Bugs Haller

Thank you David! I was hoping you would respond to this. I just want to make sure I understand you correctly: 1.37 is really a "projection aperture"? And if the camera apertures are bigger than the projector apertures... then that would mean you would lose a little of your image in projection, correct? Although I guess you would never project 35 mm as 1.33 anyway... Thank you for your responses...

Why is it that no two documents in the English speaking world give you the same information as it pertains to aspect ratios? Why is it that the math works out to 2.39 but everyone calls it 2.40... and don't get me started on 2.35... Actually here are my questions: In the 9th edition of the ASC manual on page 34 it says: "The most salient advantage (anamorphic over 1.85) is the much larger negative area. A 55% increase in negative area over 1.85 results in finer grain, better opticals, and an increase in apparent sharpness (I say apparent because while a similar image photographed in 1.85 will be sharper, the increase in grain and greater magnification actually make it appear less sharp). Greater magnification? I must be missing something. Why would 1.85 require magnification. I thought you did a contact print with 1.85 and then used a 1.85 projector aperture in the theater. Why would this require magnification? Next question: Are the actual negative areas as follows... 16 mm = 1.33 35 mm = 1.37 Super 35 mm = 1.33 In the ASC manual at the bottom of page 26 (9th Edition) it says that if you calculate the aspect ratio of Academy Aperture from SMPTE specs the math comes out to 1.37:1 but everyone refers to it as 1.33:1!!!!!!!! And almost never is the ratio called 1:37??? See what I'm talking about? So with that being said how do you say "Full" or "Silent" Aperture and how do you say "Academy"????? Based on what that says then you would refer to both of them as 1.33:1... and that can't be right! Next Question: Does Techniscope take an anamorphic print? If it does, why? I know it's 2 perf and you have to print it to 4 perf to project it... Last question: Is Imax 1.33:1 or 1.43:1... I've read it as both. What is correct? Thanks BH

You should try it and then let us know what happens.

These look like great sources... never seen them before. Thanks for the info.

You're right. It just looks that way. I just don't think I've ever seen an example like how he lit people's eyes in that film. So vivid with so much contrast. It seemed like the DP didn't use fill half the time. I liked it but I guess a lot of people didn't like the movie.

I can't seem to find a screen cap of what I'm talking about!

Thanks Jonathan. Great article as usual. I am still wondering how he lit peoples eyes. That was magnificant and the article doesn't touch on that. Any ideas?

I caught The Island on Cable a few months ago and was pleasantly surprised. I am a sucker for Scarlett Johansson though! How did they light faces in that film? I though it was fantastic. I thought it seemed to break some rules (i.e. long hard shadows on faces) even though there are no rules. It was almost as if they were using hard fresnels and then blasting the actors in the eyes. But then how could they keep their eyes open. Anyone got the scoop on this?

Has anyone seen Planet Earth in Blueray on an HDTV? Talk about being speechless. I've never seen anything like it.

Ben I guess it depends on how much you want to spend and what you want it to do. I've seen some that look like they cost thousands and they're almost as big as the cameras! I purchased one from filmtools.com for a few hundred dollars and it works out great for me. It covers all the formats and focal lengths and does the job nicely. I think it's made by KISH optics. It's fairly small too, which I happen to like.

Evan - I'm sorry I got a bit carried away. I wasn't saying you got sold... I'm saying we did... the public at large over the last decade. Didn't mean to make it sound like I was pointing you out specifically. I just find there to be more hype than proof for the most part (as it pertains to video) The Red does sound like some exciting new technology for the right kind of projects and I'm sure it will become another successful tool in the DP's arsenal. Thinking out loud: From what I can tell, it would cost a guy or gal about 30k to get invested in a RED system... is it worth it?

I;ve never heard it put like that but I do believe you are right. Very ironic! In the past decade I can count on one hand how many movies shot on video I thought looked good. "They" said ten years ago that DV was going to be the death of film. No... not quite. I know filmmakers who say things like "shooting on film is a complete waste of time and money" and it makes me want to jump of a building head first. I have to hand it to the video companies (sony, panasonic, canon, etc.) they sure did a great job of selling us video tech like it was taking over the world. IMHO HD hasn't even come close yet. As a side note: For filmmakers who are thinking about shooting a feature and going the festival route... originate on film. It will be taken much more seriously and go much further. There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule... but this is what I have found to be true.

Well put!

Without unions to protect people who work in film and television there would be nothing but blatant exploitation. Producers (and I'm not trying to bash) and Studios would just shop around for the lowest bid and no one would have a career because they would always find someone willing to work for next to nothing. It would be vicious. Hell, it already is. Unions don't solve all the problems but they do try to protect the people who belong to them. Several years ago I worked on American History X and we were working at least 14 hour days over night. One night I went to set and everyone was talking about a crew person working on (I think the movie was Pleasantville?) crashed and died on the freeway after putting in an eighteen hour day. He fell asleep at the wheel. Soon after that the laws changed as they pertained to how many hours you could work. Thanks to the Unions. It isn't always about money either. Movie sets can be dangerous and demanding and it's not unheard of for people to be killed or suffer life long injuries. I think Unions are good.

If your Eastern European then that's half the battle right there! LOL! Seriously though, I think it's good you're trying to be objective about this. One thing is for certain... this business is not something you can half -ass. You're either in or you're out. You either feel the desire from your head to your toes or you don't. To me it's black and white. As far as making it out "there" (I'm assuming you mean LA) no one knows that but you... and you won't know it until you've put in the time. Whatever you do, don't come to LA unless you're willing to sacrifice and do some hard time. If your not ready for that you'll be torn apart and eaten alive. "Welcome to the Jungle" comes to mind... And I may get crucified for saying this... but I don't think you can teach someone how to be a DP. Sure you can teach them how to focus, use a camera, choose a film stock, but if you don't already "get it" you never will. You can teach someone how to play piano but you can't make them Beethoven. So... at the ripe old age of 38 I believe you can be outstanding at anything... as long as you were born with the latent talent and it just has to be coaxed out. And if you're already single... stay that way! At least until you're picking and choosing your projects...