Chance Shirley

I'll offer another non-expert opinion. As far as I know, QuickTime is the native video format on a Mac. The QuickTime video format has several different codecs, some of them are "lossy" (Sorenson, for example), and some are "lossless." You can read a nice definition of the term "codec" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec Since your source material is MiniDV, the QuickTime DV codec (I think they call it "DV/DVCPRO 25") should capture your video without losing any quality ("lossless"). I believe that this is the default setting for capturing video via FireWire.

I prefer a cowboy hat, unless it's cold, then I go for a wool cap (to keep the ears warm). "Imdb should ask to see production HATS before passing on credit." No fair -- the productions I work on are usually lucky to be able to afford lunch, much less hats.

Also don't forget that many of today's well-respected directors got their start in the b-movie industry -- Ron Howard and James Cameron both come to mind, who got started on the directing path working for Roger Corman. I believe Janusz Kaminski also did some of his early DP work with Corman. I'm probably biased, though, 'cause I want to be Roger Corman when I grow up. Getting back to the specifics of the topic, "Does a hit movie... get a DP further than working on bad films," I assume the answer to that is "yes," and I assume the same goes for directors, editors, actors, etc. Average cast and crew members who have worked on a hit probably have an easier time getting work than some genius who toils away on DTV stuff. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to find that DTV genius and hire him/her for your project, though.

> Seems to me that this is a perfect green screen situation. Again, I'm trying to avoid digital post. Though it might be fun to play with rear projection... After examining a few samples I've found online, I think a tobacco lens filters is going to do the trick. Whenever I get around to doing some tests, I'll try to post some stills. Thanks again...

Considering people have cropped/blown-up regular 16mm films to 35mm (CLERKS and EL MARIACHI come to mind), I would guess r16mm to HD shouldn't be a problem. That's just a guess, though, as I haven't tried it personally.

If you think equipment is what makes a good DP, you don't much about cinematography. I think I'm doing pretty good sometimes, with my small 16mm kit, then I see some lovely footage somebody shot with a DVX100 and available light. And it blows my stuff away. A good DP will always manage to get great shots. Even, I bet, with a bad VHS camcorder.

"It strikes me as slightly perverse..." Well, I guess that's fair. Aside from perversion, I'm intersted in doing the movie non-digitally because 1) I'll probably finance it myself, and getting it done in camera is cheaper than digital post and 2) the movie is something of an homage to older monster/horro movies, and I'd like to make this movie the way they made those movies. "Unless you've got lots of time for testing..." Since I'm in the process of getting money together for the project, I actually do have a lot of time for testing. Thanks for all the suggestions -- I'm sure they'll give me a good jumping-off point.

I think Pro8 carries a couple of anamorphic lenses -- 16x9 and 2.39:1 (classic "scope"). Of course, I'm not sure if those are available for all cameras. They would seem to be good options if you're looking to get the most widescreen resolution out of the standard Super 8 frame.

Keith wrote: "Just out of interest you say your shooting S16, I assume there will be no fx shots then?" There will be some simple effects, but I'm hoping to do them all in-camera. Which is why I'm looking for filter/stock suggestions. I'm sure that I could take the footage and do a DI, and the colorist could get any look I wanted. But one of my goals with this project is to avoid any digital tinkering -- I'd like to make it happen on the negative. Or with the color-timing on the printer lights.

I'm in pre-pre-production for a movie set on Mars. We'll be shooting on Super 16. I'm trying to figure out if there's a simple way to get a "Planet Mars" look without a lot of digital color correction in post. If any of you have a minute, check out the attached photo and see if you have any suggestions for capturing a similar look. The main trick, I think, will be getting the sky to go from blue to a brownish yellow color. While I'm asking, does anyone know how Soderbergh got that red/orange look for the desert sequences in TRAFFIC? That look might work for a Mars exterior. I'm planning on doing some camera tests. I'm willing to try any filmstock/filter combination, I'm just not sure where to start. Thanks...

Charles mentioned Bolex cameras, among others. I recently purchased a Bolex RX for use as a "crash" cam and have been happy with it so far. Mine is a wind-up (no batteries), has a turret with three lenses, and seems rugged. I expect you could find one for around $500, and I think it'd be good for the type of stuff you're wanting to shoot. As for the cost of film, it'll probably be around $27 for 100 feet (2 min, 45 seconds). Plan to spend at least another 20 cents per foot for processing and telecine. And keep in mind that most labs will have some kind of minimum price per job -- I'd plan on at least $75.

Landon said: "A new generation will come, and with a new generation new ways of doing things." New, unfortunately, does not guarantee better. I saw some really entertaining films in 2005, but none of them were better than NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Or JAWS, for that matter.

If a screenplay is written in the "proper" format, it'll time out to about a minute per page. My first feature, Hide and Creep, ended up running 85 minutes, and the shooting script was 82 pages, so the minute per page thing is pretty accurate. I've found it to be true on most of the short movies I've made, too. Obviously, this assumes that most of the scenes written are actually filmed and stay in the final cut. As for how to "properly" format a script, check out: http://www.oscars.org/nicholl/format.html

I don't think digitally desaturated color film looks as good as true black and white. However, the producers of Good Night, and Good Luck got around this problem by using true black and white stock for the release prints. There's a really great article about the way the crew shot the movie in AC magazine. Unfortunately, it's not available in the online archives. The way I remember it, they shot on color 7218 negative (500T) because they wanted a high speed film, but thought the high speed black and white (EASTMAN DOUBLE-X) was too grainy. By the time they went to the black and white release prints, they felt they'd captured the look of low-speed, fine-grain EASTMAN PLUS-X black and white negative. I thought this process was very effective -- the movie never felt, to me, like "fake" black and white.

I think one thing that makes shooting "for fun" 16mm difficult is the minimum charge set by most post houses. You can shoot a 100' roll of film and get it processed for around $20 a minute -- say $30 for the stock, $15 for processing, and $15 for transfer. But most transfer houses are going to charge a minimum of $50 for processing and another minimum of $75 (at least) for transfer, so all of the sudden your $60 "fun" shoot gets twice as expensive (at least). I'm not blaming the post houses -- I understand they have to make a profit, and the minimum charges aren't a problem on projects of any size. The minimum charges do make me think twice about shooting a couple of minutes of vacation action or family holidays on 16mm. It seems a good way around this would be a not-for-profit collective of 16mm shooters. Everybody could send their raw footage to one person, who would then send it to the lab when enough was collected to avoid any minimum fees. When the tape came back, the various stuff could be transferred off to data DVDs and sent out to the different shooters (saving tape stock costs, too). Of course, this would require extra work on someone's part -- maybe the responsibility could be rotating? It would also involve a lot of trust. Now that I think about it, this plan might work better on a local/community level...

Shots with digital elements can be trickier for the DP than "plain" shots, because the DP has to make the in-camera elements of the shot work with whatever digital elements will be added later. Which obviously requires a good bit of foresight on the DPs part to get the highlights/shadows/colors correct. Also, the way I understand it, the director of photography is in charge of the entire visual department, which would include visual effects. So to say a DP can't take credit for a nice-looking effects shot doesn't make much sense to me.

Jarhead and Good Night, and Good Luck: good choices. I also really liked The Devil's Rejects. Great, gritty Super 16.

It is common for "flat" (i.e. non-anamorphic) movies to have negatives where the full 35mm frame is exposed, creating an aspect ratio of approx. 1.37:1. When these movies are projected, the picture is masked for a projected screen ratio of 1.66:1 (traditional European) or 1.85:1 (American). Just because the whole negative frame is exposed doesn't mean it was meant to be seen. Here's a Wikipedia entry on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

These days, Steven Soderbergh often works as DP on the movies he directs, and he operates on top of all of that.

I seem to recall seeing the "Kodak" and "Fuji" logos during the end credits. As for the format, looked like Super 35 to me, and I'd guess the cameras were Panavision. No mention of the film on the ASC web site, so I don't know if we'll see any interviews with the DP. I liked the look of the movie -- naturalistic and a bit on the "gritty" side. Someone else on the boards with a better eye than me can probably provide more details...

Ah. I always wondered why so much Super 35 was shot 3-perf. I never realized 2-perf wasn't tall enough for 2.39:1 compositions. Now that I understand the limitations (negative-area-wise) of 2-perf, I still think it's a cool idea, especially for low-budget, run-and-gun 2.39:1 projects. Having only shot 16mm, I also like the fact that the forthcoming Aaton 2-perf 35mm camera looks awfully similar to my Aaton 16mm cam. Might be a good way for me to dip my toe in the 35mm waters.

I was under the impression that Aaton's 2-perf process wasn't really Techniscope but 2-perf Super 35. Which seems to me would look as good as 3-perf Super 35 while using less film -- for 2.35:1 projects, at least.

Mitch, Where did you purchase the Zeiss Contax lenses with Aaton mount? That sounds like a cool solution for me. Thanks...

Thanks for the additional feedback, guys. My camera's "native" mount is actually an Aaton mount. I'd heard there are adaptors to convert still camera lenses to Aaton but was unsure about the quality. Also, I know many still camera lenses are on the slow side, and I tend to shoot with low light. I'm looking for primes for a feature. I shot my last feature with the previously-mentioned Angineux zoom. I thought it looked pretty good, and a zoom is definitely handy, but I'd really like my next flick to look as sharp as possible, and I think some primes would help in that area. Even if it slows down the production a bit. Thanks again...

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I currently have a long zoom (the very average 15-150 Angineux), but I'd like something sharper. I started checking prices and realized I could get an older set of Zeiss superspeeds for cheaper than a good zoom. So I've decided to go the prime lens route and would like a longer prime to augment all the standard wider primes. Now that I know it's feasible, I'll be on the lookout for an 85mm. Thanks again...