cineshooter

I got to 'play' with a couple of the XL-2s recently I felt that the camera was OK... The best part of the camera is the interchangeable lens feature. it allows you to use any of Canon's 35mm SLR EOS (I guess you'd call them) lenses. A very nice feature. If I am not mistaken the canon had a few other things I liked, one that comes to mind is that you can physically make quite a few adjustments (not menus to scroll through) the picture was fine. the price is pretty good. as for the question of strobing when panning...to the best of my knowledge any progressive camera will do that (as will motion picture cameras) when your pan speed becomes (a mathematical formula which I am not good with) a certain rate. I was also allowed to use one of the XL-2's that have been modified by ZGC to house motion picture camera lenses (I think the one we had setup was a Cooke 50mm). This option costes more than the price of the camera. then of course you need to rent the lenses (unless you already own or would like to purchase those lenses) A feature I thought was very inginuitive, however if I was to spend the money to have my camera modified to use those lenses (it's an adapter that is placed on the front of the camera, which I don't know if you can just 'pop' on and off) I'd be buying a differnt camera....... My best advice would be rent one for a couple of days and go out shooting, shoot sunrise, shoot high contrast, shoot table top, shoot natural light as well as toatlly created environments, shoot the moon (Literally) and shoot with candle light....then you decide "Is this the right camera for my needs"......Remember the old saying...."A pictures worth a thousand words" ask yourself 'what am I trying to say?' Happy shooting!! JD www.cineshooter.com

you can look at mine (www.cineshooter.com) I'd love to hear what you think JD

the Angeniu is sort of like the 'Fisher Price my first film lens'....they seem to have been the 'standard issue' for many old and used 16mm cameras, the image is there, however not pristine...the lens breathes heavy (from what I remember) and is not 'extremely sharp' other than in the middle of the lens and not to far before or past an F5.6 - remember most lens will have a sweet spot that is one or two stops down from wide open - try the canon 10-120 (I think) Flourite lens - Extremely sharp, very sweet piece of glass.....(FOR OLD 70'LENSES) remember a good lens 30 years ago is still a good lens today (as long as it has not been abused).... Happy shooting.... JD www.cineshooter.com

I have not shot that particular stock...when it comes to 100ASA stock I've been shooting '48 ..... I have a particular director who likes that stock for shooting commercials in 16mm or S16....that stock requires a fairly strong amount of light, but for TV, it does look gorgeous (tight grain, real nice image with colors, some people have actually mistaken it for 35) however I have NOT projected it. I would be glad to show you some examples of Kodak's '48 stock..... the table top and the palm tree model shots on my reel (www.cineshooter.com) were shot with this stock.... good luck and happy shooting!! JD www.cineshooter.com

The only Switar zoom I have ever seen was a parralex lens converted by (only god knows) someone to be a through the lens viewer....and I do mean through the lens....the cameras eyepiece was kind of periscoped off the side of the lens...I'l check with the guy who owned this lens I think he still has it...I do believe it was a C-mount used on a Bolex..... JD www.Cineshooter.com

I'll take a crack at it: I have an Eclair NPR (mine does not have the standard motor) but did you try a different cable for the battery...(I run my NPR off Anton Bauer and Fezzolini camera 'bricks') my camera gave me trouble a couple of times and it seemed to be some sort of power issue as well, one time the problem was traced to the cable running from my battery to my camera... Good luck, great little camera... Peace, JD www.cineshooter.com

OK, let me clear up what I mean....the numbers on the lens are still the same, however the lenses will behave as lenses with double the focal length of the stated focal length on the lens....for example a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera will give the fielsd of view of a 100mm lens for a 16mm camera...it's been a while since I did these conversions but if I am not mistaken these are the way things react... JD www.cineshooter.com

If I may answer the question on lens 'breathing' (I am not Phil). Breathing is when the image in the lens shrinks or grows (kind of like a slight very slight zoom) when you change focus....the more expensive the lens, usually, the less the lens will 'breath'. This is one of the main problems I often see in TV broadcast lenses. There are often few abriations in these lenses, however when you pull focus it looks as if you are doing a slight zoom. When breathing is the lenes biggest problem (and hopefully it will be) there are several ways around it; you can use the lens as a variable prime and simply not zoom; or you can try and trick the lens using the lenses macro focus you can pull focus from the macro ring (this will look great, however it only works on lenses with a macro focus adjust, and in the wider end of the lens). Feel free, to add to or shoot down my definition and my 'low budget solutions' I welcome anyone's experiences and input. Peace, JD www.cineshooter.com

Try this before you make yourself completely nuts.....I had a K-3 a few years ago (fun little camera).....I also had an early 70's Mamiya 35mm SLR with the c-mount lens.....(screw on type)...low and behold the SLR lenses fit the K-3....I did a few testes and wham-o the film plane was even in focus....I was then able to use my 35mm SLR lenes on my K-3.....those old mount lenes are pretty easy to find at old camera stores.....look for the best ones you can find and test them out on your K-3 Once you do that you'll need to remeber that these lense are not the mm's in 16 that they are for 35 ... Best of luck Oh, and no I no longer have the cameras or the lenses, my entire bag got stolen off a job a couple of years ago... JD www.cineshooter.com

I just shot a couple of things off a Dell LCD computer monitor. I did not have a person in the shot, so I just white balanced my camera for the screen (it was very blue at the standard tungsten light white balance) The shot looked fine. Sharp, nice color reproduction, no roll. As for the color problem, I worked on a network's pre-game football show a few years ago. This is how the engineers of the show handled the monitor that was on set for the host and the guests. We used to pump a source through the monitor on set, then shoot that monitor with one of the studio cameras....the monitor's controls would then be tweaked so that the picture in the monitor looked good to the cameras shooting the show, not to eye. JD www.cineshooter.com

I can only speak from the NYer's perspective, there are companies requesting the 900. You can only answer the question for your marketplace. If the question is would I buy a new Beta rig the answer would be NO FRIGGIN' WAY. I see Beta's future being bleak. I still have my old Beta rig and use it when requested, but if I had my way SDX-900 for any job for standard def. TV. I have the Canon HD21X7.5 lens on the rig and I love the picture. I was able to use all my old camera accessories (except for my filters, the Canon's front element is huge). I generally choose to shoot in the 16:9 30P format when the project is mine. For most of the clients requesting the rig I shoot 60i either 4:3 or 16:9 depending on their editing systems. I love the way the colors burst on the scene, the way I can blow out but still have details in the whites, and the way I can see into the shadows. The size and the weight are nice. The price is actually very reasonable I'm into mine for under $45K. Rental houses in NY are getting around $700/day for the rig. It's not very tricky to start learning and then you can slowly dive into the customizable setting. Best of luck. JD www.cineshooter.com

Hmmm, now that's interesting: My eyepiece will atomatically switch to show the aspect ratio that I have set the camera at. I did order my eyepiece seperately from the camera and I was recommended that particular model by the Panasonic rep who sold me the camera. Maybe different eyepieces behave differently. Sounds like a technical question for Panasonic. If you had one of those memory cards in the camera that probably would switch all of the camera's settings to the memory card's saved settings when you power up, so even if you had the camera set perfectly (the way you wanted for the particular project), then powered down (with the memory card in the csmera), got to location and powered the camera back up, the camera would have reverted to the saved settings on the memory card. That's my best guess..... Peace, JD Cineshooter, LLC www.cineshooter.com

Hey don't feel too bad, we all make mistakes and to be perfectly honest; as the responsibilities of each crew member increases proportionally to the decreases in the number of crew members MORE not fewer mistakes will be made. The shrinking budgets and sacrificing of crew members is removing the system of checks and balances. At one time (I)crew members worked their way up the ladder, starting as camera assist, cam ops and then DP's. Now DP's get 'hired' because they will take the job not because of their qualifications or relationships that have been built with time and committment. There are gigs (many these days) where I am DP/AC/cam op/loader/and gaffer, and in the video world all the above and more. So hang in there and don't be too hard on yourself. Best of luck on your next project. JD Cineshooter, LLC www.cineshooter.com

This will also add to that 'not quite right' look of the ghost. Have the actor(s) do the scene walking backwards then playdown the actor's shot (in the post production) in reverse this will cause all the movement to be going forward but something will just look weird. JD

That was it!!! the output selector switch Thanks guys JD www.cineshooter.com

Hello All: I hope somebody can clear this problem up for me. I have the SDX-900, I had set up a shot viewed through the monitor. The director asked if I could truck to the right a bit, I lifted the camera and the stix at the same time walked over a couple of steps panned the camera to set the framing and the monitor output was gone. we changed the monitor cable, still no picture. Set up a different monitor (the backup monitor does not go into 16:9) still no picture. Changed the monitor cable again, still no picture. Then we plugged the monitor into the 'monitor output' on the back of the camera (I always use the ouput on the right side of the camera) and still no picture. So my question is could I have somehow touched something while changing the camera position that turned off the monitor output, or did something serious happen to this camera? Thanks, JD WWW.CINESHOOTER.COM

Hello: I invite you all to check out an industry newsletter called 'In Focus Newsletter' (www.infocusnewsletter.com) if you like the newsletter sign up, tell a few people and think about contributing to the articles. JD Cineshooter, LLC www.cineshooter.com

If I may add my two cents on the topic of homemade coops...A couple of years ago I shot a commercial for a Paul Mitchell based hair Salon I made 2 coops which we sat on the floor in a studio with a hard white cyc. We made these coops from 2X4's (cut at angles to alLow the face of the unit to angle up toward the models faces) of (if memory serves me correctly) 12 feet long. we boxed out the coops 12X4X3 covered thE exterior with black duv. and stapled 216 to the front of the coops. We then put 4 open faced 2K fresnels (Moles) inside the coops on pigeons. positioned the coops so that one side was about 1 stop over the other side and bingo we had a beautiful source of light. We then added some backlights (also 2K's if memeory serves me correctly). The light was nice enough to leave alone all day, no matter which model we used (blond, asian, redhead, and brunette) and everybody was happy. The only downside was the heat....every time we stopped shooting (re-load, change models, etc) we had to turn off the lights and vent the softboxes....we were also able to control any spill from the coops by using 4X4 flags clamped right to the softbox coops. Thanks for listening, hope this helps anyone looking to build there own softboxes. JD Cineshooter, LLC WWW.CINESHOOTER.COM

I've been using the canon hd (HJ21X7.5B) zoom lens very minimal breathing killer piece of glass. I have the 2X extender and macro features, I love the way this lens will go into macro while the extender is kicked in, some of my previous lens would not do that. My only down sides were none of my old filters fit this lens (I love filters) and the cost The lens lists for around $30K very expensive. I felt that I was investing in this lens for the long term. I know this piece of glass will travel with me to HD and (I'm fairly certain) I can get an adapter so this glass will fit onto a S16 film camera.....All in all this lens has become such a positive experience for me (except when I go hand held, IT IS HEAVY) I demo-ed this lens before I purchased it from Canon located in NJ....I shoot mostly NY area commercials and I am now getting more corporate work....as of now (I've been using the 900/canon combo since June) I wouldn't trade either pieces!! JD Cinehooter, LLC WWW.CINESHOOTER.COM

Hey: Thats a fine system you are using, why not just get the head re-built. It will probably cost around $800 - $1000 and that Satchler is well worth the cost. I use the same rig, (camera/head/stix) and I have the Canon 21X high def zoom (a big and heavy piece of glass) the satchler handles that rig beautifully.Here's Satchler's phone # 1-516-867-4900. Satchler is located on Long Island, NY. They rebuilt my VIDEO 20 a couple of years ago and the 'old girl' now performs smoother than I do at happy hour (my attempt a humor). JD Cineshooter, LLC WWW.CINESHOOTER.COM

I've used the vision stocks, I haven't used the new vision II stock, from the demo I attended at Kodak the vision II is not as vibrant in the colors. how could I send these examples to you? I'm not very computer savy. JD Cineshooter, LLC www.cineshooter.com

May I make a suggestion: Try playing back the footage that you shot in the camera, view it through the eyepiece. if the image fills the eyepiece edge to edge on the sides then you have recorded your image in the 16:9 mode and something is wrong in the editing end of things, If the image does not go edge to edge on the sides of the eyepiece, then it was recorded 4;3 mode, and that's what is called an oops! JD Cineshooter, LLC www.cineshooter.com quote=J-Ro,Oct 16 2004, 12:17 PM] Hi, I'll try to clarify: We shot in 16x9. Viewed on either my tv or video projected in a theatre, we see a letterboxed image, in which the faces look a little "vertically squeezed," or "horizontally stretched", or (pick an adjective, just not "tall and thin"). It's subtle on tv, but not so subtle on a movie screen (even a little NYC movie screen ;)). Basically, it's close to the scenario Atavist describes in his last post; the output is 4:3 letterboxed, except we've never viewed it on a 16x9 monitor. Is it possible I mistakenly let the camera slip into 4:3 for 4 days? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think that me and the director and my A/C are such hacks that we wouldn't have noticed. Besides, the framing works for 16x9. As for what I saw when I had the hard drive: I saw this only on the Apple's CRT. The clips all openned up into a square window, and exhibited the distortion. When we deselected "anamorphic," the window changed to a rectangle, and the distortion was gone. This suggests to me that we had the camera in 16x9, and that something has gone amiss in the post-production phase. You may have guessed that this is becoming a point of contention between me and the post house. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>