John Brawley

I think you'll find in drama there's a few that operate but very few that actually light. jb

It's something that is negotiated and it really depends on the way the director and DP want to set up the working situation. I have a director that's keen to look at operating on the next film we do together. In fact i saw Elergy yesterday and noted that the director operated. I had already noted that the operating was unusual (in a good way) and there it was in the credits. Here in OZ, no one wants to PAY for an operator. Our budgets are FAR less than those in the US. A larger budget film here would be AU$ 5 Million+. That's more like 3.5 Million US. And that's a larger budget and even then its not automatic that an operator would be employed. The majority of DOP's here operate, mostly because we have to like it or not. jb

Hi Daniel... It depends what you're looking for. Do you want an eye light that actually lights ?? In theory, an eye light should only be reflected in an eye but not actually light the subject. (i think this has also been covered before.) I own a Litepanel micro (as suggested by david) and these are great if you want an eyelight that fills. It's a larger source. I've also used a rosco litepad for this role too. If you just want to have an eyelight only, one way that I've found works well is to use a dedo. Using a C stand you can get it right on the optical axis. With a dimmer, looking through the viewfinder, dim it down while you wave your hand in front of it. As soon as you can't see the shadow anymore then you've set the right level. You'll only see it in mids and closer. jb

Hi oliver... I did look into the new 1.3X lenses but they are apparently VERY expensive. No-one in Australia has forked out to buy them as yet. I didn't try shooting a cropped side by side test, but the *naked* superspeed was certainly a bit sharper. I was forced to shoot in this way several times for very long lens shots. The adaptor didn't really work well beyond 25mm. jb

Hi Rohan... I love Canberra...all it's roundabout and sex shops... I was shooting around T4 most of the time. Anything wider than T2.8 and the image started to go really soft. Is there an SI-2K in Canberra ? jb

It's one of the most rewarding things to finally see your footage. Almost always it never turns out quite the way you expect, but it's usually as good or even better !!! I think this ritual is one of my most favourite parts of the process. Bah Humbug when you can *see it all* on set ! Im sure you'll be fine. It would have been much better if you could have supervised the transfer. Then on the spot if say the mattebox was in shot a little you may have been able to fix it by blowing up the image a little and no one would be the wiser !! jb

One more

OK. Now some actual frames. Not graded just balanced via the groovy metadata application within FCP and exported.

Not only that but only get one roll to work with. A lot of the older more succesful DOP's from the generation above me came through this training ground. John Seale and Dean Semler being some of the higher profile DP's who went through that school. I remember seeing Andrew Lesnie's credit on the 16mm shot behind the scenes footage of mad max 2 (which Semler shot) That training now no longer exists. It used to be that there was a sense of craft and care. I used to work on promo shoots for various TV stations which meant shadowing the crews to get shots of them in action. It always used to amaze me to see them all talking to each other about where they were going to set up and what questions they would ask. They all basically get the same thing. I think they were a lot more competitive back in those *VNF* days.... jb

Im a fan of doing this in camera myself. Give me random over digital anyday. If you want it to get worse as the roll goes on then just close the lock of the mag on the take up side. THEN close the door. It won't close, it will just sit slightly adjar. Perhaps tape it to the mag so it doesn't fly open. You will find though, that the mag won't start to really leak in a noticeable way until the last maybe 80' It will get worse from there as the roll GETS LARGER and gets closer to the leak. It's really something you should test for. Especially take note of the light source direction and level so you can repeat it. Perhaps use smaller loads and get a larger 2"core (which i think you can use in an SR) so you don't have to waste as much film getting it to the nearly full roll stage. The other way (and ive' done this) is to do it to an unexposed roll and composite it in later as a key(luma). Ive done this before and it works great. (also good for home made scratches) Sounds like fun. jb

Well that was the ( cough cough ) genius of the system. It's only a 1.3x so plug in 16x9 monitor. Force menu to display 16x9 AS WELL. Hey presto. Instant monitoring. THe MK3 SS's I was using aren't internal focusing either. The rental company I used BUILT me a holder that would physically hold it in place. My focus puller then developed a system where he would rack the lens out to minimum focus, touch the adaptor to the lens and wind it back again. The Lens focus marking on the barrel went out with the adaptor too, so it was a way for him to get them to go out in a consistent manner. I figure this would work equally well with a super 16 camera and I was originally going to shoot Super 16....before politics got in the way....:-) jb

Hi Rohan. Wow Canberra hey ? I've attached a frame from some testing that I did. This is my loader Eszter on a 25mm MK3 Superspeed. There's no extra resolution it's the same resolution of course, but by optically compressing the image then you get the wider aspect ratio AND the anamorphic look. The size of the adaptor is small which limits the size of the lenes you can use with it, but it's not a big deal to physically work with. Basically Superspeeds. I didn't try an 8mm but 9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm and the 25mm looked great. The 50mm sort of fell away and was never really super sharp. Frankly it was a pain to work with but the pictures were pretty cool coming out of it. It was different. I only used the camera in mini mode once, doing some handheld in a really small room. I think running cables when the camera's on steadicam is a waste of time. It has to be wire free to get the best results i think. Also, and this is my opinion, but the larger the mass the better the steadicam work generally. I don't have to carry it though so of course it's easy for me to say that. LArger mass means more stability is my observation. And i think the mini may have benn too light to actually work with a PRO rig. They need a certain amount of weight to work properly. jb

My mistake. Im sure it was or perhaps it was the chasis version. It was a fair few years ago. They were the only lab i've ever done film finishes at, and that's the only brand of colour grading that I know from that process so i figured it must have been what they used ! I suspect RS are looking to set that up to prop up the studios they own there ? No lab in the state of QLD makes the studio's look a bit useless right ?? I guess it's actually about keeping the theme park that's ATTACHED to those studios going. Movieworld where there's no one making movies doesn't really make a lot of sense ! jb

I won't presume to speak for Dominic but that Lab recently became a part of a much larger American lab. jb

Hey Dominic ! So lovely to hear from you. Hows the time off ? I hope you have some secret plans to do something else ? I heard a vicious rumour about another mob (RS) re-opening a lab up you know where ??? I was talking of the melbourne branch of that mob. last time i did an optical finish DOWN THERE i used the hazeltine ;-) jb

Clockers rings a bell for me. jb

Hi Steve, If it was a feed problem then it would be VERY obvious to the user. It's possible to incorrectly load the mag, and still get a picture that has vertical smears. You will certainly notice the sound of the camera and it won't sound good at all. This is usually the sound of the magnetic drives slipping. I notice you're at some kind of university ? Are they students using the camera ? I'd be asking if they found the camera was noisy when they were shooting. They may not want to tell you the truth being pesky students and all. Perhaps review who was loading the magazine and get them to show you how they load it. Was it only happening on one magazine ? on one shoot or across several ? Same loader ? Taught to load by the same person ? If it was a shutter timing issue, the next most likely candidate, then i imagine it WOULDN"T be an intermediate problem which is what you seem to be saying it is. jb (who used to work at a rental house that had 12 Aatons and 80% of camera faults, including on arri's were traceable to the loader)

Hi Paul. NOt David answering here either. I think it's a couple of things. Firstly, 2 perf really isn't much different to 1.85 in terms of screen real estate, It's just a different masking so it's at least comparable to that. And you are watching a print ? I also think that we've forgotten how good an optical finish is. For the last few years we've been fed a steady diet of 2K DI's and been told how much better they are, but it's often surprising to go and look at a photochemically finished print and realsie there's a lot more on the screen than makes it through the DI. It's been a few years but i saw a test print struck via DI and optically and there was a big difference on screen when you a/b'd them (two projectors running at the same time and masked on screen.) Of course there's more colour correction control but we're trading a lot of resolution for that luxury. jb

Not that it helps but same here. I was fantasising about shooting 35mm anamorphic with a traditional non DI finish for a recent job (went SI-2K with an anamorphic adaptor instead). The lab laughed at me and said they had mothballed their hazeltine a year ago because no one had used it for a year. jb

Hi all... Just wrapped my first shoot with the SI-2K. I ended up using the Panasonic anamorphic adaptor they built for the DVX100 to get a *sort of* anamorphic look happening with it. With the 1.3x squeeze the 2k DCI spec became a (virtual) 2661 x 1080 or something close to 2.46:1. Close enough for me. I'll upload some frame grabs shortly but here are a couple of shots. Hopefully you can pick the adaptor on the front (16mm format Superspeeds were the lenses) Was actually very impressed with the camera, more so that I expected. It was really easy to use and the workflow is possible even easier than RED. And the pictures were SURPRISINGLY good considering the bastardisation of the lensing on the front. More to come on that. Also note the kooky steadicam rig to follow a special order of "startled pigeon" ordered in this Chinese restaurant. Also note the bastardised SR viewfinder. It has a small OLED panel in it ;-) jb

Cough Cough Just a bump to remind anyone in Austin that Lake Mungo will be screening. Love to hear anyone's feedback on the screening. jb

Well only if you're 1st is meant to be changing lenses and getting everything in focus. I think the point being that you shouldn't have your 1st doing it. It's really a separate job to make sure it's done well and in a timely manner. Otherwise its the end of the day or in breaks and then the 1st is going to do ? Just a few extra hours of overtime ?? If I was you I'd NOT be taking on that responsibility. It's like being asked to load and 1st at the same time. Except to download you red files takes a fair bit longer and requires more phaffing (depending on if you're just copying or doing other business) It a large workload to take on, and requires zero mistakes. Do you really want that headache ?? jb

That's ok. We think you're a waste of time too. jb

Karl that's my point. How about when someone shoots under those conditions and make it look sensational ? Do you really think Dances with Wolves didn't deserve it's oscar ??? Do you really think Dean just *got lucky* and waited around for long enough ?? Karl im not trying to demean you. I'm genuinely flabbergasted that you can think of available lighting in such a dismissive way. Sure it's easy to get an exposure. Actually making it look good IS something that is special and deserves recognition as such. I can argue the same thing about using lights. I can turn a light on and get an exposure. The trick is to take it to that next level. It's like you've just given up an even trying.... jb

wow. I really don't know what to say. jb