Raymond O'Neil

Hi, I just bought the HD100U yesterday. I have a shoot coming up tomorrow and was wondering if you could give me your opinion. If I shoot 24P HD I know I have to downconvert the images to SD and I heard that downconverted HD is even worse than SD??? Is that true? Should I just shoot 24P SD? The final output of the product will probably wind up on DVD, so I am not planning a film transfer or anything, so which option should I opt for? Thanks a lot

Dear Sean, I am planning to do lots of night shooting with available lights. My camera comes with the following lenses: 10-100 zoom, 12-120 zoom, 6 mm wide angle. I was wondering if these lenses are good/fast enough? Do you think there are better lenses out there but for a tight budget? Many thanks, Rati

I was also wondering: the view finder is a bit dirty (its a TTL based viewfinder) and the previous owner told me that it would not affect the quality of the image. Is that true? Thank you

Hello Matt, could you please let us know how the tests went? Thank you

Hi, I just bought a Kinor 16mm camera and it came with three lenses 10-100 zoom, 12-120 zoom, 6 mm wide angle Does anyone know if these lenses are enough for "squeezing" out for this camera the best image it can deliver? (I will also be doing a lot of night shots with "available" lighting). Could you recommend lenses which could deliver superior picture? (Let's suppose that DP is pretty, and its upto the lens now) Many thanks eveyrone and Happy New Year!

Hi, if one shoots 25fps (in the US) using a russian Kinor 16mm camera how easy would it be to convert the frame rate to 24fps? What does it produce visually? Also, what about sync sound... in this case? Thank you

Tim, thanks a lot. I really appreciate your help. weill keep you posted.

What was it shot on?

Hi, it looked good overall. Lighting was good, but the clip lacked the usual texture that one gets from film. Probably, one should expect this from HD... but which HD camera was it shot on? Was it 24P? It was quite video like and cold.

Hi Tim, thanks a lot for your input. I am planning - as you said - to keep it small and incognito. I am not planning to go through MTA, since I don't have much time, nor is the subway scene long. I am not planning to use any additional lights as well. But my questions was: With existing subway lights would a film produce somekind of flicker or unnatural tones. In other words how would those lights affect the film? As far as I know the lights used in subway are different from household lights and behave differently when filmed. I appreciate your comment on warth and coolness of lights. I will definately keep it mind. Thank you

David and Zaefrod, thank you very much for your replies!

I would like to film a night scene in a New York city alley - using Super 8 camera. There are city lights that project pool type light and then after the sidewalk there is basically nothing... a cityscape/city view. So, I guess I am lucky in a way since there are existing lights, but I was wondering if I should be aware of anything... like 1. flickering, or special "rings" that such lights would produce during filming. I don't intend to point the camera directly at the lights, but I am planning long shots which will include the lights in the frame. 2. Should I maybe use some kind of filter? 3. I am planning to use either Kodak Vision 200T or 500T films. Would that work? Would I need filters? What would other options for crisp night shooting? I would like to shoot another scene in the subway. I heard that there are special lights in subways. How would that affect shooting? Should I use specific film stock? How does subway lighting affect flim stock? Thank you very much in advance, RJ

Hi, I did not want to open another thread since this one is very similar. I would like to film a night scene in a New York city alley - using Super 8 camera. There are city lights that project pool type light and then after the sidewalk there is basically nothing... a cityscape/city view. So, I guess I am lucky in a way since there are existing lights, but I was wondering if I should be aware of anything... like 1. flickering, or special "rings" that such lights would produce during filming. I don't intend to point the camera directly at the lights, but I am planning long shots which will include the lights in the frame. 2. Should I maybe use some kind of filter? 3. I am planning to use either Kodak Vision 200T or 500T films. Would that work? Would I need filters? What would other options for crisp night shooting? I would like to shoot another scene in the subway. I heard that there are special lights in subways. How would that affect shooting? Should I use specific film stock? How does subway lighting affect flim stock? Thank you very much in advance, RJ

Dear All, What is the best place for processing Super 8 (vision 200t or 500t) in New York? I've heard that people at Pac-Lab sometimes scratch or incorrectly expose the film... Thanks a lot

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with my questions regarding new Vision 200t and 500t super8 film stocks from Kodak. I am planning to shoot indoors - during the day - with (most likely) available lighting (maybe very little artificial lighting). Which one of the film will produce a better (sharper, clearer, crisper, etc) picture quality? What is the main difference between these two film stocks? Would you also know a book that would take me through - from begginers to advanced - either film stock, processing, etc or super 8 or both? Thanks a lot

Thank you David. HD seems feasible. I was quite concerned if festivals accept digital. After some research I saw that some do and others don't.

Dear Nao, forgive me for asking a potentially nosy question. I have a bunch of interesting ideas that I think could be well used for commercials (Pepsi, etc). I was wondering if you could give me couple of pointers as to how it works in the advertsigin business. Who do I need to contact? Do I need a manager/agent to pitch my ideas? Where can I pit my idea? I also have several talented people who I can shoot a commercial with, instead of just pitching an idea. Is that better? Thank you very much in advance

Guys, can't thank you enough for your help. It is really amazing that you are taking your time to answer our questions. Thank you! The thing is my budget is extremely tiny (around 40-50K as of now) and I don't envisage it to grow in the near future :D In theory, I would prefer to shoot on film stock, but I was thinking that if I shoot HD and edit digitally and not transfer to film it would save me a lot of money. Also David, you are right, I will not pay for 35mm film transfer unless I get a distribution deal at which point this cost could be taken care of in a way that would not hurt my personal pocket. In addition, being a child of the technological age it somehow seems to me that editing digitally is easier than splicing the film, since correcting screw-ups on digital post is much easier than re-splicing the whole film. I would imagine it takes a really seasoned editor to splice the film + add all sound effects (not so much digital effetcs) and whatever the need be, whereas digital editing is more accessible to a wider range of people. This brings my another question if I may. Do festivals accept digital projects for showing? Or I will still need to transfer the material to 35mm film to participate in festivals? Thank you again!

Hi all, another silly and simple question from me. I was thinking about how everyone write about the cost-saving issues with HD vs Film and vice versa. Here is a hypothetcial situation. let's say I have to identicial projects: one on HD and another on film. First, I go with HD and save money with HD during production on HD tapes and for the sake of argument the HD tapes will run me around $1000. On the other hand I shoot with 35mm film camera and the film stock costs me $50,000. Clearly the advantage of HD vs Film upto now is evdient. Now, some people will say that in the end when HD is transferred to film it is so costly that to transfer a feature movie to 35mm film will cost around $50,000. Roughly the same as the initial cost of the film stock. HD: 1000 (tapes) + 50,000 (transfer) = Film 50,000 (cost of film stock) But my question is, if I shoot on film and then edit digitally and I want to transfer the whole thing to film (let's assume I want it on film). So what happens then? Does not it cost money as well? So in the end the whole thing does not even out, am I right? Am I missing something? I apologize in advance if my question is not clear. Also, I have a second question. What is the deal with DV footage then? Is tranferring DV footage to 35mm film as costly as HD? Thank you very much in advance.

Hi, I am looking to buy Black and White film stock (35mm) in New York. Are there any reputable dealers? I don' t want to buy recans or shorts. I have not really decided if I want negative or reversal film, nor the look I am going after. I guess there are not too many looks that I can go after with B&W are there? Thanks

Thank you David. I'll be more specific. The option to shoot 35mm film stock vs HD. The film will be around 30 mins. Here is my financial dilemma (pre and post production): PRE: 1. I can get a Russian professional camera (Konvas) for around $1000, but then I will have to buy the expensive film stock (I can't really trust recans and short-ends). Since, I am not a seasoned film maker and most likely I can not afford a seasoned DP either, I will not be able to check what I shot right away - a big downside. 2. I can buy a 24P HD (the new Panasonic or Fuji that is supposed to come out later this year) for more price (around $7000), but then I would not have to buy film and I can check right away whats going on. In the end, considering the price of film, processing/developing it all squares roughly even with HD for pre production purposes. Plus, I will be able to avoid snafus with film. Am I right? POST: I heard all kinds of rumours that HD post is very expensive. Not really sure why. Maybe because downres-ing HD is an expensive process as well??? There was also the "quality" issue. But I just realized as well, after you wrote, that film is also transferred to digital format for editing purposes. In such case it does not really make a difference then. As the final output: I am not sure if I will want to transfer it back to 35mm with my out of pocket costs, unless I have a contract. If I do have a contract, then costs don't really matter. Also, I think I would want to have an HD master. Sorry for such a long letter. But its hard to sift through all my ambivalencies regarding the project and give you a clear definition of what I need, since, I can't decide on the aesthetics as well. This might be conservative thinking, but I have some kind of irrational disposition and reverence toward film. Since, I am writing this, please be kind to consider my last questions as well. I also have another vairant of shooting the film. Instead of using film or HD exclusively, I first thought to use film and DV (Panasonic DVX100a) interchangably. In my film, I want to juxtapose two different worlds of the X. The normal reality and the dreamworld. The dreamworld, I would shoot with color film, with washed out colors and more yellowish gamma to give it a 'yellow pages from an old book' feel, and the stark reality and everyday life of the X with DVX100A in black and white. The problem here was that DVX100A does not have a true/native 16:9, and so I would have to film in 4:3. When blown up (for projection onto the big theatre screen for example) , I am afraid, there would be too striking of a difference between the two mediums. I, naturally, want the viewer to feel the difference, but it should be aesthetic as oppose to qualititative. Also, I am not sure how the Dvx100A 4:3 would match the ratio of the 35MM camera??? My god, I've written so much. Sorry for any confusing details that might be and thank you very much again for your time. Many thanks

How expensive is the HD post production for independent film makers? Does it makes sense to shoot HD vs film for cost saving reasons in post production? Also, I've heard that when you shoot HD you have to downres it in post. Does it affect the quality??? If you have to downres in post than why not shoot DV in the first place??? Thanks

Thank you very much. I will definately check it out. Thanks

David, thank you very much for your insight. It was very helpful, albeit too technical for mee. I will try to make sense of it :D

Hi, I am pretty new (let's say I am know almost nothing) to the technical aspect of the film. I was wondering if you guys could tell me if there is a manual out there or a book that would cover the basics from A to Z of film stock? i.e. it would explain the very basics: differences in tungstem daylight, fast-stock, how to carefuly handle and store the film, how to expose, how to process, relationship with lights, etc. In which weather conditions which film is the best as well as the more technical apsect of it like underexposing, over exposing, what it does. It does not have to be just basic stuff, it could be basic and then take me into more advance stuff. (This is all for 35MM film stock) Do you also know the cost of processing of 35MM film stock? Really appreciate your help Thank you :rolleyes: