Sam Wells

I owned a JK optical printer at one time, it was a pretty good machine (albeit "slow" but optical printing is not exactly real time <_< .) I still see interesting work, especially in experimental films, done with optical printing but this is typically very 'optical' intervention (sorry to use artworld jargon du jour) -- illuminating the source off-axis, and so on. I couldn't dream of doing the things I'm doing on a G5 now with _any_ optical printer. (And they're still a lot of work). The contrast build up as David mentions _alone_ would kill it. Let alone 12 image layers at once. And still maintaing control over color. I'm all for photochemical. I'm all for getting it in the camera. I like reversal film even, WYSIWYG. But really, once you cross the border out of the purely photographic encounter and into composite image creation, it's something different, you're _not_ dealing with that native 'track of the light encountered' - to me this is a cross discipline, something akin to painting. I'm doing some things now I've wanted to do for 25 years, now I can. -Sam

Gentlemen ! You can't murder each other in here, this is the Red Room ! -General J.D. Ripper, Ret

In fact Muybridge was heavily into digital, but it didn't catch on - no could say "workflow" without invoking raucous laughter... Seriously, Muybridge is our grandfather... -Sam

I used the Rifa as key for some doc interviews last year (the director owns it - an incentive I guess). I really liked it for this kind of stuff: very fast and portable (I lit an interview with Tavis Smiley where I had like less than 60 seconds to tweak the lighting, I'm not joking)..... so maybe a bit quicker all around than Chimera (a plus with Chimera of course is if you use say an Arri fresnel and don't want the softbox, then you've got an Arri fresnel !) I'm less inclined to these approaches for dramatic work. But THAT covers such a wide base....... -Sam

No, I didn't mean to be either. What you read as "non-chalance" I read as ambivalence, as in the victims hoping for the best fearing the worse simultaneously. In addition, I like institutions as protagonist (here one _might_ link Fincher and Kubrick, although I would say it's banality of same in Fincher (I find this *much* different than "Fight Club" or "Seven") whereas with Kubrick it's institutions (organizations, ideologies) breaking down (in film after film). Kubrick has the "advantage" of history confirming the thesis of his films :ph34r: On that happy note..... -Sam

Thanks ! I know I was asking a subjective question. again for me it's what do I shoot the followup to a project I shot on 7245 on, do I try & get there with the Fujior do I go with 7201 and get there in transfer/post. I'm undecided, (after many years of a get-it-on-the-film-in-the-first place philosophy) and will need to shoot some specific things. It looks like I'll have to try Fuji's "Eterna Vivid" (awkward name !) when available - and Kodak's rumored answer to that.. Oh well I won't complain about choices..... -Sam

Well your interpretation isn't mine, what can I say ? I was no particular fan of JFK (don't know the other films) I give up, you're infallible I'm sure. -Sam

If you consider art directors to be the final arbiters of taste, I don't. (or society for that matter). This isn't an anti-digital post; it is definitely one in favor of choice. -Sam

Oh it's not so technical, which did you like (or both) and why ? It's that type of question. -Sam

I don't know what you want from the murder scenes -- a repeat of "Irreversible" ? You could I suppose eliminate them - but not the first one - as significant aspects of it become crucial to the story later. As for nonchallance - well really I didn't get that. I mean these detectives have to have their coping mechanisms... even a kind of gallows humor did not seem out of place. If you want to address genre and fictional narrative presumptions critically, OK (gonna get a bit off-topic for here, maybe...) To me Zodiac was not a crime thriller anyway, but a film about the inadequecy of evidence (and the obssesiveness engendered by that frustration), not so much in the legal sense (although that was certainly an issue in the story) but in a philosophical sense. A film about institutions, far more than a whodunit. Anyway, Fincher's best film for my money, the first one of his of serious interest beyond its surfaces. -Sam

So, can you tell me your subjective thoughts - given the digital post path ? (it's a comparison I want to do, although 4K will be out of my budget :D ) as will 35 probably. I'm looking for the alternative to '45 -- do I want it photochemically (maybe the Fuji 64D which I like) or do I shoot 7201 and get there digitally...... I'll have to do my own subject-specific test but am curious anyway... -Sam

With a pin registration mod ? -Sam

That's much closer to my view as well. And then again there are many forms of film that are not storytelling in the literal sense... -Sam

Hi Michael, if you have experience with those cameras I thin you'll be fine & even pleasantly surprised; Vision 2 negative will not be so different than REC 500 on the Varicam with much better highlights ! I once taught a video DP (who did really good work with Betacams) sort of on-the-job teaching him to shoot film (16mm Fuji neg in this case but that's irrelevant); this was a friend's Indie feature that he wanted me to shoot but I coudn't, I was too immersed in my own. But since a good friend - who'd done great FX for me - I crewed the first few days, transitioning our mutual friend into a film DP; critiqued dailies (film dailies, which helped). My two comments after the first roulnd of dailies were that 1, he should "trust the negative" - he was tending to hold back & get too 'polite' for this somewhat gritty movie (no corporate client w/ face in the Sony monitor here :) 2, a turnaround he did when I was not there looked good on its own but did not match well; hey no monitor & playback to reference. I encouraged him to think more about motivation and sources, "keep the matching in your head" so to speak. Again it helps to know what the negative can & cannot do. I think that it might be equally if not more important to really know and get a feel for one specific stock, really see what you can do with it: 'transposing' along the Vision 2 lineup should not be much f a leap conceptually. Well that's just my thought. I think 'knowing' the negative is more important than just painting by numbers so to speak. -Sam

Interformat ? -Sam

I couldn't disagree more, I think art is a living thing even if the artist is not. Eiseinstein's theories may be problematic - I would say so myself but then I think they are in some sense rationales dircted at himself (a whole 'nother discussion) but I can see - almost the "hand" of Eisenstein every time I turn on a TV... The last time I saw Fritz Lang's "M" - a film I'd nearly consigned to the "war horse" dept - I was astonished how it reall could stand as the template for film noir (remember Lang made some great films in Hollywood subsequently....) For me the filmmakers who are of the deepest interest are those who one can return to, and learn more, learn different things. It's ongoing.. -Sam

I dunno, there's nothing like figuring it out as you go with 15 people behind you looking at the video tap monitor :D -Sam "sweat equity" Wells No for eye focus it's more difficult with more DOF sometimes, you can't 'read' the oof texture & bokeh & change of same etc as clearly. -Sam Wells

I think it's an interesting experiment, and daring experiments can be useful. No I don't expect to see many S8 features at the local multiplex now (not that I give a flying f*** about 90 % of what plays at the local multiplex....) -Sam

Douglas: an S8mm frame sized piece of 7212 negative is the same thing as a the same portion of a 16mm 7212 negative or 35mm negative. "More of a known quantity" doesn't mean it's where it could be. (I agree much of the discussion re S8 *practice* is a bit unrealistic). -Sam

I think some kinds of technical research - and I'd include this project - are valid for their own sake; why presuppose so much as to how the "end user" will interpret or use this knowledge ? If you know how far you can take a Super 8 image you certainly can surmise how far you can take S16 ! I'm not an S8 shooter at all (not since I began filmmaking & a few exceptions) - but I had one project where I had to consider it as a possibilty - a choice over DV - altho as it turned out I could and did shoot 16 as I wanted to. This also raises the question: if 2K is optimal for S8 is it insufficient for S16 ? -Sam

I'm a major "fan" of "Elephant" and "Last Days" as well. A film you should see if you're into Harris Savides' work is "Birth" if you haven't yet. I'll see "Zodiac" this weekend - so no opinion yet. -Sam

There may be a _little_ bit of distortion on the 7mm Digiprime but really I think if you're close enough to be bothered by it in many cases you're close enough to see the ("un")natural aspects of that perspective A very useful lens I think. -Sam

Well you could argue that shooting at a wide stop & therefore softening backgrounds could give you sharper apparent focus so to speak... but sometimes having great DOF in B&W gives a good feeling of sharpness -- everything looks kind of sculpted (a snappy contrast would help here - and I'd tend to avoid pull processing Double X, it looks pretty flat then...) anyway if your lenses are less than stellar performers stopping down some is sure to help. Re grain and hard v soft lighting, if you have good tonal variety (avoiding large even midtones) and/or hot highlights offsetting dark areas you can maximize your assests so to speak.. Then again if you have the resources to light the Double-X in the studio to a 5.6 you can consider Plus-X and a wider stop instead.. -Sam

Pi, Clerks, and Chan Is Missing are all straight 16 FWIW -Sam

Hi Rob, even EXR and Vision "1" I found it's more like 2/3 stop based on printer lights. -Sam