John Brawley

This is usually done as stephen suggested, by shooting at a lower frame rate ans step printing it, either in telecine or on the film print. You usually want to shoot a deriviate of the native frame rate you want. So for 25FPS telecine I'd shoot 12.5 FPS (half) or 6.25 FPS (quater speed). That way, when you step print it back to normal speed there's an even number of frames and no unsyncopated moments. Once you've shot it, you get the telecine to playback at the same speed you shot the footage and hey presto... I'd suggest for this look you want 6.25 or 6 if it's for 24 FPS telecine. jb

Which is just as silly as you saying he's a silly poster for trying to diminish his opinion. Why his his opinion worth any less than yours ? because he disagrees with your sensibility ? How about we not make it personal ? jb

You know I tuned off reading your post after the first sentence. While it's great to know all the *tech* stuff you can, I find i really want to know how it looks to the eye, how it handles flare, how it handles on the camera. I try to learn only what i need to know in the uber geek department and then leave it to wire-benders and propeller heads to argue the finer points There's nothing better than shooting your OWN tests and comparing them in the conditions YOU want to shot in. jb

Yes. I can't speak for you but it does for me. Both for other's work and for my own. You've never enjoyed watching a film ??? jb

There are several that have this video tap option. He may have also added a transmitter. Do you want a PV mount finder or just a finder with PL ? If you want PV then there's something like this http://www.thedopshop.com/product_info.php...;products_id=70 or in PL mount http://www.thedopshop.com/product_info.php...;products_id=50 or this one can take a DV camera http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProduct...t=3&Cat2=43 jb

Hi Simon. If you had the firepower you could try different lights on dimmers, but I'm going to assume that your student budget won't allow it. Unless you shoot it at night, where perhaps you could do it with smaller and less expensive lamps. How about wardrobe ?? jb

Of course I was trying to keep things simple for someone asking the question in the way it was but yes it should be noted that most zooms will ramp or loose some exposure as you zoom. even the ones that are constant iris ;-)

You left one out. The ND filter.... Iris is usually the first control you want to use with the range of controls you have on this camera. By default we shoot most moving pictures at 24, 25 or 30 FPS depending on the end use and country you're in. Historically these frame rates have a shutter speed associated with them of 1/48th, 1/50th or 1/60th of a second. Since you have a Z1P i would gather you're in a 25FPS environment. While you can change the shutter speed, it does have an effect of the perception of temporal motion. So we don't tend to mess with that unless we want a very specific effect. (i hardly ever do it.) Iris will affect exposure and also affects how much of the image is in focus (which is also affected by your focus distance and zoom range neither of which affect exposure) Gain is like amplification. When you turn up the volume you also turn up the noise. You'll get a noisier and *denatured* image. Useful sometimes for a certain look, but again, usually avoided. Ok to your questions. q1. So iris first. ONce you run out of iris start using gain to shoot in lower light. If really desperate you can lower you shutter speed but everything gets streaky as you do this. q2. Use iris first and if you start getting towards the f16 end, then start using ND filters. Again use higher shutterspeeds as a very very last resort unless you want the effect. q3. You have to make a choice. You can shoose the background OR the foreground. Or you can choose to do something about it since youre the cinematographer. INcrease the FG level with lighitng or decrease the BG level with solids, flags Nets, ND etc. jb

I don't think max is wrong, he just didn't list all the mount options. Al century mounts tend to have the option to be adapted to other mounts. In motion pictures, PL is the standard rental house mount so why would they carry other mounts ? And the point really is that century lenses are actually rehoused lenses made by others. They just make them motion picture friendy. jb

I think you'll find most of the century lenses are actually Canons.... jb

It actually has a few modes. Im pretty sure it's the same sensor that's in the D20/21, which is also 3K. It can do 3K scans or 6K scans by physically *moving* the sensor by a pixel. Like pixel offset but they claim because they do it for real, not in software, then it's not a cheat. It can also do 2 intensity passes to extend the dynamic range a little and improve noise reduction. It also has a kodak technology called ICE (?) It's an IR scan that scans the surface of the film to see what dust is there to clean that up as well. It's a pretty cool machine. jb

Benson the thing is, I was reacting to your tone. It is you that is disrespecting towards people who have experience, when you are coming from a perspective of none. It's one thing to say "I think you're wrong" and quite another to say "you're wrong" You come across as sounding like you're saying "you're wrong" ( i don't mean literally, just in tone). It invites a put up or shut up response, because it's not about discussion anymore. Well Benson it's how you deliver your advice. You language use is dictatorial, not advisory. It's chastising not conversational or hypothetical. You didn't mention directors. I am saying that many directors learn their craft doing shorts. Not to practise selling their commercial bonafides, but to practise storytelling. If you can tell a good story, people will buy a ticket to your film. You dismissed this well worn path as unnecessary. Yet many very successful directors have trodden it. Couldn't be bothered searching any further, but in 3 mins I found the following directors with early or first up shorts credits. Kubrick, Spielburg, PT Anderson. Lars Von Trier. Gus Van Sant. Scorsesse...etc etc. You're not the first to try and find success this way. The fact is that few seem to have succeeded. And that's because you need a good film. Word of mouth is why films succeed. And for someone to speak well of your film, it has to be good. And that my friend is the hardest thing in the world to do. Studios regularly spend 100 million+ dollars trying to do just that and fail. People, smart people and intelligent people, just like you, are making indie films 24/7 and failing to do this. Do not underestimate how hard it is to make a mediocre film, let alone a good one. I dare you to make a good short film. jb

People who know me know how I treat people still learning the process. Im still learning the process. Benson the problem is that you are clearly are starting out, yet you have put off people with your know it-all-attitude. These are people that have more experience than you. But you seem to want to show how you know better. You just admitted you're starting out, but you've insulted more experienced members of this forum by saying that they are wrong and not just on this thread. Now maybe you don't mean to, but you come across as a smart arse. A smart arse who's read a few books and done a few classes but doesn't have any real world experience. Your disrespectful dismissal of shorts as a form assumes people only make short films for commercial gain. Of course you write of many of the directors who've started out learning their craft from shorts. The inference being that you're better than them. You need to get rid of the grandstanding attitude because know one's going to respect you as a leader. As for keeping your mouth shut if you don't have anything nice to say ? Well Benson, how about you practise what you preach. JB

Newsflash for Benson : You're a wanna-be dreamer like 50 000 others who think they've got what it takes and have done NOTHING. How can you have such attitude towards people on these boards who unlike you, have actually got experience. How would you know you're better at 90 min ideas ? How do you think you're going to convince anyone to give you money to make a film ? How is your film really going to be better than the THOUSANDS of other films that get made by people just like you ? You can't walk up to a 747 and take off because you've done a few hours in the flight simulator and didn't crash it once. Think for a second and be humble. Think for a second and show some respect for your craft and the people you're going to have to work with for the rest of your career. Think for a second, that maybe you do have something to learn rather than telling everyone what to do and how you're going to be different and you're special. jb

There's no doubt that 2K on the RED is very very average. However, given you have lot's of roto work, I'd say RED. 16mm Image stability will make it a lot harder and it will be easier to match the red 4K shots. Just expect a BIG difference. jb

Yes. It does when you're a directing (student ?) who hasn't directed anything and you're telling cinematographers on a cinematography board how to suck eggs. You have *learned* one way that cinematographers work, but every director / DP relationship is different. jb

Maybe people make shorts to practise their *craft* ? Seeing as you've never directed anything do you expect to be able to walk straight onto a feature film and direct ? jb

Hi Ira.. that what I was saying about knowing how to read and interpret. What do you want to expose for ? Where do you want it to be exposed in your available exposure range ? The meter doesn't tell you where to set exposure. It tells you a range of values as you spot around and you *decide* how you want to map or re-map those exposures. If you were shooting into the just set sky and wanted a silhouette then the value you get from metering someone's face isn't where you want to expose. You'd want to meter the sky so their face went dark right ? If however, you DID want to see their face, and didn't really care about where the sky was, you'd set the exposure for the value of their face...make sense ?? In the above example, the metered value of the sky or someone's face doesn't change. Only your decision about what's important changes. Welcome to Cinematography :-) jb

The idea is that a spot is a more accurate way to meter, providing you read and interpret the readings correctly. You have to take into account if you're pointing it at something white or black. IN fact that's why you do it usually, and decided what you want to expose for in a given scene, and what you want to let go. An in camera meter will average everything together and go for the safe middile ground. It will give you a picture, but not maybe what you want to se (or not see). It also allows you to meter places you could never go with an ambient meter, like, the sky, the top of a building, and to measure the fall off on a blue or greenscreen. jb

I'm sure he's around. He's probably pretty busy. I know that Atlab, where he works, which is also the largest processing lab in Sydney, has just been bought by Deluxe. He's probably busy decorating his new office. jb

It's also different in different parts of the world. I have a feeling that the right to protecting your own self image is unique to the US. In Australia, for example, if you are in the public domain, then consent in not required. There's an assumption that you know you will be filmed by security cameras, news cameras or a wondering film crew. By going out in public you give consent to be to be filmed by anyone with a camera. You don't have a right to privacy because you're in public. Which is why it's OK for paparazzi photographers to stalk you from the front of your house, because they're on public property, even though you're in your private home.... It's the right to self image which I think makes the difference in the US. jb

Yeah. I think you're mostly wrong. But back to your post. I think you're confusing realism with naturalism. Even if you're shooting on video, you still make decisions about how to frame, where to frame, what to show, what not to show. Have you made films before ? Have you shot on film or video before ? why don't you try making two shorts. One on film, one on Video and then work it out....make sure you get back to us.... jb

Didn't Savides vow never to shoot digitally again after Zodiac ? He didn't have many kind things to say in the AC article if I recall..... jb

And 84% of statistics are made up on the spot.... jb