John Brawley

Do you recommend this book? Or did you just find it in a search on Amazon :)

can't say that I'd recommend it. I picked it up once in a shop and couldn't believe someone had written a whole book about what to eat, how drinking soft drink onset means you have a sugar crash at 2pm and how to meditate...except all for focus pullers. I guess it was all true....It was all the "zen" references in this thread that made me think of it.

I was always a terrible focus puller. Didn't last long.

jb

Hi,

 

has anyone compared these two adaptors - I need to buy an adaptor for our HVX soon - I was going to buy the M2 - but it sounds like it eats alot of light, and flips the image, but then again some people here have said the image is grogeous?!

 

I'm wondering what people's opinions are on the good & bad qualities of each of these systems.

 

Thanks,

 

Jacqueline

Hi Jacquline.

Are you aware of the VERY substantial cost differences between these two adaptors. ? the p+s is a lot more expensive than the camera you're putting it on. Are you really considering buying either of them ?

jb

Hi all,

 

I wasn't sure where to post this. I'm currently compiling still frames from my DVD collection for lighting reference. This was fairly easy on my old PC, as most of the software players I used like PowerDVD had a frame grab utility. Now I'm on a Mac and the DVD Player app. does not allow you to grab still frames. So I'd like to know how you Mac users get around this - is there some trick to get it to work, or do you have to use another program?

 

Thanks guys.

VLC works and also plays a lot of clips that quicktime wont.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-macosx.html

jb

I have to recut my reel, it's three years old. The problem is getting clips from the distributors. The bigger the project, the harder it gets.

I usually try to build it into my contract or deal memo that I get a Digibeta or HDCAM SR copy which I pay for myself (depending on the delivery format

That way I get a high quality copy for my reel and they can't complain about the cost. This may be harder to do on a bigger film where the piracy issues are more pressing.

The stills look fabulous David.

jb

, and after that I am a strong believer in the "zen" art of pulling, like you mentioned.

 

marks!

Yes yes. It's all very zen...

http://www.amazon.com/Optics-Focus-Camera-...e/dp/0240802004

Does anyone know the answer to my question above? Why would the XL2, a standard def camera, require a 1/2000th inch circle of confusion? True, the sensor size is comparable to other formats that require such fine focusing but it can't resolve such fine detail anyway....right? :huh:

Because it's a 35mm sensor when you have the adaptor on ? That is the target size that you're focussing on. That is why you use 35mm lenses with the adaptor. It's then reduced through the adaptor. It's not about the resolution. it's about the target size of the projected image from the lens. The lower resolution will still capture something out of focus or in focus or whatever it is in between.

Most of the great focus puller's I have worked with have just been guns as FEELING the actors movement. In as much as the actor is in a space when acting, it's up to them to follow. Most of the good ones will run the tape for references and environmental distances, but then they are usually looking intensely at the performance. Not the onboard monitor. Hardly at the lens and hardly at the marks. It just comes from experience and doing it lots.

I worked with a guy earlier this year on a 35mm anamorphic shoot. There was only one take that was soft after 8 days of shooting. A 100mm shooting T2.8 at 4' from the camera. Even then it was only soft part of the time. The second take was perfect. He had no marks. just ran the tape just before slating for a start point and went from there. And he knew it was soft.

That was on the first day (and my first anamorphic shoot) and he politely asked me later for a bit of help.

jb

two questions for the forum.

 

I'm setting up a telecine system from an Ursa Diamond through a 4:4:4 Da Vinci, and would like to do direct to data through Final Cut Pro.

 

My two questions are this: are there solutions avaiable to run FCP like a deck, starting and stopping in the creation of files the way you might with a deck?

I seem to recall that there was a stand-alone app with the early voodoo cards. Grant then split and went on to start another company, Black Magic Design. I haven't seen him for a while, but he used to have a Virtual VTR app that captured and recorded quicktimes to disk and back to a deck. The QT's are then easily imported into FCP. I think it was called Media Transfer ?

jb

Sort of a silly question, but I've been wondering, what does it mean when some of those on this forum are labeled "sustaining members?" How do I become a "Sustaining Member?"

 

Best,

Brian Rose

You make a $50 payment to Cinematography.net It means you get 24 hours to edit your posts and you can upload larger files. As someone who makes their living from Cinematography, I don't have a problem with what to me seems a small price for such a useful resource. The fact that it's a once off payment is a bonus !

jb

- second roll: kodak Vision2 250d 7205 also bought from ebay. The strange thing i noticed right away with this roll was that it was inverted: perforations were on the wrong side. I decided to give it a try anyway and put the roll upside down in order to have the perforations correct and shot it.

Hi Henry.

The first thing i thought when reading this was that the film had already been exposed. Id say you've loaded the footage again. Do you recall if it was emulsion out or in as it was going through the gate. Again i think you may have just shot through the base. In which case you would need to overexpose by something like 5 stops to get another image, maybe more if there's already an image on the film.

The white flashes are the normal flash frames that occour when you start and stop the camera. As the film stops and parks in the gate, light leaks around the shutter and fogs the film. You'll notice the pattern is always the same. A white flash, followed by a smaller localised flash on the left hand side on the new shot. Which is why you should always shoot a few extra frames after you want you're shot to end, and allow a little pre-roll the beginning.

I think you're pretty brave buying film off ebay. I'd never do it. Remember film stock is like perishable goods....

The clouds look nice BTW. Was the playground footage shot at the same time or a different day ?

jb

as far as lux and footcandles go, i wouldn't bother. its just a system of measurement, and no one uses it anymore.

Im not so sure about that. I use fc's often when I'm metering. Why ? Because it's an absolute value that ISN"T related to any ASA, Filter, frame rate whatever. It's just *that* much light. So no matter what variables change on the camera side, it's always the same FC. You usually can work out what you want your shooting stop to be, and how many FC's are required to hit that, so in your head you know that 100FC's is your base exposure and I find it's easier to *read* where things will sit in terms of exposure by comparing the FC reading to my base level that I'm exposing at eg....50FC is one stop under..etc....

You would also want to use them when you're tying to calculate how to get a given stop in a studio you've never been into when you want to know how many or what size fixtures to get.

So Im in a large studio, and I want to know that I can hit F5.6 from the grid over a certain area. Get my handy photometrics tables out and off I go. Then Ic an calculate how much power I'll need.

They are usually just a starting point though. The tables are often optimistic and you need to allow a reasonable margin of error, usually on the less side.....(it's usually less from the light than what they say you'll get)

jb

Allow me to offer a question; when shooting in digital mediums, why search for an elusive aesthetic (read-"film look") while using a format that may offer it's own advantages artistically?

 

LT

It's a great question.

I wonder if it's because of the way the digital cameras are marketed to us. I recall the sony rep telling me in the 90's when the first digi beta's came in that 16mm film production would be dead within a few years. He truly believed that the DigiBeta was better than shooting on 16mm.

Fast forward to a few years later. And Lo. The same line is trotted out with HDCAM. 35mm Is dead. Digital is arrived.

Now it's HDCAM SR. Film is dead (again) and SR is the future.

Canon XL1's. P+S adaptors. MAgic Bullet. These are ways that get us closer to shooting film. That's what they are sold to us as. Instead of making virtues of their inherent look, we try and make them look like something else !

It does get boring. The fact is that digital has been with us for many years. The vast majority of theatrically released films are still being shot on film for some reason. Why do you think that is ?

Plenty of films are being shot digitially, and now there's plenty that in face ARE taking advantages of digital's natural advantages. Russian Ark wouldn't have been as easily possible for example.

Dogme films have been made for some time now. You know, the funny thing is, that there is no reference AT ALL to digital shooting formats in the original dogme manifesto. In fact it specifies that the films must be finished on academy 35mm film !

Take a look for yourself

http://www.dogme95.dk/the_vow/index.htm

But if you ask most filmmakers and they associate dogme with digital, and what's more, MiniDV digital as opposed to the plethora of other digital formats out there.

One day I'm going to make a dogme film with an A-Minima.....

I've always felt that these cameras are tools. They are paint brushes and we can use different brushes to tell the story. The creativity is up to us.

jb

Techniscope was 2-perf, but that hasn't been used for a long time.

Ive worked on a two films that were 2 perf in the last few years.....

Arri now have a 2 perf factory movement for their arricams.

But there's no such thing as 16mm 2 perf. Unless there's some kind of vistavision 16mm ? Horizontal Superdooper 16 anyone ?

jb

Clearly you'd have to have different categories for CGI: the toolsets, the mode of work, the challenges are so entirely different for CGI and for live action, even though the goals of creating images that tell the story are the same.

 

But that immediately brings up all sorts of demarcation issues. As just one example, which category would motion capture work go in?

 

And given that the ACS has nearly 20 different categories of award now, (Documentary, dramatised documentary, current affairs, commercials, fictional shorts, features etc etc), there would have to be several CGI categories. You couldn't dump all CGI-based work together, you'd at least need shorts, commercials, features categories (though I don't envisage a CGI/ News category any time soon!).

It is interesting. Ive always wondered about what the actual differences are in the ACS award categories such as Single camera news gathering, Multi camera news gathering, News Magazine, TV magazine, and Current Affairs ?????

To me they are all very close. Certainly news magazine, TV magazine and current affairs...??? I think that CGI and motion capture work should be at lease eligible under the specialised and experimental category.

And I don't know that motion capture work is worthy of recognition in itself ? Sure, as part of a larger project, but how do you judge that one motion capture cinematography example is better than another ? And it could already be entered under the Specialised and experimental category for example. Because it is a form of live action.

At the moment 100% CG cinematography is a rarity. I think in the interim we should at least be allowed to enter *a* category. As the body of work and practitioners increase, as it inevitably will, then open up some other categories ?

jb

wow.

it's no wonder women don't want to work in our industry.

I have just learned that our ACS guild here in Australia will not accept in their awards any film which is 100% digital. In other words, there has to be some kind of live action component. And they will only judge or look at the live action component.

Now, I've been involved with a project that is totally 100% animated. I'll be getting a DOP credit on the film. Im framing all the shots, designing all the actual camera moves, and then lighting it. (all in Maya)

Cinematography is writing with light. To me, this should be as eligible for consideration and should in fact be considered as genuine cinematography.

Just wondering if the situation is different elsewhere, and if anyone thinks it ISN"T cinematography. I think this is going to happen more and more often. Another fellow DP has just done the same thing. I think is work is amazing on the short and he should be able to at least be recognised for it.

jb

Well there are exceptions to every rule, I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.

 

Having spent a lot of time in very remote places in the military myself,

*prepares to be lynched*

I just don't understand what filmmaking has to do with being in the military.

I have shot many recruiting campaigns for the Australian Defence Force and have the utmost respect for what they do. But i don't see the relevance to military conditions....

jb

Two issues I will raise:

 

1. Female Steadicam ops.

 

2. a lot of women do not like these types of conditions. Guys - as long as they're not wussies! - are more likely to put up with "military" style conditions.

Are you kidding ?

I don't know if any of the other women on this board have read the women in the film industry thread. I read all three pages of it. It seemed like a pretty interesting discussion to me.

I had wanted to reply. I wanted to put in my two cents on the issue because I noticed that there were NO women who had posted on the topic yet. But when I went to reply I noticed that the topic had been closed. There were a few obvious reasons why I could see why it would be closed.

Just by coincidence, i got the following press release. It's not just DP's that are short of women.....

WIFT is Women In Film And Television BTW.

Calling all women screenwriters, directors and producers

All round the world, women struggle to get their feature projects up and running and Sydney women are invited to meet up and talk about this topic with Marian Evans from the Victoria University of Wellington. Marian is a member of WIFT Wellington.

At the Cannes Film Festival this year, Jane Campion - the only woman who has won the Palme D?Or - showed a fantasy short film about a ladybug, a woman dressed up in an insect costume, who gets stomped on in a movie theatre. She described the film as a metaphor for women in the film world. ?I just think this is the way the world is, that men control the money, and they decide who they?re going to give it to?, she said, explaining why so few women get films made.

But is it difficult only because men control the money? Over the last eighteen months Marian Evans has studied this issue for a PhD about women?s feature scripts. She has heard and read many reasons why so few women's features are made in New Zealand and internationally, found considerable disagreement about these reasons? relative importance and almost no information about the situation for Australian women. Sydney women are invited to meet up and talk about this topic, and maybe also about their own experiences, with Marian.

Marian is especially interested in a comparison of the various pathways to theatrical features, via short films, competitions, television, special programmes, group support, self-funded digital features. What works well for women? What doesn?t? In New Zealand, about an equal number of women and men are feature producers. But only a tiny number of women work as

feature writer/directors, writers, and directors. Why is producing more successful and/or popular for women?

Marian?s PhD is autoethnographic; she will follow the progress of her own feature scripts for eighteen months and then present her thesis as a script that tells a story about the gender issues that may affect the progress of women?s feature scripts. Because of this, her conversations are always informal and mostly unrecorded. Any notes she makes at meetings are circulated to those people after a meeting, to give an opportunity for them to clarify or remove anything they said, and any comments she includes in the thesis will be unattributed, often used just as a piece of dialogue.

WIFT NSW is organising an informal meeting with Marian in the early evening of either Monday 26th or Thursday 29th November in Paddington. To register your interest please email mailto:info@nsw.wift.org by Wednesday 21st November and indicate which date you prefer.

Marian can be contacted on mailto:marian.evans@vuw.ac.nz.

I'm currently trying to understand better how to minimize the appearance of grain in shooting 16mm, as I have a shoot coming up on 500T and know I will be subject to having grain if I don't handle it properly.

And to bravely paraphrase what David is saying. It's about contrast. If you have a lot of larger fields of tone that are flat, then you will see the grain. I've found it helps a lot to have something bright in the frame. The eye is naturally drawn there and held. Usually this is also the subject you want the audience to be looking at as well !

I imagine you may be using primes, simply for the stop, but it really helps to have your point of interest razor sharp. As soon as something is off, you will immediately start reading the grain. So even though you haven't changed anything in terms of exposure, the *perception* of grain can change a lot depending on what's in front of your camera. But, yes, a little overexposure also helps.

Seek out a good telecine facility. Soft light sources like the Spirit produce really clean results along with an appropriate amount of noise reduction.

And hey...don't be afraid of a little grain...keeps the image alive....

good luck !

jb

Yes there is. I haven't listened to it yet, though. I'm still in shock as to how great the treatment WB has finally paid to the Kubrick HD series. I remeber back in '99 when the "Kubrick Collection" came out and how shoddy it all was.

Kubrick himself apparently was the one that insisted the transfers be done 1.33. Why ? Apparently he hated letterboxing and felt that's how most would be watching.....on 4x3 TV's.

jb

My parents' generation got very excited when a 70mm print, complete with multi-channel (analogue) surround sound, came to town. Now we kids of the digital generation drop our QVGA video iPods and run to the cinema for something called 4K DCI.

And so...

It's true. It was a Sony 4k projector, but playing back from a 2K file. A 320Gb file playing off a server. 422 and rec 709 as well.

I thought the film looked fantastic. I was staring hard at all that smoke and looking for trouble. But I just ended up getting lost in what is pretty perfect filmmaking. My goodness it stands the test of time well. The miniatures looked great. And it's all so much darker than I remember.

Very very nice. I was very impressed.

The only thing i picked was a little jaggieness on the credits, and a little colour fringing there as well. But on images it all disappeared...

jb

Make offer at moetiki@mac.com.

Hi David.

I'm keen, but I haven't seen a Lo Hat Before, so Im wondering if there's enough room under there to get my CP Mini Worral tightened up enough ? Can you email me perhaps ?

John@johnbrawley.com

jb

Hello all,

 

Just wanting to know what people use to stop fogging in the eyepiece from sweat/hot forehead or rainy weather.

 

I am in Australia, so some products that you may use may go under a different name, so a brief description or the type of retail outlet where you would find it would be very helpful.

 

Thanks,

Hello Mr G.....

Are you film or video ? Heated viewfinders or electrostatic viewfinders on a film camera are mostly standard and can be retrofitted. If it's a video camera then it's a bit harder. I never bother with antifog or anything, but find if I hold my eye a few mm's away from actual contact that it allows a bit of air flow and usually clears the fog. That's assuming the camera is actually acclimatised to the environment you're shooting in...

JB

My experience has been that image quality with the Canon zoom deteriorates markedly when shooting at aperatures wider than f/4. I won't use the lens for this reason.

 

Best,

 

Thomas Burns

Novice DP

Los Angeles

--

www.thomasburns.net

Thomas, I think you'll find most lenses, especially zooms, don't perform at their best wide open. The canon is a T2.8. lens. The general rule is two stops closed from maxium aperture gives the best results for most lenses.

They are different beasties in my opinion. The canon is substantially wider, and that shouldn't be underestimated. I think it's a more useful range to work with if I had to choose between them. The 11-110 is a retro-fit (of a 10-100) that sees an addtional optical element placed to ensure it covers Super 16. The canon does tend to get rather milky in the blacks at the long end, and this may be the flare problems are attributed to. Almost all the canon's have this..err...attribute, even the newer ones...

jb

I'm wondering what was everyones favorit features shot on 16mm. I'm gearing up to shoot my first feature on film and would really like to watch some great movies shot on 16mm. I love City of God, I know that, but what else is looking that good.

 

Thanks!

Jase

Romper Stomper. Early Russell Crowe film too. Greta hand held work.

Bit's of Babel

Leaving Las Vegas

Bit's of Apocalypto

Constant Gardener (same DP and Dir as City of god too)

Half Nelson (great indie film too)

I think the Last King of Scotland....

The Mother

(there's a lot of english stuff actually)

jb