sound syncs up, i.e. drop frame vs. non drop-frame TC? And finally as far as workflow is concerned, can all post sound work/color correction etc be held until after the final transfer to HD? Because really we are just getting our final cut back as a file on a hard-drive. I know these are probably fairly large questions about a very broad topic, but I'm just trying to chisel away a bit more at my understanding of the post-production process and workflow. Thanks for the help.

If by gauged you mean identified, commonly in increments of N3, N6, N9, N12 etc..., also can be referred to as .3, .6, etc... Each has a filter factor, as does any filter you use, which refers to the amount of light lost from the filter. An N3 as a filter factor of 2, meaning you lose 1 stop exposure. An N12 has a filter factor of 16, through which you lose 4 stops. I'm not sure about an 'all-purpose' ND, think about how much you want to cut down and go from there. Although I would have a few on hand.

Ahhh so Max is fact there is a different squeeze ratio relative to the plane of focus what you mean in your post on Anamorphics, "The breathing is so prominent because of the change in compression, unless one is really stopped down...?" Because that seems rack focusing would be nearly impossible to get away with unless as you say you are really stopped down, because wouldn't objects not only come in/out of focus, but they would get squeezed/unsqueezed in the shot?

So in an attempt to understand lenses a little bit better, there is something that has me puzzled regarding bokeh in film shot with anamorphic lenses. I certainly do not have an eye yet to be able to distinguish if a film has been shot anamorphic or spherical easily, but the one way I've seen to tell (I think) is in the bokeh. I first noticed a while ago a squeezed bokeh, and wondered if that ment it was shot anamorphic. I did some research and film had been. A few times since I've noticed again, and checked, and the films with the squeezed bokeh were shot anamorphic. So perhaps its just a coincidence, but assuming it isn't, my question is, why doesn't the bokeh get unsqueezed? Because isn't it just part of the image like anything else, with the 2x squeeze factor, so why doesn't it return to looking more spherical when released? Thanks

Kodak's Field Guide has charts for illumination information for their stocks, you can download it off their sight. I checked and it gave for 5218 at 24fps/170 shutter, at f/4 a suggested 40 footcandles, based on incident light reading. As you said though, this is situation based, but I'm guessing its a safe place to start at.

Just saw this at an advance screening, I liked it for the most part, but as far as story goes felt it was a bit short. Visually I enjoyed it for the most part, the beginning was very warm toned, which I felt set things up nicely, and as the story progressed so did the color scheme. I don't know just how much of the film was CG and how much was built sets, but the scenic NY city shots felt nice. Speaking of CG, I can't be sure but the opening scene of him driving the car, really through me off, either the car was extremely well polished and cleaned for each take, or it was CG, it was just too 'sharp.' One question I had was about the blue flares that showed up frequently. They were a thin horizontal line, and I'm not sure what causes flares to look like that. Does it have to filters or lens coatings, or a particular type of lens? I noticed it was shot super35 but printed anamorphic, but I'm not familiar with that process so I don't know if it has anything to do with it. It was just something that I kept noticing.

Very inspiring, makes me determined to work even harder now. Really very nice, one of my favorite shots was early, after a shot of the snowboarder, it is of the older man talking to a girl, the camera is looking over the wooden railing/fence. The framing of that shot was really pleasing to me, and the lighting reminded me to some degree of Michael Cain's house in Children of Men, a look I particularily enjoy. Thanks for posting it, keep up the excellent work.

I don't have any personal experience, but if you want a good look at what really goes into miniatures, the behind the scenes stuff for the Lord of the Rings series goes into the subject frequently, and gives you a good idea of how it all works. There are other factors than just making it look natural, it has to be to appropriate scale, you have to consider if there is going to be compositing of say full scale foreground elements you will have to track the camera if it moves, and so on. I think its a really interesting field, so good luck.

I liked a lot of the video, the 'graphic-design' look was nice. Whenever I see video's like this, with alot of post production stuff, especially with regards to reframing/cropping, I always wonder what the approach is in pre-production. Did you first come up with alot of your shots, so when you framed certain shots, you knew, 'ok this will be going into a small square portion of frame,' vs. 'this will be in a wider spaced frame' etc...? Or was it just finding it in editing? I've done a couple music videos and always feel that more pre-production would have been helpful, so I was curious as to how you went about this. Nice Work.

What is it exactly that causes the delay/difficulties for FX people? I understand anamorphic plates would be squeezed, so is it just delay it getting them unsqueezed, or do they have to do additional processing to their fx to make them fit in? I guess I'm just unfamilier with the process/workflow post/fx has to go through.

Must say it looks very nice. How did you like the 416, I've seen good things about it and wish I could get my hands on one to use.

I'm not positive on this, but my feeling is they don't sell it anymore. My school starts everyone shooting reversal on a Bolex, and I think before I got there, they used to have us shoot on color reversal, but I seem to remember hearing that because it wasn't really sold anymore, we now just use B&W. In any case we do business through Paclab, so I know they at least deal with B&W reversal, but not positive about the color. But again I could be mistaken.

I have some 16mm Vision2 500T that has been sitting in my freezer for about the past 8 months, a short end and factory sealed rolls. I got it from someone else who had purchased it about a year prior to that. I think I can remember reading that sometimes compensation is required when shooting faster stocks that have just been in storage for a long time. I was thinking to us the stock I have for testing purposes, but am not sure if I should make judgements based on the older stock for ultimately shooting on brand new ordered stock. Should I be safe, or should I do my testing on brand new stock as well? Thanks

So would I be horribly mistaken in understanding then, that grain will be recorded regardless, in efforts to minimize its appearance its about making the perception of it less recognizable? I have seen several works shot in 16mm that look remarkable grainy, while others, shot on the same stock and transfer, have much less noticable grain and the image appears much smoother, and alwayswondered if there was any approach used in particular. Perhaps I should have been paying more attention to the overal image, and why I noticed so much grain. Thanks

Good point. Final support as of now is undecided, I'm thinking HD transfer, but its still up to the director's budget, and is yet to be finalized. Ratio will be 1:66. The 500T I mentioned is the likely format, as in worst case for grain which is why I used that in my question. Ultimately we may use a Vision2 200T but given our available lighting package is small for student budget, I may go 500T to be safe. I know its still kind of vague, sorry, we are just still in the very early stages of pre-production so there are tests to be done, and much to be sorted out. Thanks

I'm currently trying to understand better how to minimize the appearance of grain in shooting 16mm, as I have a shoot coming up on 500T and know I will be subject to having grain if I don't handle it properly. I understand (I think) that grain is often pronounced when the image is underexposed, and a slight overexposure can help reduce this effect. But how do you keep grain out of the shadow areas of your image? If I was shooting something and wanted lots of shadow, a low key environment for example, aren't shadows just underexposed areas of the frame? However I have seen examples where there are shadows maybe 3 stops under key, or scenes at night with areas of total black, that look quite clean and free of grain. Any advice to understanding the appearance of grain and tips for reducing it? I am going into shooting tests in a couple weeks, and just thought there might be some things to look for and try. Thanks for the help

Yeah, the last job I worked on I was cleaning a lens and asked the AC if he had an air bulb on him to blow away dust, and to my surprise he instead handed me a similar makeup brush. Worked fairly well.

I just got done a day of shooting, where we shot several scenes that were night interiors lit by moonlight. However due to scheduling, most of the shooting occured during the day, so I had to black the windows and motivate the light from inside. However during the last setup of the day, it had turned to night at that point, so we were able to put a light outside the window as you can see. Obviously these are two very different looking shots (at least they are from different scenes/locations), and I really prefer the 2nd one best. Any thoughts/comments/suggestions on the two would be appreciated, or advice on getting a better moonlight effect when forced to have all your lights in the room, because I really think both shots can be improved alot, albeit they were done very differently. This first shot was the shot light during the day. I had a micky cut down with a net, through 1/2 CTB and 1/8 plus green. The windows were blacked out, however I pulled off just a corner of the black to allow some sunlight in, which went blue due to my color balance. (This was shot on HVX200) My biggest beef with it is its too high key, It feels flat. I was having trouble controlling the spill of the light, in such a small room. In retrospect I probably should have used smaller, more controllable sources, i.e fresnel and only lit certain highlights. Any advice on this would be appreciated. This 2nd photo is obviously a lot closer to the lower key look lacking in the first photo. Outside we put a Micky gelled with 1/2 CTB (No HMI on this shoot unfortunatly) Frame right is the door which is slightly cracked open, with another Micky with 1/8th CTO, flagged to prevent any spill (Also in retrospect should have been a fresnel for harder edge I think) Then there is a 1K through 1/2 CTB bounced frame left, which is providing the ambient light level on the far wall. Finally a 300W fresnel with 1/2 CTB is providing the blue edgelight on the left of the actor. I think this one works much better, but again, comments/critique is most welcome.

So it would seem, incident readings in their own way, have less room for error, as they don't take into account reflectance of an object, which requires compensation. Reflected spot meters on the other hand do require a compensation to require an accurate image (subject to artistic interpretation of course) I recall the first time I shot film, I used a reflected meter on a car, and forgot to compensate for how reflective it was. As you can imagine the footage was quite dark. Thanks for all the help guys

Honestly I'm probably the least experience person who should answer this, having no experience with a 535b. But to make an educated guess based on what limited reading I've done on the camera, I would say perhaps it has something to do with the behind-the-lens gel filter holder the camera has. It could be sensing something is in the holder and is flashing that to remind you. Again, this doesn't come from any experience, but its just a possibility. Good luck, hope you figure it out.

I've yet to try it myself, but I've talked to people who say they find a chocolate gel to provide an enjoyable skin tone.

This was mostly brought on by a part of Box's well known handbook, which in his discussion of the zone system, referred to how a DP can take a reflected meter of skin and use it as a reference. So from my understanding of your very helpful comments, skin that is falls in a lower zone say a browner skin in zone V would be correctly exposed if metered with a reflected meter, because zone V is middle grey, so proper exposure would be obtained. However darker skin, that is say closer to zone III, if I metered it I should underexpose about two stops. And finally, what effect does the reflectiveness of skin have, perhaps someone has very dark skin yet if it was very reflective, wouldn't my meter indicate it was much brighter and stop down, hence maybe in that situation, I wouldn't have to underexpose 2 stops. Is there any relevance to this? Thanks again for the comments, all very helpful

I'm currently trying to work out some lingering confusion I have regarding light meter readings. When a light meter gives you a reading as an f-stop, what does it base that on? As in when I take my incident meter reading in a room, and it says the 'correct' exposure would be an f5.6, what is that correct for? Is it for 18% gray, so if I put a gray card right there, facing the same direction, and shot it at an f5.6 it would appear middle gray on film? And for a reflected meter, does that also use 18% gray as reference? So if I take a reflected reading of my subjects face and it tells me 'correct' exposure is an f4, I take it if I shoot at an f4 then looked at my film as for only the luminance (b&w) the subjects face would be middle gray. Is any of this correct, although I understand its all a basic concept, its a weird one for me to grasp, regarding how a meter determines a seemingly artistic choice of 'correct' exposure. Thanks for the help.