Patrick Neary

also try testing both ways- the anamorphic adaptors for DV cameras are like shooting through coke bottles, and can limit your close focus and zoom range.

It's not a dumb or ignorant post- it's just one of the realities of this pursuit. On the other side of the tracks, how many of us have worked for rich wackos for whom movies are an ego-driven hobby? I know I sure have....

Hi- Here's a thread frpm a similar discussion, but probably the same issues are at work here: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...wtopic=2384&hl= The main problem is that c-mount lenses sit so close to the film plane, that an adaptor, especially for an Arri (i don't know about Aatons) would have to sink the lens so far into the camera body that it probably would smack into the mirror, or at the least be impossible to get at to change the focus and aperture. Whether you could rehouse the lens is a question for a technician and your bank account!

Digibeta is pretty. HD is prettier.

>A rack focus is really a cheap, metaphorical device for the unimaginative to link two objects/people in a frame. I think someone is baiting us! Many times, especially in 35mm, a rack focus is more of a necessity than an artistic choice. I mean, stuff has to be in focus!

If you're shooting with an SR, pop the mag off, or start and stop the camera where you want the flashes. But it sounds like for what you want, maybe this would be much easier and more controllable as a post effect, assuming you're finishing on tape. very very easy to do in after effects!

I used to have one with a 16bl (it had a thick shoulder pad, and another padded thing that perched on your ribs) and it was almost....OK, I'll say it- comfortable... If you didn't swing around too violently, you could almost operate "hands-off" it was very well balanced. get it!

I dunno if this counts, but several years ago I had a small "Aha!" moment (maybe more of a "dope slap" moment!) once confronted with an enormous warehouse interior- and not so enormous lighting package- Looking through the camera I realized I just needed a small bit of light on a background wall in the distance, and a small bit of light on the actor near the camera. I didn't need to light the whole space, just the little bits in the viewfinder. So it was lighting a large space with small-space technique- an efficiency forced by a lousy lighting kit!

Hi- You might look at Visual Products, they've been advertising a nikon mount Eclair for ages. Having used Nikon still lenses as a newspaper guy for 8 years, I can say that I never experienced any kind of focus breathing with those lenses, although I only used primes. The bigger issue seems to be more with follow focus mechanisms. And that the throw of the focus-ring isn't spaced (between calibrated distances) as conveniently as an MP lens. They also are not color-matched to any real degree. Although they are very high quality glass, they are mass-market lenses, and you may need to try a couple of the same focal length to find one that really is super-sharp. I went through several 85mm primes before I found one that was good. As an aside, somewhere around here I've got a Nikon hard front for a II-C, (I think it needs a spacer-plate to fit correctly to the camera) If you're interested, I'd love to get rid of it!

they are pigs, but they're good pigs. I had a "swan viewfinder" or whatever it was called (an extension that moved the stock finder up a little higher) and an Arri shoulder stock that made hand-holding much easier. Also, practice loading the mags in daylight. The loops have to be pretty exact. And when you thread it, make REALLY sure the top loop doesn't push up against the top of the chamber (above the gate) during the exposure cycle, it can put two scratches right in the center of every frame.....Don't ask how I know that.... good luck with it!

The first time you have a shoot on an ocean beach with blowing sand and rain, you'll be really glad it's not your equipment! As a shooter, renting gear (having the prod. co. rent gear, I mean) also gives you the chance to play with different systems, which I think is part of the fun of this work...

Maybe I'm too sheltered- I've never heard of anyone pulling 2.39 out of academy- Has anyone ever really done this? It seems like combining the worst of both s-35 (the optical step, if that's even an option) and academy (smaller image area).

Hi- Gerald Hirschfeld wrote a good book on filters for film & video, full of examples and even ideas for home-crafting your own!

Get a competent crew (and don't just take their word for it). A crummy AC or gaffer can ruin the experience, and your work. Hope it goes well for you!

A web video isn't exactly going to show off any medium's best qualities. Here's an idea. go shoot some, transfer it someplace good ( read: Flying Spot) and see what you think... :)

Hi- As I understand it, there was a special high speed gate for 2-C's that allowed 80fps. I also recently did some 60fps stuff for a short, and the footage was quite unstable, almost unusable, really. But that may have just been that particular rental we were using (in fact, if I remember right, the good folks at Utterbach warned us about going above 40-50fps- serves me right!)

Hi- If I understand your intentions to get a hot background without overexposing the oranges, then what you need to do is cut down the amount of light on the oranges, by squeezing some solids in there, providing "negative fill"- then you can open up for the oranges at proper exposure and blow out your background by whatever degree you're looking for. Hope that helps!

Hi- You need to talk with your colorist and lab about the negative, or better go see for yourself if possible. it sounds like maybe your neg is a little thin, but you can't tell just from an unsupervised transfer. A little extra exposure never hurts with 16! Let us know what you find out-

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of how it sometimes seems like a perfect metaphor for my own career... :) More to the point at hand, and to toss a little optimistic note out there, I know that when I work with a new crew person, an AC, grip or whatever, if they are a positive force during the shoot, and work hard, etc etc, I do everything I can to get them back for the next one. A guy I worked with here in oregon on one small job moved to LA and started gripping right out of the gate, and now (only several months later) is so busy that I have a hard time scheduling him on my own shoots down there. He works like a trooper and is great fun to have on set, and knows what he's doing. It's hard to find that in any crew.

Has anyone else noticed that "The Little Engine That Could" is going downhill with a clown at the controls?....

Hey Sam- The only H8 I've seen had what looked like a regular "C-mount", but I'd bet the lenses (which had correspondingly smaller focal lengths) don't cover the 16 frame. I also have to think that if the 5.5mm lens (or whatever it was) on an H8 covered 16, it's the best kept secret in camera-land...

huh... Are there any double super-8 cameras left out there? And film? I wouldn't really look at it as an either/or thing. Super8 is cool in it's own right, but a very different beast than HD. I guess someone somewhere is probably still shooting 9.5mm too.

wrong wrong wrong!!!! (well, it depends on how you shoot it, and where you transfer, I guess) Super-8 neg can look fantastic, and very much like 16mm, if that's what you want. Plus it's really fun to shoot. Send your stuff to flying spot in seattle, and you'll see...

Hi- I've never dealt with film emporium, but have used recans from several other sellers- mostly it's OK if you're budget is very low and you are finishing on tape. I would never use recans/ends on a film-finish print again- it was an eye-opening experience to see how varied (and how much) the base fog levels on supposedly "tested" stocks can be!