Travis Cline

I'm not trying to promote video in anyway, but I did work on a Sci-Fi movie last year and it was all shot on 35mm. Just saying that not all their stuff is shot on video. Travis

Barry I think the flash bulbs generally look better as other have suggested, but I did a commercial recently where we just used little scoop lights you can buy at the hardware store and put Photofloods in them. The my best boy switched them on and off as needed. Another thing I've tried is flashing lights from off camera too. The problems come in getting enough light out of them to make them feel like a flash, which should be decently bright and overpowering your set lighting, at least for an instant, which could prove difficult on a student budget unless the lights are close to the subject. So, you may have to hide the lights behind actors/electricians if your subject is not close to camera. Anyway, good luck. Travis

It is amazing when productions withsome budget claim they can't afford anamorphic. I shot second unit last year on film that only had a budget of 1.3 million or so and we shot anamorphic, no problem. Travis

I might just be an idiot, but I can't get a personal photo to show up with my info on posts. Its not an online photo, and its only 72x48pixels and 10kb. It show up as my current photo when I am on my controls, but the photo doesn't show up on my posts. Any help? Sorry this is probably the wrong forum. Travis

Good stuff, I would only secone what others have said about losing the behind the scenes intro stuff and not cut back to footage we've already scene. tighter is always better with a reel, in my opinion anyway. My wife and I are wondering how you know of Lube? We are living in Russia for the time being and we love them. Other than that, I like the 2.35-ish matte on your 16mm stuff. I think the 2.35 helps it feel bigger. Also, and I don't know if it is my connection or something, but it played at a really low quality and while that may not be fair to judge your photography based on that, those who hire you want to see things you've shot that look exactly like they want their product to look. Travis Also, thanks for posting your reel, I'm cutting a new reel right now and it helps to hear what other say about cutting reels and seeing what does and does not work. Thanks

I shot my first feature a few years ago on 35mm shortends. It was a pretty bad idea using really shortends most were 250-400 feet. We ended up wasting tons of film because we would run out mid takes and then obviously you're going to do another take, meaning more film than if you hadn't rolled out. As for quality of shortends, they are usually good. I've bought a few hundred thousand feet of short ends and only two problems with rolls and semi-fortunately one was during testing. I did have a slightly noticeable difference between different rolls of the same stock, but only when we made a print. A slight color shift which only made the timers job harder, but contrast could be slightly different, which was noticeable when we had multiple rolls(which you are sure to have with shortends) within a single scene. The other thing to consider with shortends is, when you are paying crew, is that it takes more time on set if you are reloading two, three, even four or five times as much as you would with full loads. Plus the time it takes to redo takes because you roll out. All-in-all though, it is worth it to shoot 35mm and not just asthetically. At filmmarkets around the world potential buyers ask two questions to decide if a film is even worth their time to look at it. One, who is in it. Two, was it shot on 35mm. Honestly, its hard to get anyone to even watch a video even if it is good. Sorry for the pessimism, but still good luck and you should try and get your film made because it is so much fun and rewarding, even without a budget. Travis

Thanks for the replies. That's a good idea John I had not thought about that. I'll give both atry and see what suits us best. But overall, sounds like grain from the 5229 will not be too adverse to our look. thanks Travis

I'm going to be shooting a film with a lot of night scenes in a car at night, driving around the city. I want to push the film a stop. Other threads I read said a bit about how the density and contrast on the 5229 compare to 5279 and 5218, but they didn't say anything, that I could find anyway, about the grain factor. The project is in all likelihood destined for a video release only, and a low contrast look is totally what we are after, hence my wanting to use the 5229. Anyone pushed this stock and loved it? Aside from graininess, what does it do to color? I've shot the 5229 normally and I know how the colors handle that way, but pushed I don't know. Thanks. Travis

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocolypse - the doc for Apocolypse Now is pretty spectacular as well as the doc for The Shining. Kubrick's daughter made it and although crude and funny it is much better than any Hollywood-promo-behind-the-scenes-nonsense. You see the crew and cast working and its really great. Travis

Sorry for the tardy reply, I'm in russia right now and don't always have access to internet. I'm not sure exactly the charge for the cross-processing, but I know that aside from the slight additional charge to develop the film they had another charge that was fairly significant for the print. I just remember the producers getting in a twist over it when Deluxe charged us something extra to put it to print, but I don't know the details, I'll try and find out. Sorry for half information. But, as everyone has said the additional charge for simply developing the film is not significant. Travis

I've shot quite a bit of crossed process, not nearly as much as Man on Fire or Domino. I've only shot the one stock Kodak offers right now the 5285(I think that's right) and some Fuji. It does require a bit of light as it is 100D, so plan on a lot of lights or exterior shooting, but it is possible to do, especially considering under-exposure is not a really bad thing for the reversal stock. I've always been happy with the results although a bit unpredictable without some experimentation. Also, there is another additional cost if you are going to print. Even though it does become a negative when cross-processed it has to go through another process(I believe to strip a coating of some sort off) before it can be run through the printers. Anyways. that's what I know. Travis

I shot some tests this summer for a film I was shooting. I shot 5279 pushed one stop and two stops respectively, at Deluxe in Hollywood. We then printed onto 2383. Pushed a couple of stops gave a very interesting look. I liked it alot. Unfortunately it was not right for that particular project(it was too grainy and contrasty), but I would definitely try it in the future. Unfortunately we did not get to test the 5218, but the way the 5279 "didn't handle" the pushing very well was great. Travis

I work on the TV series Everwood from time to time and DP Bruce Johnson uses the Arri litepanel on nearly every shot. Its a nice device. It does not throw a lot of light, but if you just want a touch of light and something in the talents eye (its pretty much required by the production for this type of show) it works great. It's almost flat, its maybe three inches thick, and emits hardly any heat. It's also fairly controlled for a soft light. Extremely easy to set up and use too. There is an article in the AC about the show and the DP and Gaffer talk about using it too. I can't remember exactly, I think its the issue with The Island on the cover. Travis

I have to say that I personally love using muslin. For many instances a 6'x6' Muslin really close to the talent, especially lady talent, is sexy. I can't say enough good about it. It does need to be fairly close to the talent to really appreciate that soft quality though I feel. Usually I try to have the muslin just outside of frame. I find I get the same strength David was talking about using a blonde, but often for close-ups I get the mus closer than three feet and I get too much light, a f/4 or 5.6. I like making it even softer by putting some 216 or something lighter even in front of the light, usually a 4'x4' frame. Travis

I am cutting my latest reel and I am trying to see as many other DP's reels as I can. I often do not get to see many other DP's reels and I am not sure of the best way to present my work. If anyone has any suggestions for cutting or places I can see your or other reels that would be terrific. I am mostly referring to narrative reels. I believe for my commercials and music videos I will just put them on in their entirety(or close to for the music videos). I'm not sure how to best represent different features and differnt looks in a 2-3 minute reel. Thanks for your help. Travis

David How expensive do Xenons usually run compared to other lights, big HMI's and whatnot? Also, are there plans to shoot more stuff once the film is edited, insterts and 2nd unit type shots? I have not shot a feature yet where that has not happened, but I wonder how common it is on bigger films. Travis

So true. I hate to give up though, even though I so often have to. Travis

David, its good to hear that even on a larger production you have trouble getting a blocking rehearsal and/or a rehearsal. I have such a hard time getting director's, AD's and actors to give me an actual blocking rehearsal if any at all. Do you say to them at the time they decide to skip rehearsal that it may be out of focus or framing may be bad? I never know how much to push. I don't want to sound like a whiny DP, but I also want to get the production what they want. Travis

I looked on their website and the only postive stocks I could find were print stocks. Is this true? Or am I stupid? Does Fuji not make any reversal film for the camera that could be then cross-processed? I'm looking for any options especially since Kodak only has the 5285 as well. Sorry, I forgot to say I'm looking for 35mm. Any help would be great. If anyone knows of any type of film that could be cross-processed and any experience with it would be spectacular. Thanks guys. Travis

So true David, so true. Thanks Travis

Hey David Just curious why you are so anxious to shoot the 64D over the 250D outside? I ask because I am doing a film in a couple of weeks and I think I am going to shoot the 250D only, but I have not had alot of experience with Fuji and don't really know the difference between the two. Would you mind elaborating on those two stocks and the prints you saw of them. Thanks Travis

He is a very interesting fellow. Good to know though.

I would think he shot black and white stocks, but I know him so I'll find out for you. Travis

I forgot to say, we're shooting 35mm. Thanks

Has anyone tested the Eterna 400? I'm sort of forced into Fuji for my next show which is fine, but I would like a high speed stock, but low contrast is not my first choice. How does the 400 compare to the 500 in that regard? Travis