Hunter Hampton

Hey Tim- Its been my expeirence that because film has more to start with, as long as you get a decent scan you will have more to work with in a digital format aquired from film. For isntance, I just did some 2K data scans to dpx (log gamma)- almost everything the film saw was in that scan- it also has much thicker tonality and saturation than any digital file I have seen. On the other hand, I happend to use a 5d mark 2 on the same project and I cannot push around the files that much, especially the shots where i messed up on exposure by a stop, with the film, I can fix most of my exposure mistakes without lowering the image quality too much. Then again, if you were shooting 100% uncompressed from a genesis or d21, you may have a more comparable range to work with as dpx scans from film- just not from these thin codecs on the dslrs. So short answer, Yes- prores dirived from film will hold up better than prores from an hdslr.

Thanks!- I replied to your PM. Thats the adapter I was talking about.

Century made 2 versions for mini-dv cameras, the non-focusing type and the focusing type, the focusing type does not give the same blue flares for whatever reason (possible change of coatings?), the non-focuing type does give blue anamorphic flares. But if your using these on something else other than a 1/3" camera, your going to have difficulty getting a sharp image on anything other than a wide. If your just looking to experiment, I have played with some older 35mm anamorphic projector attachments by bauch and lomb and they have great flare, its just difficult focusing two lenses at the same time and they are quite big- but they are edge to edge sharp and can be picked up on ebay for under $50. (they are also 2x instead of 1.33x compression)

Hello Tebbe- I started a thread a while back about this: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=39749 Neat Video really does an amazing job on grain reduction as well as video noise (or both!), Im sure it will save those shots on your reel. Cheers.

Thanks for the tip.

Try ebay- you can probably get an SR1 or LTR package for around that price.

Lee- Thought I should say a few things; Paul is a friend and I have transferred film on his Ursa using the "Diamond Clear HD" Rig- not the best set-up in the world but its certainly has its place and I feel its worth its price, with all that aside for the moment I see some other issues here; First, it would have been courteous to attempt to contact and resolve this issue directly with Cinelicious before publicly disclosing your issues, and of course if your needs weren't meant after contacting them, you could have told the world that the transfer was bad. However, jumping the gun on this can make a mess for a company and can leave a stain that isnt very easy to clean up- even after the issue is resolved now. The main problem seems that you have had a communication error with your director, not sure what your director told you but transferring on an Ursa isnt anywhere close to a "2K DI" - doing a 2K transfer is going yield much better results than doing the Diamond Clear HD method- but its going to cost A LOT more than $275 an hour! (If you want a 2K DI- cinelicious can also handle that for you) The secondary issues are, and not to try and discredit you in anyway, but your a student who rented a 30+ year old SR1 camera with an older 10-100 from your school and shot regular 16, that can be a cocktail of technical issues including getting a sharp image. This of course could have not been your fault at all. Just a few things to remember: 16mm isnt exactly the sharpest and cleanest format in the world- especially if your used to seeing images from HD video cameras. Try not to get unrealistic expectations from inexpensive equipment or unrealistic expectations from 16mm (I have had them in the past!), its always going to be softer than 35mm or HD cameras- and to get it as sharp as it can be, its going to take a modern camera, modern lenses, and a 2K transfer (not to mention accurate focus). I wish you the best on your film and hope you and the rest of your crew have learned a lot from this experience- I know for certain Paul and the rest at Cinelicious will go out of their way to please and meet the needs their clients- highly recommended group of people to work with. Best, -Hunter

Price lowered to $20k...

Hey guys, I recently bought a small set of Lomo roundfront anamorphics in PL mount to use as a personal set of anamorphic lenses (as there isnt a set of anamorphics that fits most of the budgets I have to work with in my area). They make a great pair with the Red and are ideal for commercial and music video work (as they exhibit classic anamorphic flare), but they would also be an excellent choice for a low budget indie feature or what have you. Their breathing is minimal and their flare is wonderful. Not the best anamorphic lenses by any means; but at $275/day for the set (and a 3-day week they are a steal- especially considering their price to performance ratio. Includes: 35mm T2.5 50mm T2.4 75mm T2.4 (with Arri pitch focus & iris gears and stainless PL mounts of course) For booking, send me over an e-mail to hunter@hunterhrichards.com or if you have any questions or would like some full resolution samples shot on them feel free to ask. I would love to get these working on some low-budget indies!

PM me your best offers, even the low-ball ones- My Baby momma needs a new mini-van. ; )

The family car has unexpectedly crapped out (and just in time for our 2nd baby coming in August!) so I am selling the largest asset I have available; my current super16mm package; bad timing I tell you! Includes: Arriflex SR3 advanced body (1-75fps, Arriglow, the works!) 4x clean 400ft mags COLOR SIX Video tap! wideangle eyepeice viewfinder extension 2x 24v blocks 2x onboards 15mm studio dovetail & base plate (and rods) All the cables you need 24v to 2x12v converter & more All fits inside of Innerspace cases that are included! The package is well used but runs like a top and is ready to rock. I really wish I didnt have to part with it, its way too soon- but as you know what they say, you gotta do what you gotta do. Here is your chance for a great deal; Asking $22k or best offer, hoping for a quick sale. PM me if your interested. Some pictures (lens not included- just for reference!):

Will- I think its all about doing just the right amount of grain reduction (which I am trying to find!)- Its easy to go over the top and have a smooth digital looking image (I agree with you that a B+W Image needs to be grainy). The moving footage from the grain reduction looks great, the only downside to this is that it takes a bit of render time.

Hi Bill- Its just a Prores 422 Quicktime file (which is what I request for telecine). Any file that you can put into FCP, SE, or Premiere can be used with this software (and yes, you could load up a dpx or similar image sequence as well). You just do your edit, apply the grain reduction to your tastes, render, then proceed on with final corrections and regrain if needed in some other program (Im using shake with the GenArts plug-in I listed above). The plug in looks kinda tricky at first, but basically you apply it to your clip, then click "options" and highlight a section of the image that just has grain (like a sky or wall)- then you click "auto" and adjust the grain reduction to taste. In the plug-in window you can select how much blending you want as well as the quality of the temporal algorithms.

Step 2! Regrain and "Print": This is pretty drastic: Original out of telecine (from Ursa Diamond @ cinelcious- notice the larger grain in the highlights): Grain Reduction with Neat Video, regrain with GenArts Saffire (5218), and "print" LUT Kodak Vison Premeire: Im so excited about this!

Thanks Jason, I dont have any clips uploaded as of yet. I just realized though that I set the temporal ratio set to "1"- what ever that means, Anyways, if you set it to the max "5" I think it looks at more frames to make a better estimate of grain reduction. I just tried it again on the snow clip and amazingly, it didn't erase the falling snow, just the grain!

I love film grain- but sometimes with 16mm the grain can be too much or out of context for certain projects. Not to mention the grain gets exaggerated in compression or if viewed on a large screen it can look too coarse and griity (especially on the higher speed stocks). If your shooting 16mm because you want it to look like 16mm, by all means let it be grainy- it looks good (or if your delivering to SD). But if your trying to get a 35mm look with 16mm and your showing in HD- I have found a great solution that wont cost your production too much money ($100) and just some extra render time. Its called "Neat Video"- I have heard of it in the past but I assumed it was only for noisy old video footage, I was wrong! It works wonders on 16mm! All of the frames listed below are were shot on super 16mm, some with different stocks and some transfered on different telecines (all files are 1080p in size). I think I went a bit overboard on some of the reduction, but you can dial it in to get it just how you want. It even looks good when played in motion (no weird artifacts or blurring). Girl (7212, Spirit HD)- note: I shot this spot for an Acne center and the Director wanted to see less grain on the face. Beach Sunset (7201, Spirit HD) note: This is a little extreme of a reduction but might be good for delivering HD to broadcast. MORE: Snow Scene (7218, URSA Diamond HD)- note: This is a great example of a really grainy shot! Original Grain Reduction Tea (7205, URSA Diamond HD)- Original Grain Reduction s16mm Babel Frames (Pulled from Blu-ray of Babel) note: I know that they wanted the Moroccan scenes in Babel to look really gritty, which is why they used 16mm for that, but I thought this would make a good example of trying to make 16mm look like 35mm if you did a grain reduction on it. Original One Grain Reduction One Original Two Grain Reduction Two Over all I still have a lot to learn with the software but it seems like its going to be a great inexpensive asset to have available for 16mm! By the way, they just released the plug-in for FCP!

Anyone ever use those little spray cans of haze? I know a real hazer will work much better, I thought they might be handy for adding a touch of atmosphere to small rooms and quick set-ups. Thanks!

Alejandro- It wont be easy to put a PL mount on a nikon camera, because of the FFD difference in Nikon and PL mount, you would most likely need to literally bore out a hole in your nikon camera. The m4/3 FFD is so short that its easy to add a PL mount onto it. Peter- I used a custom machined PL to leica M adapter - and then a leica M to m4/3. I then used epoxy to bond the two permanently. I didnt know at the time that Hot Rod Cameras was working on one or else I would have bought theirs. The m4/3 mount is very very weak, so what they did was build a whole PL mount support that attaches under the camera so you can put heavy lenses on without stressing the m4/3 mount. With the one I made, you have to support the lens at all times with your spare hand (even with with smaller lenses).

You mean like this? This is my DIY version using 2 adapters to get PL lenses on my camera, but there is a fellow over at "Hot Rod Cameras" making a native PL adapter for the m4/3 mount.

I think it depends on what "cheap" means, If your looking for the best quality to price ratio, click the cinelicious.tv link on the right. You can get super8 with a bestlight transfered to whatever format you want strait to drive for $200/hr. (and $275/hr for HD), they are in LA also and have great customer service.

Look for a used video 18 or 20. Its just a few steps up from your current head but they will balance an XTR.

I like the silent 235 idea. A digital magazine option would be great too!

I cant answer your question about the Schneiders, but I have used the old Standard Zeiss lenses your talking about with the T* coatings and without. The Lenses with the T* coating are mildly faster (T2.1 instead of T2.2), the difference in contrast is very slight, and the only other thing that is noticeable is a slight blue-ish color shift on the T* coating- but this is very slight. I'm guessing that before the "T" , Zeiss lenses had good coatings but they had not branded them yet. For me, If I was using the older standards anyways, I wouldn't care id they were T* coated or not. Hope that helps.

That would be a burn if they were referencing that music video and not telling you. Still I think you nailed the look- which is pretty cool since you had not seen it before now.

144 degrees @ 23.976 or 180 degrees at 29.976 will get you a clean image with out a rollbar or flicker, assuming your shooting in a 60 hertz country. It doesn't hurt to test these things though if you really need a clean image of the monitor. Good luck!