WarrenYeager

Alan's credits can be found on www.imdb.com Just look them up. He's a really great guy and incredibly talented DP. His crew loves him and I know he helps out students. They shoot Six Feet Under on 35mm.

A lens is at its sharpest when it's 2 Tstops over wide open, so a T 2 lens will be sharpest at T 4. The softness may be on shots where the lens is wide open.

I'm not a Steadicam specialist, but I've flown film and video cameras. From a camera operating standpoint, there's not much difference, save that the balance changes as the film rolls from one part of the mag to another. You'll need to keep tweeking your balance. The biggest pain in the butt is that it seems that each film camera needs a different set of power plugs, adaptors, brackets, etc. to make them fit on your rig. Most Steadicam operators I know have made the rounds to all the rental houses and set up as many cameras as possible and bought or built the necessary cables, brackets, etc. Lots of luck!

Don't come to the US....at least not to Los Angeles. There's a shortage of work here.

There are three ways to get a still into a project: 1) The motional control camera. The most expensive method, there are houses which specialize in this. You can zoom, pan, etc. 2) Shoot the stills with a motion picture camera. This is great when you can't take possession of the original. The downsides are the difficulty lining the camera up so the image doesn't 'keystone', lighing the image so there aren't reflections or glares, and the quality of the camera moves. You're typically working a long lens, so any movement in the camera is exaggerated, zooms are difficult, and if the image is really small and you're using a macro lens, you can't zoom anyway. 3) Scan and manipulate in post. I like this method the best, especially since I hate shooting stills. If you scan at a high enough resolution, you can zoom in quite a bit without exceeding the resolution of video. I'm working on a HD documentary where the director is scanning every still he's planning on using. So far, on NTSC versions of the project, everything looks great. He scanned the images at a very high resolution, so he can push in two or three times the actual size and theoretically still exceed HD resolution. We'll see. I think that scanning is a good option, just make sure you create files at a high enough resolution.

7218 looks dynomite on 16mm. I did a telecine at Warner Brothers of a couple music videos shot with my Eclair ACL through an Angineux 9.5-57mm zoom. Another colorist walked into the room and mistook it for 35mm. I like the crispness of '18. You can always take it down in post if you want more muted colors....especially if you're staying on video (or using a DI).

There are lots of filters for manipulating the overall color of your image. A coral, for instance is sort of a 'pink' hue....I like an 812 for flesh tones. I've used yellow and straw filters for a golden effect. The sky's the limit, and not all filters are intended to render realistic colors. The best part of being a cameraman today is digital post. Remember that Roger Deakins shot "O Brother" absolutely clean (no filters whatsoever) and did all his colorising in post. Now, going to a DI (digital intermediat) is really expensive, but if you're staying on video, you have a lot of lattitude in telecine and in video editing. It's all part of the art. The fun is in the experimentation.

[color=blue][font=Arial]Try Ebay. If you're in LA....try Wooden Nickel...they have lots of old lighting gear for sale.[/color][/font]