Jaron Berman

One of the BEST features of this cam over the DSLR is that it has REAL sdi out. Meaning that day 1 when I hooked it to a monitor and felt a HUGE letdown on image quality due to horrible mid-blacks, I could at least hook it to a waveform to find out what was happening. do not DO NOT use Cine-likeD. EVER. Its a horrible curve and somehow adds noise, even on the uncompressed output. Cine-like V is fine, all the others are pretty ok too. But unless you like HIDEOUS noise in the 20-30 ire range, stay away from CineD. I know the purpose of the D setting, but to me - it makes that range unusable enough that no fix in post will clean it up. Obviously this cam is no alexa, but for what it is - it can look incredibly good. Hook it to a good scope, run through the menus and see for yourself, but I'm happy now that I discovered the noise issue is only with CineD. Also disable DRS! Oh - I believe long ago someone looked at the Cine-d curve on earlier pannies and discovered that it doesn't ACTUALLY add any dynamic range to the picture, only bad clipping and color shifts in the 75-90 ire range. Gross.

and no internal ND wheel! That alone is worth the cost over the GH2 (along with everything else you get). I gotta say - Hooking up an SDI monitor to the AF100 without adapters or fuss is a revelation when I've been dealing with stupid ##%&*@ slrs.. The image looked noisy, so I hooked up a proper waveform (!!!) and it only took a few minutes to tweak the scene file to deliver the clean image all the early users are reporting. Doing that without SDI would have been a @&*(#(_#. Back to the topic at hand though - I second the idea of keeping the zoom and getting the GH2 - its blows away other DSLR. Demo it if you can. The lens mount flexibility is magic, being able to use your zoom 1:1 - no other cam can do that AND allow you to mount m43/nikon/canon/pl lenses without ripping apart your cam. Seriously, the GH2 is a game changer.

Sometimes the two are mixed for performance reasons as well - shaky handheld calls a lot of attention to the energy and style of the CAMERAWORK but often makes it difficult to really concentrate on the actor's subtleties and facial nuances. A cut to a smooth tracking shot continues the motion but allows the eye to focus on the actor more. Using both allows the scene to feel high-energy without missing emotion or performance. Not a rule, just often used for coverage in this manner. And ignore the people who claim that one kind of camera movement is _____ and another is _____. There are exceptions to EVERY rule, and who made the "rules" to begin with? Does the "copa" scene from goodfellas NOT feel like POV???? That's one of the most famous steadicam shots EVER! And some of the most symbolically interesting steadicam shots are those that start in very objective angles and become either OTS or POV shots. Once a shot begins it doesn't need to stay a certain style. Look at the genius handheld work in Children of Men. You have shots that seem very much objective until something happens - then the shots move and react like an observer - changing the viewer's perception of the scene as a whole and what their eyes focus on within the frame. Looking for hard-fast rules on this will probably leave you disappointed. There aren't any. It's case-by-case, scene-by-scen, project-by-project and shot-by-shot. Figure out what you WANT to get out of the scene, then start brainstorming how to get there. Find a way to try both styles, see what works and talk to the editor. The only way to know if you made the wrong choice is to see it and say - oh, that feels wrong. Because even if someone here, let's say an A-list highly decorated DP, says "handheld ALWAYS means _____," that may not necessarily apply to the scene you're concerned with. Then what...are they wrong? Are you wrong? We certainly have conventions - which is why a lot of big movies tend to look more or less the way ALL big movies look of a generation. Until someone changes convention. Another aspect to look at is the edit. I can't edit. At all. I can push the buttons and know the programs but I'm inept when it comes to stringing even a simple 3-shot scene together. Editing is an incredible skill and I can say with no reservation that the best editors have a magical sense of rhythm. It's EXACTLY like music, and a lot of the emotion of a scene comes from the rhythm of the cutting. The selection of shots between handheld and steadicam or dolly or crane isn't always based on simple rules of coverage. It's style and force - what will drive the scene forward or stop it dead in its tracks. Building kinetic energy and cutting to a smooth, "quiet" shot (done a LOT in slumdog) lets the audience catch its breath and stop for a brief instant to consider the scene. It's an editing trick that, when done well, is invisible and very rewarding. So as much as I'd like to think my work on set is what REALLY makes the scene... it's collaborative and without genius editing, even the best shot and planned scenes WILL fall flat and lose all special meaning.

Out of curiosity, why red mx? Is that the camera the stage owns? It seems to me that this shot could be done without any thought or preparation whatsoever on a generic HD ENG zoom lens by any relatively decent operator. Being on a stage, there's no real disadvantage to HD anyways - you have full control over your contrast range. Basically - why fight the shallow DOF of the RED when literally ANY cheap "kit" HD lens on a 2/3" camera can focus on its own front element? If the entire rest of the project is on RED, then yeah you're stuck... But it doesn't sound like a particularly difficult shot at all. Try making a "soft stop" for your actor - like a padded frame he/she will rest his/her forehead and chin on in the end ECU frame (not attached to the camera, but still rigid). That way, you know that every single take your actor will end in the exact same spot, and you don't have to shoot it backwards - the actor will probably have a better performance forward. Kinda like a scaled-up version of what macro guys used to use for underwater photos. As for pulling focus - get a good ac and you'll be fine. Or get a good ac, lay a tape on the floor and have you 2nd call out distances... or get a cinetape. I've seen your work - you're very talented. Unless I'm missing something, this seems like it should be very simple for you to shoot? without any crazy lensing or tricks...basically a huge focus pull. Use diopters if necessary.

My memory isn't good enough to recall who's shot it was but there was an example of JAW DROPPING dolly grippage from ER. The example was shown at a Steadicam workshop to illustrate that Steadicam isn't irreplaceable! I believe the rig was having mechanical issues, so they decided to cut their losses and just do the oner on the dolly! I'll have to dig deep to figure out the shot and circumstances, but you could have shown it to just about anyone and they would have thought it was excellent steadi work - lots of movement and perfect whip-pans...The director and DP stuck to their concept of the scene and shot and simply substituted one tool for another (yeah, not EXACTLY that simple but still....).

Like art, you can show a film to 100 different students and get 100 different interpretations... You can go out of your way to inject 4, 5, 12 levels of meaning and symbolism into a film but if ANY element is lacking, the end result will be, "who cares?" Brian is spot-on. As for steadicam as POV - when you yourself walk through a room and look around, does it shake and bounce, or do your eyes and brain "stabilize" the image? The handheld-camera look is often used as cinematic shorthand for frantic POV, BUT you may find that steadicam is a more "realistic" depiction of how we actually see. Handheld camera, like blue nighttime, has become a bit of a convention, both for "war photo" style coverage and subjective POV. But like all good conventions, it's not a rule, it can be broken. Steadicam op Afton Grant runs a website called "steadishots.org," which has an enormous library of steadicam shots ranging from invisible/subtle to flashy and jaw dropping. Both styles have their places, and its important to see both - technically, neither "style" of operating is more difficult than another, but they are visually incredibly different. And to see something like Kill Bill next to Elephant is incredible - because you can have 2 masters using the same tool in VASTLY different but equally effective ways. Steadicam is like a musical instrument in a lot of ways. It takes that kind of dedication and practice to remain "current," and there are myriad ways to use it. If you've only heard jazz, you'd probably have a very skewed idea of what a piano could do. You may come up with a vocabulary to describe exactly the place the piano fits in the jazz mix. But what about classical? Or metal? Or hip hop? Or ANY kind of music other than what you've heard...all still using the same instrument, but sounding very very different. Camera technique doesn't do anything without thought, so you can't make hard-fast rules of subjectivity or objectivity. A dolly won't always have to look like an outside observer, just as a steadicam doesn't always have to be "steady" or level to be effective. Steadicam can be used to create wave movement, airplane movement, tremors, dutch, etc..ect.... I think you need to make a distinction between the tools and the look you want to achieve. It's not a chicken and egg situation. You need to consciously MAKE the decision of what you want to show up on screen, how you want it to feel, and why. THEN figure out what tools help you achieve that look. Instead of looking at tools as style modules that you can plug in and rearrange and substitute, think of them exactly as they are - means to ends. This is why strong and resolute directors are AWESOME to work with.

Back to the original post (how your run your production is up to you). To my recollection, the only disadvantage to using 35mm optics on s16 is possible flare off the rear of the lens - the larger image circle will be spilling light all over the place, so certain cameras are more susceptible to picking up this flare. For the life of me I can't recall which cameras in particular are better or worse. That said, if you use cooke sk4's, the s16 sk4's are ONLY to cover the ultra-wide end that the s4's don't cover. So clearly cooke don't feel there's anything wrong with mixing a few wide s16 primes with a 35mm prime set. You mentioned a zoom too - take a peek at the newer Canon zooms - based on their HD lenses and pretty gorgeous! Obviously you lose a little stop compared to superspeeds, but you also gain operational SPEED, which is not to be laughed at...and they are SHARP! I had a couple rental houses talk me out of Angenieux or Zeiss zooms to the cheaper Canon because the performance is flat-out better. Look at it on a projector, it's true. Oh, and going back for a second - if you've never used s16 superspeeds - as I recall they have triangular iris patterns in ALL later generations.... I believe MkI had round iris, but other issues that make them less attractive than the later triangular versions. It's not awful, just something to beware of - it looks very distinctive in out of focus highlights. (see slumdog) Are the Ultra 16 lenses better? Yes. Without a doubt. The ultra 16's are some of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen. I think they look as clean if not cleaner than Master Primes- they have to on the smaller format. I recall seeing a demo side-by-side between the SSmk3's and the Ultra 16's - The SS's which are good lenses looked HORRENDOUS in comparison - like someone smudged vaseline across the front element. If the goal is to look like 35mm, Ultra16's and slow vision 3 will certainly put up quite a fight. But here's the kick - I hate to be a proponent of digital....but with limited lighting and budget, it will certainly make a cleaner picture to begin with, which may help you get a better look in the end. If the idea is to use the sharpest cleanest lenses ever made for s16 to get a period look... it's your project. But 2/3" HD can look pretty incredible in the right hands, and can be dirtied up enough in the grade to get the look you want. The ONLY reason it could make sense for you is because you're in essentially controlled lighting situations where you likely won't need the extreme range of film. With good gamma curves and even modest lenses, 2/3" HD can give you a base 800iso CLEAN and some very nice extension into both shadows and highlights. A friend of mine was looking to do an HD feature a while back, and for kicks and giggles we took a look at the Zeiss Digiprimes next to the Fujinon HD primes... both are INCREDIBLE lens sets - both outresolve the Ultra16's (I could be completely full of it but I believe the Ultra 16's were based on the digiprimes). For whatever reason, most people instinctively go for the Zeiss glass... but the Fujinons were nothing short of jawdropping. Wide open, ABSOLUTELY perfect field flatness out way past the HD image circle AND perfectly sharp as well. Plus, what tiny bit of CA the zeiss lenses had was completely non-existent. If I were going for a clean look in controlled lighting - s16 w/ compromised lenses or HD w/ Funjinon primes? I love film, but those Fujinons steal my heart. Back on topic - look at your options and budget and make the decision you feel is best for the project, not necessarily your reel. Yes, you have to stand behind your work, but I know too many guys who would gut the production budget to get gear which, in the end, only makes the rest of the project suffer. Good luck

I am very interested to test, I'll contact you directly. That said, even as a vendor, there have to be compelling reasons to represent the product...and Schneider isn't exactly a brand that sprung up in the wake of the vdslr trend. Sooooo, any personal opinions?? It seems very few people have actually handled these, so any info is a bonus. I'm not looking for MTF figures, more subjective opinions and comments on "feel." I have some great Canon glass, but having used the CP.2 side-by-side, and while the Canon is supposedly significantly sharper at most focal lengths, imho the zeiss is sharp enough and looks contrastier and more pleasing. So your thoughts are, in fact, much appreciated, thanks!

I just happened across these the other night. I'm looking to get a lens set, and was looking at the CP.2 (I have used them), basically sold till I saw these. Anyone know more than what's posted online??? They look to be a screaming deal and some serious contenders... Thoughts?? http://www.ibe-optics.com/PLPrimes https://www.schneideroptics.com/news/cine-xenar/cine-xenar.htm I have Abel sending a quote, but they look to be about $15000 Eur for 25-95mm (5 lens) which is apparently somewhere near $22,000 USD???? Must be some import costs... I have schneiders on my enlarger and 4x5 camera - wouldn't choose anything over them in those situations...curious how the cine glass is. Any info regarding performance would be appreciated. Thanks!

Having been irrationally against RED for a long time, I have no shame admitting - it makes a great picture. And it does improve seemingly daily. As a tool, the camera is a great option for a lot of projects. At this point it's not the new kid anymore, and 3rd parties have largely patched the omissions in the initial design, meaning its fully-usable and largely dependable. That's as much as can be said about any of the electronic cameras, and was what initially had me so pissed off that I got booted from REDUSER. I couldn't believe that a guy who founded his career on ergonomics could create a camera so completely absent of ANY ergonomic consideration. But RED supported and cooperated with a huge number of accessory makers... and there are fixes that do a nice job in making the current iteration work. I can't scroll back far enough, but someone pointed out that quietly RED has essentially turned a 180, and I'll join the ranks that applaud the move. They're slowing down their releases, only promising once they have proof that they can deliver. They're putting cams in the hands of WORKING filmmakers, not just the first in line with cash. And from the looks of it, they're listening to feedback not just from the people who will buy but the hordes of people who will be hired to use their gear. Bravo. The only thing here that's disturbing at all is the slow abandonment of third parties. I don't know ANYTHING about the politics or logistics that make 3rd party lens mounts like the birger or IMS void the warranty. That's a shame. RED is now promising these technologies in-house.... and from a business standpoint it's smart albeit a little bit of a back stab to the companies who created those technologies. Again - RED isn't the new kid or underdog anymore, and it seems more 3rd parties are getting frustrated with RED (based on their testimonials). That's a sad development from an ethical standpoint...but from the beginning they shouldn't have NEEDED 3rd parties to solve issues, and if they can create a product in house that covers 99% of usage situations - it's just easier and better for us to use. I'd venture a guess that the majority of people on this list DON'T own reds, but have used them plenty of times. And this board has historically been seen as hostile towards the camera because of the owners, not so much the performance. You can't blame Mr. Jannard for the 150 pages of fan drivel that follow an announcement along the lines of "Epic turns on!" It's funny. And you can read between other lines and sense the frustration of the RED team dealing with the monster they've created... the people who assume the world can be purchased from the RED store. RED answered the prayers of so many indies, it must be frustrating to finally realize that they build the best gear they can as fast as they can, not necessarily catering the every last demand of the rabid fans. It bothered me to read so much fanboyism and ignorance and equipment xenophobia (I know, bizarre??). But there's a difference between those who see a block of metal as a personal savior and the people who have youthful excitement about the products they build. I stopped reading because it pissed me off so much. I'll venture another guess that a sore point for some of us is the precedent that RED has set with owning equipment. Not long ago, it was rare for an aspiring filmmaker to own a truck full of gear. Now, because of the RED, I'm actually losing steadicam gigs to guys who own knockoff rigs as part of their kits. And sometimes it's hard to step back and realize - they'll get what they pay for... but again - these are the ancillary effects of the RED "movement" not the camera itself... and that distinction is important. Is the tonka truck / GI-Joe theme a bit much? yeah. Does it prevent them from making good products? A little bit (added cost adapters to square off a rounded camera???). But it makes great pics at a price point. Production is entirely about compromises, and it's more important to get the project made to the highest standard possible than to argue semantics. The RED works, for some projects its perfect, for others its not. Youth Without Youth was a fantastically awful film brilliantly shot on F900's. It's absolutely stunningly photographed, and yet it still sucked as a film. However much we argue about resolution, compression, usability, aberrations - filmmaking is still a collaborative process. No camera can make a film good. Red or otherwise.

For POV work? The OP was referring to the "form factor of the si2k mini." The RED and phantoms are more in line with the form factors of broadcast cameras once they have all the bits necessary to make them work. The RED body alone is about 12lbs, which while manageable for a helmet mount is most certainly not comfortable. The 5dmkII is a pretty fantastic little camera, and provided you test it through your own post you may find that it fits your needs. It certainly has the resolution to match the Si2K, though the ergonomics will be less film-friendly. It is, however smaller overall when you consider power and recording than the si2k. My personal advice would be - test the 5dmkII. It's cheap and easily available enough, and extremely compact. If you find the quality to work for your needs, go for it. Nuff said. If we accept bad logic and "appeal to authority," note that there are a number of extremely large hollywood and european films who are using the 5dmkII for POV and crash cams. Again, just because it works for so-and-so doesn't mean it'll work for you. Like EVERYTHING we do, test is, but I think you may be pleasantly surprised by the 5d footage and utility. Good luck!

Bryan has a good point - try before you buy - this isn't a world you wanna jump into without any hands-on time. But even before testing gear etc... search this forum and the steadicam forum along the lines of "getting into steadicam." Here's the simplest way to say it - the equipment itself is essentially worthless without the operator. Simply strapping into a vest won't guarantee smooth shots...in fact at first it will probably be about 300% less pretty than handheld. There's a very steep learning curve which, while it flattens out, never ends. And, the investment never ends. Steadicam has a way of "re-calibrating" one's sense of money. Know as much about the abilities, limitations, costs and benefits of steadicam before jumping in. If you're looking to do this full-time as a living, good luck! It's a very tough time to start out. If you're looking to do this part time, essentially as a hobby, don't waste your money. It'll benefit you and your production in the long run to spend the relatively small amount of money hiring a professional operator who has made the enormous investment in time and money to do it full-time. That said, the best advice repeats like a broken record - TAKE A WORKSHOP! Don't spend a penny on equipment before knowledge! Certain camera manufacturers would have you believe otherwise, that buying gear = buying skill....but know what you're getting into BEFORE you make an investment you may never pay off. Steadicam systems add up, even if the cost to buy the rig itself seems manageable. Wireless focus, video, downconverters, cables, batteries, cases, insurance... it all adds up! The only thing worse than owning equipment you don't understand is trying to sell yourself as an expert while using equipment you don't understand. You'll save years of frustration and possible injury if you begin by signing up for a 2 day or 6 day workshop, and then taking it from there. The double edged sword of steadicam is that there's never been a better time to learn than now. There are more workshops in more places than any time in history! But, there are also more people diving into the market trying to make it as operators than any time in history, due to the availability of education and cheap knockoff rigs. Whether you're looking to learn so you can fly the rig for your own productions or for a career, a workshop will be the BEST bang for your buck. If you take the workshop, you learn the basics as well as practice techniques that will help you get to the point where you can feel comfortable taking a paid gig (it takes a while to REALLY get to that point). And, should you decide it's not all you thought it was, you made a relatively small investment AND following the workshop you'll at least know what steadicam is and is not capable of, so as a director, producer, DP, you know what you can ask for and what to look for when hiring an op. It's win-win no matter what you choose to do after the workshop. But no matter how large or small your budget to buy a rig is, the workshop should be mandatory, BEFORE everything else. Plus, you'll get to try some different equipment and get hands-on with equipment that can help you see first hand if a rig is right for you or not. And it's a ton of fun! I know guys that have gone a few times, because of the extra training but mostly how fun it is. Not trying to kill the gear-lust, but if you're serious about steadicam, there will be plenty of time to spend truckloads of money. For now, find the nearest and soonest workshop and sign up.

Well, after seeing it tonight, big congrats go out below the line. Well done technically. (with the exception of makeup) But, IMHO I really hope Zach Snyder is never given the reigns of a film again. ANY film. You could physically FEEL when he made a decision in the movie, especially the horrific choice of music and timing of that horrific music. It felt as though a more knowledgeable voice in post said "are you sure you want that here," only to be overruled. I get it, the song has lyrics that kinda describe the scene. Cute. But for EVERY scene? Also did anyone else notice the blatant "borrowing" of shots from other movies from Apocalypse now (complete with Ride of the Valkyries) to Batman (complete with knock-off score) to Dr. Strangelove (every detail of the war room set). Perhaps Snyder thought his audience would be too young or dumb to notice that he ran out of ideas and simply went to the employee picks section of Blockbuster for directorial advice? Any film adaptation of a story this strong and twisted will obviously suffer in translation, but to anyone who's read the original it smacks of "let's dumb it down to gunfights and love scenes." And if you have read the story, you'll probably have the same feeling that I did when leaving the theater - did Snyder ever read the book or just look at some of the pictures? The sets were beautiful, the camerawork was excellent, and it was, like most people have said, like watching the cells come to life. Unfortunately, they decided to make the two worst actors in the film the leads, so much of the beauty of the film was wasted in an under-explained love story that misses the undercurrent of the film. In closeup, no less, where even on a terrible print you can see every one of the 12 inches thick makeup. Well, hopefully in 10 years a capable director will take another crack at it once this version is long forgotten and relegated to the cult section. Just goes to show - the best cinematography and production design in the world can't save a talentless director. Sadly, the best part of the film was the preview for Public Enemies.

Genesis is not a 2/3" camera. Also, Sony has been quietly buying every last Viper in exchange for a good deal on a brand new F23s meaning vipers are hard to come by. That plus the fact that Vipers are notoriously fussy cameras, whereas F23s just basically work. As for "why 2/3" HD?" That's a great question, but probably one for the filmmakers themselves.

Had those films been re-done shot by shot, substituting film....would they be as "disgusting?" This strikes me as a hatred of the medium and not the cinematography. If the medium itself made the cinematographer, a porn shot on 35 would be higher art than Benjamin button or Slumdog or any other digitally acquired film. And camera choice really would be the only thing holding backyard filmmakers from hollywood...(meaning RED's marketing campaign would be true). This actually brings up a very interesting and timely debate about cinematography. With Slumdog winning the Oscar, there's been a lot of discussion here about how it didn't deserve to win because some shots were grainy or obviously lifted in post. Many people on this forum felt that Dark Night was more technically perfect and more technically daring, and therefore deserved to win. To justify the merits of either film, I think we need to really think about the definition of cinematography. For some people, it's art. For others, its craft. And for others still, it's a craft that in collaboration with other talented craftspeople and artists can help to raise the project as a whole to an art. And unfortunately, for some, the entirety of cinematography comes down to capture medium alone. These discussions that demerit certain films based on the medium are kind of ridiculous. Some of us may hate the look of digital thus far, and others may love it. Regardless, at that budget and talent level, it is clearly a purposeful choice. Would you whip-pan during a love scene? Probably not. But if you did, it would certainly stand out and make people say "why the hell did they just whip pan in a love scene?" It would be a very visible choice, perhaps more visible than film stock choices or gamma curves. There are so many conventions in filmmaking that we follow or respect because "that's how it's done." Why is night blue? Have you ever seen a blue night? Why do we match on action? Why do we do many of the things that we do in cinema? Because they are conventions developed to help the audience understand the story on screen. Especially now that literally everyone and their mother has seen enough movies in their lifetimes to just go along with these conventions, breaking the rules has a marked effect on the audience. Someone here said (and I'll paraphrase), "digital for a period piece doesn't fit." Maybe it doesn't fit the conventions we are used to but that doesn't make it wrong, unwatchable or even less artistic. We like to see old things look old, but realistically when living in a "period," everything looks new! For whatever reason, the film was shot digitally, so we'll have to watch it to see if that choice served the story. On Miami Vice, the digital capture didn't look like the show, but it was VERY much in the spirit of the original - innovative. At the time, Miami Vice was hot, new and pushed boundaries using pop music, wild colors, crazy locations, and styles than most shows. Digital served the story, whether it was clean enough for most peoples' liking or not. Without asking him personally or being him, I can't tell you why Mann chose the camera systems he did on that film or Public Enemies. I can tell you the trailer looks fun and involving and that while certainly different, the cinematography is well-done.

I've had no luck locating a DVD or showing of Crane Wilbur's 1948 Canon City. Shot by John Alton....Any leads???

No clue, just speculating (and probably accidentally starting rumors). I do know the SI-2K 3-d rig is TINY, about 10lbs total, so it is significantly faster and easier to setup. you never know, maybe they got into a time pinch or maybe they just shot it as a b/c camera and the editor just chose that angle as opposed to an angle shot on RED. I would find it hard to believe they varied the stop enough on RED to make it as deep as the SI, but again - all speculation.

I believe there was a bit of SI-2K footage mixed in, perhaps explaining the deeper DOF and sharper picture in the "cardboard cutout" scenes. From everything I've seen, it does make a significantly better picture overall though it lacks the shallow DOF.

DON'T MESS WITH THE GENNY!!!!!! I'll second what Walter pointed out..it may have been overlooked in the discussion of various phase systems. You CAN increase the voltage and hence output of AN INDIVIDUAL lamp by, again as Walter said, using a variac. Won't work with an SCR type dimmer or a dimmer board, only the old-school core and coil type "variac." You can find them of all sorts of wattages, but make sure the light you want to dim or boost fits within the rating of the variac. Too small a variac and you'll smell a lot of burnt wires and maybe even see a show of sparks and flames. Mole used to have a par kit - basically a molepar 1k with a snazzy re-boxed variac - called the master light. The increased voltage, output and heat shortened the lifespan significantly, but if you're putting it extremely far away with a VNSP lamp in, you can achieve a lot of light with minimal amperage draw and more importantly expense. Clearly HMI's offer more bang for the amp, but if you're just looking to get more "kick" out of a household-circuit light, you can get the same effect using a variac on a 1K of any sort really. The advantage of this method is that with a small lamp you typically have a small filament in relationship to your lens, and hence the lens is more effective and more efficient. Upping the voltage CAN depending on lens and reflector offer a significant bump in lumens. If you need more out of a few units, variacs are usually dirt cheap to rent. They affect the color temperature when at any setting but true 120v. Which brings up something I almost forgot - it will draw slightly more, but you can use variacs to make up for line losses in your cable system. Most U.S. theatrical and cinematic lamps are rated for 120V, so anything below that and your color temp will likely be off. Meter the output of the variac and just spin the dial till you hit the magic number for your line voltage. Or boost for slightly higher color temp and more output.

IMDB is a joke. Ever look into how you get "listed?" It's no better than an inflated resume. If someone makes outlandish claims, ask for references. Call them then call OTHER people from those shows and ask how Mr./Mrs. bigshot was on set. That will probably tell an entirely different story than a line of text on IMDB. I actually have patience for first-time directors or entry level directors because they come from so many different backgrounds. A lot of directors were writers and have no knowledge of the technicalities of film. They know language and performance and because that's their job. I worked with a "first time director" who happened to have more than 30 years stunt coordinating and acting on A-list films. He'd never directed before or made money off it, but he was an excellent director and had very good instincts. DP's on the other hand should have excellent and intimate knowledge of the filmmaking process. This is the above the line / below the line argument, but DP's are tradesmen. Paid to do a job. Directors are paid to artistically approach the generation of performances from actors and tradesmen. Obviously there are holes in my reasoning, but I feel it's an art vs. craft argument, and I find the nuts and bolts of filmmaking in progress to be craft where the final product and culmination of the entire team can at times reach art.

You're right, that looked like a 2x4, but B&H often has incorrect photos, they'll usually say "for illustrative purposes only" below the image. For your needs though, the link you provided was for the light shell only. You'll need the complete kit if you're starting from scratch. Pound-for-pound, the divas are brighter, though I find the quality of light to be better on the x4 units. With the divas you must also be very conscious of which direction the tube connections face as you'll experience radical color shifts if the mercury in the tube falls onto the electrodes (BIG green shift, flickering). If portability is not a huge concern, definitely get 4x4's. VERY versatile - you can remove the tubes and stick them up, etc... I find dimming to be of limited use on FLOs, basically the same as HMI's - it can be done in a pinch but you'll alter the color of your light.

The problem is that these economic "slowdowns" are not generally caused by the slow sales of our favorite products, but they generally end up causing the discontinuation of our favorite products as "fat trimming" measures. Remember Polaroid Type 55? Certainly not the cause of Polaroid's lost fortunes, but definitely a sad sad sad casualty. Type 55 may not in the current age be the "best" way to capture a large format image, but it's a favorite of many of ours for reasons other than all-out scientific image quality. Likewise, who knows how long motion picture film will remain king of scientific quality, let's just hope it doesn't get trimmed out of our list of options by cost-cutting measures. Digital will keep getting more attractive from a budgetary standpoint, but it's ALWAYS nice to have a palette of options that we can choose from aesthetically. Some scripts just don't ask for sterile digitally sharp images. The Wrestler for example. I don't know what we have to do as a community to keep these options alive. Anyone?

Awesome!

I would also recommend looking at the Fujinon HD Primes. There are to my knowledge on 2 series of them, and they vary only mechanically. About 2 weeks ago I had the opportunity to see them on a lens projector next to the "king" of HD-Primes, the zeiss digis...and go figure - the Fujinon primes resolved more detail across the entire frame, did not color fringe at the edges as the zeiss did (we're talking miniscule here, but still), and held geometry to the edge better. All-in-all my jaw was on the floor after seeing just how good the Fujinons were in a test scenario. The good news is that they're more readily available, cheaper and lighter than the zeiss. They are T/1.5 wide open as opposed to the digiprime T/1.6...not a huge deal. Anyways, I haven't see the Canon's but I can heartily recommend the fujinons!

Not exactly sure how this relatively friendly thread got so heated. Kinda crazy! Jonny - Adrian actually makes a great point which agrees with just about every detailed response on here. I know nothing about marketing a film so I'll defer to you on those points...but if you have a close relationship with your DP and you can afford either 35 or s16, allow him or her to make that decision in concert with you. If you're looking at it from a marketing standpoint only, then defer to the DP. If you're directing and you feel that the look of S16 doesn't fit the project, then you've already made your decision, and being your project - your DP should agree. Here's the thing - modern S16 can look REALLY good. A lot of 35mm films are shooting entirely on 500T, meaning that in well-lit scenes, you're capturing as much noise as s16 shot on significantly slower stock. yes, in dark scenes the difference becomes a lot clearer, but I'd caution you to keep an open mind about how excellent s16 CAN look (though it's not always done in such a way). Now, lenses play an important role in figuring the cost difference between your film choices as well. You can easily find really cheap 35mm packages and rent old superspeeds inexpensively, and get an ok product. Likewise you can find s16 packages REALLY cheaply with superspeeds...etc. But if you like the feel of s16, you can go with Cooke SK4's or Arri Ultra 16's which are some incredibly beautiful lenses....they are breathtakingly sharp. Combined with slow film, these lenses can make s16 on par resolution-wise with a cheaper 35mm setup. The kicker is expense. Ultra 16s and SK4's are expensive.... but again a producer can crunch the whole production's numbers and decide if it's worth it. s16 film is cheaper, cameras are cheaper, processing is cheaper, scans (I know I know) are cheaper, support equipment is cheaper, shipping is cheaper and experience is cheaper. Overall, on the last film production I worked, they found a $40,000 capture to delivery difference in price, and that's comparing a rented 16mm setup from a reputable rental-house to the full 35mm setup the DP owned (with lenses). Not insignificant! Remember that for a straight print, you'll probably be shooting 4-perf 35, NOT 3-perf. That's a pretty sizable difference on a low-budget feature. Anyways, in the end its up to you and your dp if the money's there to make the choice. There's a surprisingly good amount of useful info in this thread that can probably help you make up your mind either way. As for Sasha's friends' bad experience with s16 - I don't know what caused the chicken in the gate Whether it was on the film itself or in the camera, it should have been caught and remedied. Without being there it's impossible to assign blame, but it's unusual in my experience to lose much if any time on decent S16 cameras. Hairs do cause more problems in s16 than 35, but again - this can be prevented and obviously as Sasha pointed out - a well paid and happy crew is probably going to be more experienced and dedicated. If your decision about format comes down to what can you absolutely afford when stretched, I've seen Sasha's friends' situation come up a number of times when production cuts expenses by cutting rates instead of other expenses (like format). That's a bad way to go! A good crew will save you time and therefore money. Line producing line-by-line will tell you that a cheaper crew will save you money but we all know that's rarely the case in the long run. In the end, if you shoot on standard def video and nail the story exactly as you want...and every detail on set because you were able to hire the best crew you could afford, then it was worth it. If you stretch your budget for hopes of a theatrical release, but your crew mutinies or can't deliver the product you want in the time you have allotted...then that decision to shoot on the more expensive format just got a whole lot more expensive, possibly with an un-marketable film. Anyways, good luck on the project! Also Sasha. - IMDB isn't the best way to see how much experience a person has. There are guys nearing retirement with hundreds of credits who appear on IMDB with a single entry. If production doesn't submit a list and you don't submit a list, according to IMDB the production never happened.