Demian Barba

Hi, Simple question: Does 3-perf 35mm obliges for a DI or can it be printed optically? i am in Turkey preping a feature and the editor suggested an optical print. I'll be thrilled sine, being a young DP, i though that I have totally missed that both and DIs would be always the case for me. On the other hand we don't have that much stock and going 4-perf becomes risky. On 3-perf we are OK. thanks in advance, Demian Barba

i completely agree with Chris. i actually had the same discussion with my 1st AC on a RED shoot a month ago. at the beginning it didn't make sense because, yes, depth of field is inherited in the lens so then mathematical a 50mm lens should have the same depth of field on a 35mm film gate or a 35mm HD sensor, but yet I was looking at it and he was rght, i looked shalower than what the depth of field chart said. Then it hit me: after all focus falls off gradually. long time ago some film elders decided when those circles of confusion where big enough and decided that was the end of acceptable focus, therefore determining the size of the depth of field. The same principle doesn't really apply to HD because of it's hard edges (which is what makes HD look that sharp even tough film is actually sharper, just without the artificial extra sharp edge). So perhaps some new elders should re-establish what is acceptable focus in certain HD cameras in order to have accurate depth of field charts. softness, focus, sharpness are all relative... like everything else

no no no, please dont think i am planning to print the entire film without testing, that is what i am doing right now its just incredibly cumbersome giving, not this country's industry but my production company's disorganization... anyway... the fact is that yes, the 1st test i saw looks different from what we see at the monitors in the post house. time is running out and i dont want to be messing much with the hd color correction since we pretty much consider it done. so my plan is to be able to sit down with the timer and make adjustments in the color lights just as you do in any traditional optical print. is that common when doing an hd film print out? seems pretty logical to me but every one here seems dumbfounded about me wanting to time the print. my plan is to test and then set the printer lights on stone si they can do all the release prints

hi, thank you all very much for your replies, but in the end, due to several setbacks I have no time to experiment and the deadline to deliver the print is around the corner. I will just go by the traditional method of working the print through the arri laser here in istanbul. just one more question: how does the arrilaser works? I mean, does it works like the Hazeltine console? Can I control the brightness and basic color temperature or all that has to be done n the color correction suite. i ask because the previous test we did looked washed out and old, very similar to what happens when one underexposes the negative and the compensates with the print (which i am almost sure its what happened). so i want to overexpose my negative slightly (a 1/3 or 1/2) so that when we print it down we get rich blacks. or should i just do a bright color grading so that the negative will be automatically overexposed? please keep in mind that i am lost over here because of the language barrier, the disorganization, ignorance and stubbornness of this production and some of the labs and rental houses and of course my lack of experience with this process. thanks again

so the lab said they wont do that. that the arri laser is calibrated for the inter-negative stock and that it will take the 15 to change it for the technician has to come from germany.... i'll reconsider pushing

well quick and affordable rarely go hand in hand. quick: you can get some celotex, which is an expensive wire mesh with a heat resistant film that you can clamp to the yoke of the unit with a-clamps. you can buy celotex at any film expendable store. affordable: you can use c-stands with solid flags wrapped in garbage bags. and sand bag the crap out of them so that is its windy they dont fall down. either way, make sure that all cable connections are tightly wrapped with plastic and resting on a c-stand and that your power source, and all your units, are grounded what lights are you using? cheers

aha... ok, i like that more than messing around with the developing. i'll tests 2242, 5217 and 5218. i am assumnig that 2242 is tungsten balanced, right? thanks

i am the wrong forum, right? should have posted under telecine, DI and transfer? i don't want to re-post it there. how can we move the thread?

why the silence? :( ok, no hard feelings, he he... so i thought of 2 alternatives that i will discuss with the lab this afternoon: 1. pushing the negative 1/2 or 1 stop. 2. doing a partial bleach by pass, but only a partial since a full one would be too much I am in turkey and this is turkish film. i live in new york so i am in completely unfamiliar grounds. thoughts? thanks

for just a couple thousands more a production can buy/rent a better prosumer camera like the sony ex1 or ex3 or even an hvx200, which even though its not full hd it looks a lot better, partially because its 4:2:2 chroma sampling and dvcpro 50 recording as opposed to the 4:2:0 recording on hdv of the canon consumer cameras (for the hv20 or 30 cannot evenbe consider prosumer). and, after all, if a production can't afford to shoot on a prosumer camera then most likely they can't afford to feed their crew either :)

Hi, Right now I am doing color correction for a feature film shot with Sony F-900R and Digi Primes. We are doing the correction in Avid Nitris. Before we started the post, production cut a trailer, timed it on Nitris, transfered via arri laser into kodak's 2242 internegative stock and printed it on 2383. I saw the trailer screened today and I am very pleased to see how close it was to the digital version I saw at the post house and to see how clean of noise it was. Actually, i little too clean for my taste. Any ideas on how can I get a grainer print? We'll be printing some tests this weekend so any input now would be great. Also the release date for the film is may 1st so we are kind of in a rush. Thanks in advance

nope, no extender, but problem solved. at day, am shooting at -3d with the CC wheel at 5600K and at hyper gamma 1 with the master gamma at -10 which gives me an ASA of around 64 (once again, not scientifically and I do like to overexpose a bit since am in the dessert and it feels right). At night I am shooting again at -3db with the CC wheel at 3200K and hyper gamma at 3 with the master gamma at 0 which gives me an ASA of around 250 and am very happy with it. Thanks everybody for their responses. I'll be posting my experiences in the "on production" section, not because I believe I have wealths of knowledge to share but because this shoot is rather "unique" to say the least and because I will have more questions and I hope you guys will have more answers. Thanks again

aha! the filter wheel! I feel so dumb, I knew it saw something stupid... :$ If am loosing almost a stop there plus am close to 200 and if I add the -3db and some gamma functions I get the extra half 2/3 of a stop to get the camera to 300. taking to the rental house its out of the question since I am in southeast turkey and the closest rental house is 300 miles away... thanks david.

I see... and that makes so much sense and explains why I set different ASAs in my light meter under different lighting conditions. As for my method to use my light meter: As i said before, Its not like I come up with an ASA and use my light meter all day long without checking my monitors, nor I am trying to get a scientific ASA rating (I could care less for that). And the my method might not be pullet proof, but judging from the dailies my exposure has been pretty consistent. Let me explain again: I set up my master shot with my monitor and waveform (deciding my exposure solely on those two), then I measure the key light and set up the ASA on my light meter according to the stop on my lens. Then proceed to measure all the other lights and keep notes of the contrast ratios so that when we move on to the next shots I light using my light meter and not my monitors, which I only use to double check my exposure. Then, when we are done with the scene and start a new one I start all over again. I don't see why this is like saying "I don't look out the windshield when I drive so I put a camera on the bumper and watch a monitor instead". If you think about it, I think I am being even more careful, methodical and accurate by using both light meter and monitor than just one of them. First of all (I don't know about you guys) but I have never radically increased the light levels while shooting one scene (unless the scene starts indoors and finishes outdoors or something unusual like that, or we shoot part of it on location and finish in on a set). Second of all, I came up with this method because if I am shooting a long scene that will take an entire day or two, I will trust my light meter readings and notes more than my eyes and memory to keep a constant contrast ratio and exposure. tks

first of all: thanks for the replies. i am not miss exposing, I do know how to read a waveform. I am new to the F900 so the chances that something I set-up in the menu is working against me are very, very high. what could be wrong in terms of menu settings that is making it so slow? let me repeat my settings (and please let me know if I am forgetting to name something important, I am only naming what I consider the important ones and I can easily double check in the camera): - 25 PsF (This is for PAL TV) - step gamma at 0.45 - gamma at Hyper Gamma 1 - gain at -3 or 0 - detail off - matrix off - black gamma off - master ped between -3 and -5 (depending on the scene) - saturation anywhere btw -15 and -21. - shutter at 1/50 Thanks, P.S: please stop asking if I have the NDs off. I stated before that I did. Am new to the F900, but not new to ENG looking cameras.