Jon Petro

Nevermind, I forgot to Hint the .mov Jon

Hi, I hope this is in the right place. I used Apple's Compressor and got my Reel to a size and quality that I am satisfied with. The problem is when I embed it in my web page instead of playing progressively it waits for the entire movie to download and then begins to play which takes a minute or two. It is 3 minutes long and 20 megs which I believe is perfectly acceptable as many movie trailers and quicktime vids I find are of similar size. I have googled streaming quicktime and found some information, yet whatever I do it does not seem to play progressively. What could be the settings that I have off in compressor or Dreamweaver. I used to compress with Discreet Cleaner on my PC, but now I do stuff with Apple. I am happy with compressor's results but I can't get the video to play while it downloads. Any thoughts? Jon

Oh, I thought Super 35mm was strictly for 2.35. But it makes sense that it doesn't have to be. Thanks, Jon

David, I know this is off topic from Panavision, but since we are talking aspect ratios. When a film is shot 1.85 aspect ratio, is that 1.85 of the Academy Aperture, or of the full aperture? I know there is no one way, but what is the most common. I have shot 1.85 before and I am pretty positive it was the cropped academy aperture and not the full aperture. I think. Thanks, Jon

Are the core adapters needed for the 400 ft mags as well? thanks, Jon

I read on commiecam that the 200 ft mags for the Konvas can't actually hold 2oo ft of film. More like 180 ft. Is really true? Does anyone have any experience with these mags, and how much you can load into it. I suppose I will only use 400 ft mags. Will a 400 ft. mag work smoothly even with only 200 ft. short end in it? Thanks, Jon

Okay, so I guess oily iris blades are normal for cine lenses. I never noticed before. I was aware that they could be an issue on still picture lenses so I guess that is what I was thinking. As long as it doesn't affect my image I don't care. I was afraid some sort of reflection could occur off the back of the iris blades. Thanks for the response, Jon

What can be the effects of having oily iris blades in your lenses? Could it affect the image in any way? Jon

I'd say so, I guess if you are using them for processing some labs won't mind. You are getting film for 4.6 cents a foot, besides free, that is the lowest I have ever heard of. Talk about a cheap short film. Jon

How much does the lab charge per roll breakdown? thanks, jon

Just get a second body. If you like one body more than the other, the fronts screw off very easily. So you can swap them out. I got the bayonet mount first, then bought a second body only to find out the screw mount is great if you only want to shoot telephoto. The bayo mount is the way to go. I bet you those lenses you got are really sweet. I have seen them on ebay from now and again. Russian lenses are good. Jon

Where are you getting it, straight from Kodak? I wasn't aware that a student discount was 50%. Can it be shot s16mm? Or are their perfs on both sides? If it comes as a 1050 ft reel, are you then putting it on 16mm cores? The footage on your site looked pretty cool. Jon

I've got a super 16mm eclair NPR with lightweight arri rods system so it can take anything that can fit 15mm rods (60mm gap). I did find one great looking 4x4 , it's a 4X4 bellows, with two filter holders (one rotating) and comes with a french flag. It pretty much looks like an Arri, but it's only around 5 or 6 hundred bucks. I might get this because renting a mattebox for a month will probably only cost a little less than buying this one. I am not sure though. I have decided to just rent lenses instead of going out and buying them, so might as well get the mattebox and follow focus from the rental house too. Amazingly that is all I need to rent. Everything else is covered. So, I guess I only have to decide what I want to rent out of Mattebox, Follow Focus, Lenses. Most likely all three. Jon

Yes. Your clarity is something to behold. I guess I already knew the answer to my original question, which is only I know what I "need". Jon

I suffer from this mentality too, my feeling is at least if the film doesn't sell it won't cost that much to make another with the same equipment since I already own it. It holds its value, it is a great investment. Most equipment maintains its value, so in my opinion the money I spent is still mine if I was ever in a jam I would just unload it all. I might sustain a small loss but it's not like a used car. However, I live outside of NY so I don't have a rental facilty drought. I also am not looking to set up an entire film studio, I admire what you have done and I would probably salivate if I got a tour of your facilities. But I just want to make films for a living which does not require me to own a film studio. Good luck to you. Jon

Completely agree. I believe I will rent the last remaining items. For me it is in my best interest to own the gear that I have, but anything that I find questionable or out of reach I can always rent. It does depend on what I need though, yes I agree. Thanks, Jon

I just checked renting a mattebox is dirt cheap, same with a follow focus. I can just rent the accessories, and put the rest of my money into film stock. Now that I own the camera and other equipment, the biggest rental expenses can be avoided. It would make more sense to me to own some and rent some, rather than have strict rules to won everything. They probably won't even require insurance, just a hold on my credit card. I think this solves my problems. Jon

Fair enough, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I just want to make sure that I don't spend my hard earned money on something that might not really be necessary. At this point it has taken me two years to get to where I am equipment wise, and I am getting the feeling that I could spend forever without ever thinking I have all the tools necessary to start shooting a movie. This obviously is not true. I believe that talent and artistry will go a lot further than what seems to be a highly overpriced item like a matte box. However, I could be wrong. Like so many struggling filmmakers, money is often the enemy. I see no clear line either, no definitive point that lies ahead where I will feel, yes now I have all the tools necessary. Thus I have started to get picky about what else remains to be purchased. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to explain their viewpoint on this subject. Don't get me wrong, I am obsessed with my images, I guess I am just wondering if a matte box is going to make me appear any more talented than I am. Will it really improve my images, or rather save them if I am some talentless hack. Will it make a difference to the audience? I feel like it is easy to get lost in all these tools. If someone came on here and said I shot my last movie without a matte box and the whole entire thing was one giant flare! I would take heed. But I have seen Harris Savides shoot without one, and he is a master in my opinion, so it makes me wonder what is truly necessary. I came here for a second opinion, that is all. Jon

much appreciated. Jon

Thanks, if I get one it will be a while from now, but I am making a list of the things I need to get eventually, and was trying to see if a mattebox was one of them. What you say about incident light hitting the front of the lens makes a lot of sense to me. I wonder if I could get a cheap clip on mattebox or sunshade that fits my lenses. I have also seen french flags that have an arm and can clip on to your camera, so that might help me too. Thanks, Jon

Sorry to upset you. I guess I came here to ask if people thought that they are truly necessary. Apparently you think they are. Thank you. Oh and by the way, I was asking a question, not trying to persuade other people that "every other cinematographer and cameraman on Earth" was less knowledgeable than myself. I guess I don't get the animosity. I know there are some cinematographers that try to avoid the use filters, ignorant bastards like Roger Deakins (not true, I love you Roger). So I don't see how crazy I am for trying to avoid them as well. If you see flaring as a major issue, then I suppose that is what I am trying to find out here on these forums. You could have simply said that, in lesser and kinder words. Ever notice how any time someone starts a statement with "I am sorry to sound so condescending..." you get the feeling they aren't very sorry. I know you didn't "mean" for me to "take offense", but please I would rather you refrain from answering my posts in the future. If the question is that stupid feel free to IGNORE it. Thanks, Jon

Are there a ton more flares without a mattbox though? I have shot mostly with matte boxes so I never really thought about it. French Flags do come in handy now and then. Jon

I am looking into getting myself a 4X4 for my camera. The thing is I don't like using filters. I am thus wondering what the point of a Matte Box is beyond filters and protection from flares. I am sorry to sound ignorant, but they cost a fortune and if I don't plan on filtering that much or at all, is it necessary to get a Matte Box? Any opinions? Jon

Why is that? Just curious. Jon

Don't know how to contact you other than replying here. I am interested. I own and operate a video production business about 30 minutes outside of Manhattan. Need to know more, but I am interested. What is the pay? Am I responsible for editing or do you just want the tapes? Are you owner of a video company that has been hired to shoot this? Are you just looking for operators? Please send me more info. Jon thevideoi@gmail.com