John Brawley

Hi Brian. I think you make a good argument, but I think you've left off one big advantage of film school; Establishing life long relationships with peers that will provide you with a working life far beyond film school. At film school you can expect to forge close relationships with other filmmakers. Of course this can still be achieved outside of that environment, but the process is accelerated somewhat... I think it's up to the individual. I would also argue that it's the other way around. Your suggestions could apply to undergraduate studies and you're right to say one can learn exposure theory and technical stuff from on the job training. I think if you're doing an MA though, you should be way beyond the basics and exploring other aspects of the job, developing your visual language skills etc. When I applied to AFTRS for one of their 4 slots for DP's, they wouldn't even interview someone that said they wanted to learn more of the *tech* stuff of exposure theory etc. I think it depends on what stage you're at in terms of your career. jb

I know they take more students now. It was 7 this year. For a long time it was only 4 (from over 500 applicats usually) I do know that you now have to pay and it's not cheap. The course was GREAT but I have grave fears for the new course now.... I don't know if it's easier to get in, but number alone suggest it would be. They also have a foundation year which I think may help you gain access to the MA program, but it might be a bit of a backwards step for you. Sorry, I don't know Mia.... jb

Hi Ben. You could look at AFTRS ? It was great when I went through, but they have changed the course quite a lot since I left in 2007. jb

Hi David... That would be the right setting. If you're shoting 16x9 (via the adaptor) then you'd need to create a new setting under "set film frame/size" jb

+1 on dedos. These days cameras tend to be ay more sensitive, i find redheads to much of a blunt instrument. Dedo's would be my desert isle lamp because they are very very flexible. (and expensive) Dedo's were the first equipment I bought after my meters. And a very big +1 on the octodome. I had to force the local distributor to order one in from the catalogue but now everyone here has them !!! jb

Are you using a stills camera or video ? If you use autofocus you'll find that you get a nicely focused shot of your lens port. Sometimes tiny bubbles will gather there and that's enough for the AF to grab onto. Stick to manual. Get used to it taking longer and beng more difficult to do. Hey..you're filming underwater ! jb

A CD or DVD head will float on a miniscule cushion of air - hence they never wear out. But magnetic tapes heads do (I believe) make physical contact with the tape. Otherwise you wouldn't get tape head wear. Nor clogging. Anyone able to shed light on this wet and dry thingamy..? The net is full of discussion on this, but I can't find one piece of solid verification. If you look at a head DRUM that contains THE HEADS, you'll find that the HEADS are RECESSED within that drum. It is the drum that is contacting with the tape. Clogs happen when the tape sheds particles that fall into the recessed area (or any other foreign matter really). You seem to have searched pretty comprehensively. Don't you think if it was more than a myth then there would be more informed info out there ? jb

Do a search on "head gap".... You'll find it's in the microns, *but* that is still a gap.... jb

I don't think it's a lubricant issue. After all the tape doesn't actually contact the heads. When Mini DV was first released in the 90's, I did see 1st hand several instances of DVCPRO decks having unusually high head wear leading to the heads needing to be replaced inside of 500 hours when their regular life was meant to be 2000 hours. It was put down more to the fact that ME and MP tapes were being mixed together in the one machine. DVCPRO tape is Metal Particle and Mini DV is Metal Evaporated. This was only ever seen on decks, and specifically Panasonic decks where both formulations would be played. I think it transmuted into a "Sony tapes are a problem in Panasonic decks" myth because a lot of people were using DVCPRO decks to replay DVCAM tapes which are ALSO ME tapes. Lots of people bought the DVCPRO decks, the thinking being that they could replay all formats. Why buy a DVCAM ONLY deck for the same price when you could get one that ALSO did DVCPRO...? jb

HI Sean. The main difference between the two cameras is the option of Aatoncode. It's very easy to tell if your camera has (the very excellent) aatoncode. Power it up, put into test and then look at the back of the gate. You'll see 7 very tiny LED's flashing just near the gate if it can do aatoncode. Looking at your image, this camera could have the integrated split optics fittend but does not ACTUALLY have them fitted. First the panel with the 9pin plug has a blank below it. This is where the VR42 electronics would go *IF* you had the actual split fitted. It essentially plugs into the 9 pin (for power) and then there's another multiplin plug with the comms for the actual camera where the blank is right now. Just to the right of the off switch there is a largish disk which we are presently looking at the side of. If the split was fitted there would be a bulge here instead and little lever for adjusting the iris on the split. This is the *port* for the tap. This is where the camera itself resides if it's fitted. jb

Red. F35. Genesis. D21. Seriously, and reading your posts, you're assuming that p+s use the grain simulation by choice. It was an engineering solution to the fixed pattern of grain. The very first p+s model had a rotating ground glass. (as opposed to jiggling) The problem with that one was that you would end up with a circular pattern in the middle, because it's a disc and spins at different rates, you would end up seeing this spinning donut of grain. Then they changed to the current configuration where it jiggles. Then they called it a feature to excuse the inherent look and mechanical noise that goes with this process. In truth, it's an unavoidable side effect of what the p+s and all these style adaptors are doing. In miniture, what you are essentially doing is filming a projected image off a screen. It's like photographing something on 35mm, projecting it in a cinema and then filming it with your mini dv camera. What you're proposing to do is remove the screen. So what would the image be projected onto ? Clear glass won't work because...well it's transparent. The whole REASON it's *ground* is to give it texture to receive the image. jb

In typical Aaton fashion they have been "just about to" for the last 18 months !!!! jb

Probably none *with this camera*....i don't think they've started shipping yet...or if they have, they would have only just started. jb

To be clear, Im not talking about a viewfinder dowser that can be flicked closed, but a viewfinder that you can take your eye away from while the camera is rolling that won't fog. The a minima does this by having a second shutter out of phase with the main shutter to close the viewfinder off during exposure. jb

If you believe the Oscars are the only way of measuring a films achievement then good luck on you getting one. LOTR is right up there with Shakespeare in Love for sure. You've invited comment because you make gross generalisations that don't stand up to scrutiny. Very different to asking certain questions. I do know you. The combined weight of your 96 posts to date entitle me to form an opinion about your views and what you know. jb

Joseph, you're clearly shouting opinion presented as fact. Are you a studio executive ? Not everyone thinks Lord Of The Rings is the pinnacle of filmmaking achievement. Did you just do a ring around of your European mates for statistical survey of european views on Hollywood films ? You have no actual knowledge of what youre talking about. You are a beginner with little practical experience. If I recall, film-fan boy, your very first post asked advice about which camera you should buy because the RED you were going to buy wasn't shipping. In the same thread you also told everyone you already knew how to make films. Despite your naive and simplistic views you throw your opinions based on limited knowledge around as absolute fact, managing to offend the film making practitioners you desperately want to become. jb

Oh for goodness sake, how about making decisions about shooting format that come from story ? It's so narrow minded to carry on with this pretentious snobbery, rating one format above another. Story and budget inform decisions about origination format, not your blind devotion to one particular format. jb

It's the only one. jb

Aaton A minima. Super 16. jb

I think Arri have just announced a HD split at NAB... I'd like a spirit level (plane style) in the viewfinder as an option. And some optional overlays for camera status DSLR style.... And a viewfinder I can take my eye away from while it's rolling.... jb

Hi Andronico, Monitoring is very easy because you just simply use a 16x9 monitor and THEN turn on 16x9 in the menu or with the switch. You then have the right aspect ratio. (it's like two lots of 16x9) Contact me via PM or john@johnbrawley.com and i'll send you some stills. jb

Hi Chris. I wasn't aware Canon did a rear fitted anamorphic adaptor. I assume that's a 1.3x as well ? I've never seen one and am reasonably familiar with the rental inventories in Australia. I don't think you can rent one here anyway. It's definitely not master primes and I would describe the images (and do in the article) as being soft, but I don't think it's particularly offensive. I decided to embrace the flaws of doing it this way in order to give my directors an optical anamorphic look. The Directors are big fans of 70's/80's Hong Kong cinema and the whole film has a lot has this kind of schtick as you can see from the stills. Of course I knew that it was a very flawed way of creating images. I wanted to embrace Low-Fi having done anamorphic and Super 35 for 2:35...here was another way to get there ! Interesting things happen when you're asked to do or deliver something that's outside of the box of have to fight your way out of the corner of a room. I think it's great to have found an alternative to the obsessively sharp images digital imaging can create. Originally it was going to be a RED shoot. I could have *made do* with the extraction of 2x Anamorphic lenses and had a totally different look. I could have shot spherical with 16mm format lenses and then extracted a 2:35 image from that. But having done a few *sharp* films i thought it was time to explore somewhere else... Technical perfection is one thing, but I think there are lots of ways of accessing a story visually. jb

I notice you have a post background. One other use would be for motion tracking in slow shutter speed shots or objects that move quickly within a frame. One idea i had was to hit small scotch-light trackers at known intervals within a slow shutter frame. Make it a lot easier to do any motion tracking when there's lots of motion blur. I in fact built a one-off rig for exactly this for a job a couple of years ago. jb

Several years ago I conceived and designed (with the help of others) an LED based lighting system that did just this. (as one of many features) It took the shutter pulse from a camera or video sync and you could have the light on or off, in or out of phase. You could also have individual colour channels fire at different points and different numbers of times within the shutter cycle. I built several working prototypes, but i had issues with the LED's being of a good enough CRI. I was mixing RGB LEDs and they are so monochromatic you end up with big gaps in the spectrum emitted. You also end up with difficult to solve shadow problems from hundreds of small point sources of light with different colour shadows ! Diffusing them or collecting them to reduce this usually meant loss of light output. Im sure they aren't insurmountable problems. You could easily custom build some electronics to read your camera's sync pulse and then build a one off light to do it. As far as I know there's nothing that can do this commercially yet. jb

Hi rob.. It's already been talked about several times on this list and one was built but there wasn't enough interest apparently. http://www.urbanfox.tv/articles/cameras/c19joedunton.htm Aaton are planning one for there Penelope 35mm camera. I'd say it's some time away. jb