Ryan K

Well, indeed. I'll go ahead and do some testing but I imagine re-recording it off VHS is probably the way to go. Cheers for the responses, guys!

For those of you familar with UK Television, there was a comedy show called The Day Today which contained some sketches from a supposed U.S news team covering fictional stories. They had a great look for these sketches which i'm trying to emulate - it was basically a really dirty NTSC image which had loads of fringing and skewed colours. Aside from using an NTSC camera with a rubbish lens, does anyone have any ideas about how best to achieve this look? I'm imagining there might be a fair amount of grading involved but if anyone is familiar with this look and can offer any thoughts on how to achieve it authentically i'd be hugely grateful. Thanks, Ryan

I've been wondering about this for a while - for those of us who don't get to shoot film that often but want to develop an 'eye' for particular stocks, are there any stills stocks which might closely match the characteristics of regularly used motion picture stock? For instance, if I wanted to develop an eye for, say, 5218, is there a kodak stills stock which I could practice on that would give me roughly the same look? Obviously there's a lot of stocks about but are there any reliable correlations to be drawn? Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone, I'm a D.P working in Belfast and i'll be shooting a slate of short films from the 15th of May til the 2nd of June and had worked out a camera kit with the various directors which included an EX-1 and a Letus extreme. One of the directors was going to buy the adaptor and rent it to production but got cold feet, which leaves me in a bit of a fix. I'd like to maintain the same camera kit but as production are loathe to actually purchase the adaptor i'm left to find one which either a company or an individual is willing to rent for the duration of the shoot plus a couple of test days. Do any of you folks know of anyone (or are yourself) in possession of a Letus EX with the EX-1 acromat with a nikon mount and would be willing to rent it out? I'm genuinely in a bit of a tricky spot so if anyone can save the day i'd be most appreciative. If anyone can help, in principle, i'll get the production manager to sort out a mutually agreeable rate and the other fine details (courier charges, etc..) with you. The adaptor would obviously be covered under production's insurance and the films are all funded by the Northern Ireland Film Commission so there would be no cause for concern! It goes without saying that 12 days hire of the adaptor would account for a significant portion of its total cost so it can only be mutually advantageous to hire it out - as I say, production cannot purchase a capital gains piece of kit and I can't justify purchasing one myself as I don't use fixed lens camcorders on a day to day basis. Someone please save the day! My email address is ryankernaghan@hotmail.com - cheers!

Thanks Michael, If they're the same, though, where is the benefit in using a book-light setup? Surely instead of having a 4x4 book-light with all the issues of inefficiency, area taken up and flagging, you could just have a couple of 4'x2 kinos with a diff frame over them? There must be something else about them which makes them so useful, non?

Hey guys, I was just wondering what the difference is between a book light and, say, a kino unit of similar size or a lamp being blasted through a diff frame of similar size? Is it simply to do with the fall-off from the book light being smoother? I would have thought that seeing as the effective 'source' of the book light would be the material the light was eventually coming from, the fall off would be roughly the same as the other two units I mentioned. I'm aware that having a lamp blasted directly into a diff or silk frame can leave a hot spot, but if the lamp is position far enough back, how would the spread differ from a book light? Many thanks in advance, Ryan

Has anyone tested this camera with either one of these adaptors yet? It's my understanding that they are designed to work with 1/3" or 2/3" chip cameras, but is there any issue with the fact that the EX-1 is a 1/2" chip camera? I haven't seen any information on either one of their websites which would confirm that they are fully compatible with this camera. Many thanks in advance. Ryan

Hey, aside from scanning ebay every day, is anyone aware of anywhere where you can get a filter case (peli or otherwise) for upwards of 20 4x4 filters fitted with laser-cut foam slots? Is this something you can buy easily or is it just something you have to have custom ordered? Thanks a lot.

I know what you mean, though I probably wouldn't be so absolute about it. There is an element in Crewdson's photographs that, instead of communicating depth or 'readability' (for want of a better term), they're just very very 'cool'. A friend of mine once said that he quite liked Crewson's photos but he almost expected them to end up as part of a print campaign for Levis, or something. It's probably not Crewdson's fault, particularly - almost any piece of art can be co-opted for that purpose but there is something in his work that niggles. On the other hand, one of the reasons that i'm attracted to cinematography is that, on a certain level, it's an abstract language in much the same way that music is and the communication of a 'feeling' or a 'tone' is quite often a goal in itself. A lot of the time the things that resonate with me most aren't things that can be endlessly deconstructed or 'read', but are those little feelings or tones that you can't quite put your finger on, that exist on a purely abstract, instinctive level which enter your mind through the back door.

Whoops there - the out of focus wall behind Kane's back fooled me into thinking it was a split diopter. Pretty impressive stuff if it was done with a matte.

Bear on mind that shot which Mr Mullen put up had a split diopter on it, otherwise Mr. Welles would have been out of focus.

I'm shooting a short next week with a Pro 35/ Digibeta setup. I'm aware that the adapter will soften up the image somewhat, and i've seen it in use when I assisted someone using it recently - however, has anyone used it and seen the results on a big screen? Venerable folk on this forum have cited the soft-o-factor of the adapter to be something in the region of a 1/8 black pro mist, which seemed to be the case to my eyes when seen on a monitor, though I have not seen what it looks like otherwise. A few D.Ps I have spoken to seemed to think the effect would be too gaudy on a cinema screen - can anyone offer any testimony? Obviously there's an amount of subjectivity involved but essentially we were hoping the adapter would negate the need for any other diffusion on the lens. Any thoughts?

I've just got a sekonic L-558. It's great - does everything the cine version does minus the lux/fc readings, but they're easily calculated anyway with a little conversion table. £200 from Hong Kong - very pleased with it indeed.

As I understand it he was almost fired from the film because Brooks didn't think he was doing the business! Apparently it took a bit of convincing from Gene Wilder to keep him on the picture and the whole thing was later resolved as Brooks not properly explaining the look of the picture to the D.P. There's another semi-interesting factoid for you all.

Seamus McGarvey has recently developed a set of filters with Schneider specifically for that purpose. They're called Sahara Gold and they're mainly useful for preserving skin tones and maintaining an overall tone between key and shade (which is very blue). Not having shot in the desert, I can't speak for their brilliance but McGarvey thought they were the ticket, as one would expect given the fact he helped make them.

I know that Arri do a nice little all-in-one tilt focus lens, which is altogether more user friendly than the swing and shift mechanism *but* does anyone know if there is a tilt focus digi lens on the market yet? I'd rather not have to go through the rigmarole of having to mount the film lens onto the varicam via one of those mini35 things so if anyone knows of a native digi lens then I would be most appreciative. Ta muchly.

That was really great - I really like Fourtet and Mark Heap is a superb actor. I highly recommend all the stuff he did in Jam (for those of you who are unfamiliar with him).

Much to my consternation....

Does anyone know if there's a standard iso equivilency for video? I've had iso320 quoted at me but that seems a little too slow. Anyone any theories/ concrete answers?

Well, it was my understanding that 70mm (or 65) was used to shoot green screen backgrounds for projects which are principally shot on 35mm. The reason being that the increased detail in the larger format would result in a greater quality in the background plate. N'est pas? No problems with grain or resolution if all the green screen backgrounds are shot on 35? Perhaps I'm wrong. It was this belief which informed the question of whether I would get good results with shooting background plates on HD for a project on which principal photography was also shot on HD. Obviously mixing formats would look peculiar but I thought it best to see if there are any particular reasons why a HD background plate might throw up problems. To explain further, this relates to shooting outside the window of a stationary train with a greenscreen on the other side of the carriage upon which the moving background plate would be pasted in post. It's a short film and it will most likely be digitally projected as there are no plans for a blow up.

As far as I know, shooting background plates for film is done on 70mm for a higher resolution. Does anyone know if it is advisable to shoot background plates on HD for HD? Does the resolution hold up?

I'm considering using a tilt focus lens for an upcoming short and was wondering if anyone here has any experience with this piece of kit. I know that the tilt focus lens' one uses in still 35mm photography are relatively straightforward pieces of kit but when I mentioned wanting to use the equivalent film lens (century swing and shift, I believe) to the camera tech down at V.F.G he took a sharp intake of breath and looked at me as though I wanted to shoot in outer space. Just how fiddly are these lens systems? Anyone got any advice?

Thanks all. Sage advice indeed. As my short is being shot along with another slate of shorts funded by the N.I.F.T.C we may be able to block book a varicam and get a kit of Digiprimes with it, which would be delightful. Now, can I still afford to get a tilt focus lens for it.....

It's my understanding, from what I hear from an editor chum, that if were to shoot footage at, say, 70i it would manifest unseemly lines when digitally projected onto a cinema screen. I'll be shooting a short on HD in the not too distant future which will be projected as such and some of the stuff will have to be shot beyond the camera's progressive scan capabilities as interlaced footage. Now, is he talking out of his arse? Does anyone have any experience in this field?

Does anyone have any notion, or better yet, some images of the results of sticking film primes on the front of a Digibeta camera? I'm doing a short in a few months and as the budget doesn't facilitate Super16 i'm looking at other avenues. I'm told that this set-up works well but if anyone has their own testimony or advice it would be most appreciated.