Alex Worster

Is it actually a story that calls for 1.33? Because if not you can just have them 1.85 matte the prints (dailies and release print). I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do it. Unless of course you guys don't want to shot widescreen as a conscious decision. What is you're guys' reason for going the photochemical route? I thought it was not required anymore of 1st years. Just for fun, maybe? Also, I thought I'd heard not to many festivals take prints anymore so you'd have to go digital at some point if that's what you guys wanted to do with the film in the long run.

Ah, that sweet SFSU 1.33 groundglass. I didn't even think about it earlier but they also will replace State's GG with their own 1.85 (not sure of the cost but that really can't cost that much and would actually be the very first thing I would spend money on). The frame lines are pretty homemade looking but it is definitely a big improvement over shooting 1.33 with a 1.85 crop in the back of your mind. Money money money. You gotta pay to play.

If you throw in some King Cobra I might be persuaded. As far as matching goes... I've worked on a couple things now with Lee's 16mm Super Speed's and seen them projected and they matched fine. The particular project I'm thinking of did go through Spy Post so they might have worked a little magic on it or something. Also, I hear Chater hand picks his lens (at leased he hand picked his 35 SS) so he might have also done that with his 16mm set. Maybe that's why they're a little pricier. I'll be going down there in the next week or two so I'll slip in a question and see what he says about matching. Both those sets come with a 50 but I don't know what to tell you about the 8mm... have you seen anything projected from Optars 8mm? Noticeable distortion? My personal personal preference keeps me away from the ultra wides (too much distortion) unless it's called for by the story. Also, have you ever used Lee's J-bar video tap they rent where they take State's SR and replace the J-bar with their own that has a tap on it? It's decent and might be something to push for, budget depending but I don't think to recall it being a real bank breaker.

What I found out quick on my first Panavision job is it's just name. It still uses the the same stuff to get the same job done, it just looks a little different. In my opinion Panaflex mags are about the easiest mags there are, easier than Arri because you can throw the roll in the mag before you thread the end through the throat. None of that setting the roll on the can while you do your thing stuff. Also, you can think of it as a ArriCam or 435 mag but easier because you don't have to make the loop while loading. The one big thing to remember is it threads in the 99 pattern not 69 like Arri's. I've never run into a rental house that thought it was strange that people came by to learn how to load mags or gear. Just give them a call and tell them you want to come down and learn a mag or whatever and when would be a good time. They should be more than willing to help you because they don't want you to mess their gear up down the road and because techs love to show people how to use things.

Zeiss DigiZoom 17-112 T1.9 is going to be far better for narrative stuff were people move around, they don't breath much. However, it doesn't go wide but if you need 30-100 then there you go. I assume you're talking 30-100 in 2/3" land which would make this show tight to very tight as far as focal lengths go because 30mm digiprime is about a 75mm in 35 terms. Now here is the bummer, the DigiZoom is not cheap... about as much as the Pro35 and skimpy set of Super Speeds so if cost is the ultimate decider then you might have to go with an ENG lens and tell your client that it'll look fine as long as nobody moves around.

Cool to hear you're shooting a 1st year film. I was trying to feel out shooting one but I don't think anything will come of it so count yourself lucky. Although I don't know where you could get those Optar's I'm curious to now why are you wanting to go with those over some Super Speeds which Lee doesn't charge too much for? Let me know if you end up needing a 1st, you're sparkling personality would be compensation enough, Satsuki. Good luck man, I'm sure it'll end up looking good.

So Richard Kelly and Steven Poster are at it again in Southland Tales. Not a bad movie but I think I liked Donnie Darko better. I'm still decompressing but I feel Southland Tales was a little too much of a liberal rant for it's own good. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the liberal rant, but I think I was expecting a little more from Richard Kelly. This movie had it's moments and wasn't bad but it just didn't have the same clarity of vision that Donnie Darko did. The characters were good but never really seemed to live up to their potential, maybe it was due to the complex story. As far as Poster's work goes I also feel Donnie Darko was stronger. I got they were going for low con look but I feel they went a little over board with the smoke sometimes. Some scenes just looked a little mushy to me. Also some noticeably soft shots made it into the cut, close-ups no less. This is not to say that Poster's work was bad, it wasn't, I just think that my expectation might have just been a little too high. There were several scenes that I did really enjoy the camera work on; the music videoish scene at the video arcade near the end and the finale on the air ship were both quite good as well as some others. As always, I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks.

Anything Kodak that starts with 52 is 35mm. Anything Kodak that starts 72 is 16mm. 5279 is Kodak's older 500T Vision 1 stock, now they're on Vision 2 (5218) and soon to be Vision 3 (5219). There are differences in the "look" and latitude of the different lines of stock. Generally as Kodak comes out with newer film they have more latitude and less grain. 5229 and 7229 is Kodak's Expression line which is basically a low con stock, pastelly, and grainy. Kodak's website has all this stuff.

I heard they used something like this on Without Limits (1998) shot by Conrad Hall. I seem to remember hearing that for some of the shots of the runners running at the camera with a ultra long lens they used a system that attached onto the camera, was calibrated to the lens, then used a sight with it's own video assist to make sure this range finder was on the right target. This range finder fed info somehow to a motor on the lens and pulled focus automatically with regards to the readings it was getting. It just needed it's own operator to make sure it was targeting properly. Sorry, but I don't really know the engineering behind it. I haven't been back to the AC article to see if it has anything about that in it but it might be worth a a look. I don't think the camera assistant that told me the story was messing with me but who knows.

It also helps when you work with some great DPs. From what I've heard Soderbergh learned a lot of what he knows about shooting from Elliot Davis who he worked with a lot in the midish 90s. Learning from people who are very good at what they do is a good place to start for just about anything.

That looks like an interesting one. Has anybody used one of the "new" Bosch's in the field? I really like the idea of a 150 dollar laser range finder but have been told by numerous AC's to stay away from anything that wasn't Leica or Hilti. Unfortunately those guys cost more than double this one and since it's new maybe it has been improved to where it can be trusted in the field.

The spinning ground glass is just to add the filmic "look" ie grain. You need an adapter when shooting with 2/3" or 1/3" cameras because the 35 lens need a 35 sized focal plane. The adapter's ground glass gives you that 35 sized focal plane for the lens to focus on with their proper field of view and then squeezes/scales the image down before going through to the camera's CCD. As long as you have a 35 sensor size you don't need an adapter, hence the reason why a Genesis, D20, Red, etc can any use and 35 lens straight on the camera. Digi primes, like Zeiss or Canon, are built for 2/3" focal planes/CCD (f900, VariCam, etc...) and are also in B4 mount, not PL or Panvision mount like 35 cameras, so don't need an adapter but that said you don't get the simulated film grain. That's not so bad though as for large screen projection adapter soften things a little too much in my opinion. Hope that is accurate and helps.

I saw it yesterday and I was thought it was good. No Barton Fink in my opinion but pretty darn good. Much more violent than I thought it would be but I was okay with that because it was never gratuitous. The end (really the last half hour) was hard to wrap your head around but after some thought it I decided I liked it. It's one of those movies you walk of the theater going, "Wow, I'm not sure how I felt about that" but come to realize that's exactly what you're supposed to think. Despite a few little holes I recommend this one to anyone that doesn't mind blood. It was pretty brutal at times. Deakins's work was very good. As usual, it looked like it wasn't lit but the lighting still packed an emotional impact. Good use of sodium vapor gags. Not as "beautiful" as Jesse James so I'm going to guess no oscar nod for this one but it definitely fit the story which is the most valuable thing the photography can do. Very well done. The only down side was the projection is I saw was pretty awful. A big hair in the gate for a lot of the film. Obvious weaving and pulsing. A couple really dirty reel transitions and it even looked as though it was scratching the film for about 10 minutes. I would guess it's the projector and not the print but who knows. Big bummer for such a good film. I'm curious to hear what other people think.

This does not really concern the shooter I guess but although the the Zeiss does breath a lot the Canon's barrel scribing is not very good. I find it easier to know where I'm at in terms of on the Zeiss. This said I do like the "look" of the Canon over the Zeiss, hard to describe why. Hopefully one of these days Canon will get a little more cine friendly and expand the marks.

I liked Elliot Davis's work on Thirteen

Yeah, I saw it at the Clay. Hmmm, I don't remember any tinting but I could have just been too focused on the story... probably a good thing. I'll have to go see it again.

I must have seen a good print because I didn't notice any tinting. I thought the photography pretty good, it fit the story and the music very well. The lighting progression was a nice touch. As mentioned, the composition was its strongest point.

I'll second that. They save weight but bend/tork super easy ie transfer the motion of pulls/accessories (remote or physical) to the lens = blown shots unless you've got an ultra ultra light touch. Heavy stainless is bummer for weight issues but they win in all other categories. Also, I find CF gets sticky real quick and I hear once CF has its finish compromised they're as good as dead because it ruins the structural integrity.

Nice to see the stage getting put to actual use.

I disagree. When I'm pulling focus I always like to have one handy. In my opinion it's not a cool looking tool when you compare it to a Preston or something but it does help me do my job. It won't make you a better 1st but it does make my job a little easier.

You do know that most films never are seen by anyone outside the filmmakers immediate family, right? You'll be lucky if these "art fags", as you so disparagingly put it, see it. This is not just you I'm talking about but everyone, statistics is a bummer. So before you go insulting someone that is trying to help you, think. Yes, you are asking for trouble but it is not impossible. Nothing is impossible, not even getting distribution for a silent film.

Thanks. I'll be checking that out.

Jonathan, are the AC microfilms at the SF public library? If not, which library did you find them at and do you know what the year span they have, off the top of your head?

If any major plot points were given away about Lust, Caution I can't remember which is the way it should be. Usually when I read the articles before or after I see the film I'm so focused on absorbing the cinematographic knowledge that when I go to see the film I of course know what it is about but am not ahead of the story. It maybe the way I read and absorb things but I would guess that that's pretty common. l This is not to say that AC has never given away spoilers because every now and then I find myself anticipating plot points but I think it's pretty rare. The only down side I see to AC is I find when I read the article before watching the film I find myself analyzing the photography more on the first go round, looking for the shots they talked about in the article. Ideally I would watch the film first for content, etc but realistically if the magazine is sitting in front of me I have to read it. It's has gravitational pull. I haven't seen Lust, Caution yet but am looking forward to seeing it soon. Good article in my opinion and good issue on the whole. Ditto on Babel but I think my favorite part was the Moroccan segment.

The Leica Disto A5 also has an optical sight) so you know what you're hitting in daylight. However, it is also around as expensive as the hilti PD32 (the one with the sight), bummer.