Aapo Lettinen

here it is quite hard to find rental equipment which is not using v-mount... it is handy if you can use your own batteries as an extra and don't need to rent as many from the rental house, and also can find spare ones from other rental houses very quickly if you need a ton of them. using something other would be like purchasing lots of BNCR mount lenses for using with rental cameras when majority of cameras used are PL mounted: not practical, even if the other mount has some benefits over the other ;)

There is also the thing that producers like to use special shooting formats because it can enhance marketing and causes more interest among the potential audience. So they just calculate that the movie sells x times better if shot on 65mm5perf for example. Artistic choices can also benefit sales so the producers may actually support the idea of using more expensive process and gear if it helps to sell the movie better

them also of course. but Vimeography generally is this type of material which is half camera test half demo reel kind of stuff which is mostly done to show off a new camera or test some plugins rather than to actually express any kind of story. here is just some quick references that came up first on the search: https://vimeo.com/34186781 https://vimeo.com/48904764 https://vimeo.com/30207799 most of the Philip Bloom stuff for example is more or less vimeography, not cinematography ^_^

the "law" is, though, somewhat true with Vimeography (a form of photography but with using moving images, using some generic piano music on the background ^_^ ) but that relates to the stills photography background of the artform and is not Cinematography Related I think ;)

I personally try to always stop down at least one or two stops in almost all shooting situations to get more even and less disturbing results with the lenses. but especially when shooting doc footage I tend to not use that much nd filtering depending on the situation and the shooting stop can be at f5.6-f22 range most of the time, for example with Konvas and Lomo lenses my typical stops are at around T5.6 to T16. And with telephoto lenses over 150mm and when shooting macro footage I mostly stop down to at least about F11 or more. Stopped down extreme telephoto footage also has this type of postcard feeling to it (for example a 400mm at F16 or 22) which I kinda like in certain situations. the shallow depth of field look was totally used up in the DSLR era I think and only works well in certain situations. some night footage I may shoot wide open but mostly it is about two stops down or more and I will use heavy filters instead if I really want to mess up the image ;) saying that all the cinematographers in the world always do things this way or that way is like saying that there is always only one way to light a movie scene no matter what the project and shooting situation and the wanted mood is. or saying that all the projects must be shot with Alexa because that is the look ALL cinematographers and producers and directors want in the end anyway and anything else is just a bad substitute for it B)

this one: http://www.stopp.se/contact/stockholm/

I like to use small diy perfectly round kapa reflectors with shiny aluminium surface and the other side being either matte aluminium surface or white kapa with stripes or dots of shiny or matte aluminium. these reflectors range from about 10cm to 40cm in diameter depending on the distance to the actor. may also use a CN300 cheap led light with heavy diffusion or a small frame with diffusion and a round spot made to the surface with for example a dedolight or similar. I generally try to avoid using separate heavy eyelights because they distract the actors and make them blink more often. the small round kapa reflector is normally enough for me in tighter shots is not too unbearable for the actors like a pocket par straight to the eye style approach could be :)

rehearsing a lot will help of course but it also wastes rehearse time if you have to run back and forth to adjust everything and you can't concentrate on the performances. expecially lighting will take lot of time so you really should have a gaffer on set who can manage those things so that you can be near camera and actors most of the time. if the lab is running processes daily then it should take about one day for them to get you the video dailies from negative, with degotiating and shooting on matching hours (so that the day's materials can get to the same day's developing batch) a same day delivery might be possible. you can ask your local lab in Stockholm, the former Stockholm Post Production (STOPP) (don't remember their current name, I think it's Media Monks or similar. Ali Boriri ran the film lab the last time I checked and they do top quality work, you can ask a quote for a indie feature with X amount of 16mm negative per day, X amount total, with 1st light dailies transfer with keycode, and 2k scanning according to the edl for X minutes of finished film, for example 90 min lenght feature. it is also possible to do the final 2k or 4k scanning elsewhere and only order the developing and dailies transfer first) . for a feature film you need to have good lab connections and very easy and fast and affordable transport route to the lab so you should use the local one instead of sending the film to another country. I am doing my current processing 2-4 times a year in Belgium at Dejonghe, they do great work but the shipping costs for a feature will be quite much if you want to ship the film every day. if you are shipping, say, 5 days materials at a time it could be effective to use a foreign lab but then your dailies will arrive only once a week so you will be more screwed if you did a mistake on set or there was a camera problem and you have to reshoot something (all the sets and locations may be unavailable after the week)

I would say that holding focus during camera moves would take about 50 to 70% of your concentration and other camera operating like framing and composition would take most of the rest. maybe 10 or 15% at most could be saved for following the actor's emotions and finer details (actual directing) . so it is at least mandatory to let someone else focus for you. I would also recommend someone else (the AC) to maintain the camera and load the magazines so that you can direct the actors between takes instead of concentrating on technical things. also let someone else do lighting on set, it wastes all your time with actors if you need to run back and forth moving lights and cables and stuff. you can operate the camera if you want if you are experienced enough so that you can concentrate to the actors during takes and maintain the planned framing and composition almost automatically, but all-in-all a separate DP would be much better choice for the final movie than trying to do everything by yourself, it just takes too much time from the actors and the directing part will suffer if you try to wear too many hats on set. Of course if the movie is a learning process for you as a DP, then it might be useful to do more technical stuff on set. but the performances will not be as good as when you can fully concentrate on the directing part. and I think that the couple of months learning process with film shooting would still be absolutely mandatory. you could of course do a short film first with the 416 camera ( 2 to 4 shooting days) and decide after that if you are ready to shoot the feature by yourself or not. though the couple of months / half a year film learning period would be much more useful I think :)

mainly I meant film exposing and handling related stuff. the film part takes a lot longer to learn than just learning how to use a new camera model... for example how different emulsions respond to different amounts of over/under exposure and how this affects the grain structure, how you need to expose to get somewhat optimal density range to the negative to fit particular telecine's dynamic range to lower telecine costs, etc. , how to properly handle the unexposed and exposed film in dark, how to do tests... there is nothing impossible there to learn in one day but it is not worth it to waste a full feature in the trial+error process I think and it is quite inefficient way to learn these things. I would really recommend having a Bolex or similar camera for starters and shooting couple of months with it to get hold on the process. the bolex can then be used for additional MOS footage in the final feature to save on rental costs :) video cameras are often more complicated menu-wise than film cameras but film cameras, being mechanical beasts, need some hands-on experience before shooting anything with them because there is so many things you have to ensure indirectly from the sound of the camera, feeling how the film is seated in the mag to ensure the loops etc are correct... with video you can always check if the take was recorded and exposed correctly or not, but with film you have no way to check, you just have to trust your experience and it is too late to correct anything when the film is back from the lab

you will have lots of problems with using film as a shooting medium if you haven't shot anything on film before. are you shooting by yourself or do you have a DP who is used to shoot on film and can handle the exposure, lighting etc. technical aspects? of course you CAN shoot your first film project as a feature lenght movie with unknown camera and learning on the fly to expose and handle film.... but that will waste lots of time and money and will lead to very uneven results in the end product in terms of technical quality and visual style. as for the 1.37 aspect ratio, if you are finishing digitally you won't need any modifications to the camera as long as you can have somewhat usable viewfinder markings for 1.37 ratio. the rental house will help you with this :)

here the rental houses are happy to introduce customers to their gear if they don't happen to have a very busy day with lots of gear going in and out. here the Mondays and Fridays are generally quite busy days but in the middle of the week it is quite easy to arrange testing if the camera/lens set is not on a shoot at the moment. you generally need one employee to show you the gear, help to set it up and answer questions and help with different configurations and menus, so it is best to ask beforehand when they would have time for this type of training. it can take something like 2 - 3 hours if the camera is new to you. sometimes I have gone to the rental house without prior notice just to buy tapes and lens tissue and got an opportunity to practice with for example Alexa at the same time because they had already set it up for a customer who was going to prep it for a shoot later that day :lol:

you must have some experience shooting with film cameras before renting one. it does not need to be from the same type of camera from the same manufacturer but you need to have the skills of actually shooting on film. for example shooting with bolex or eclair cameras or SR series etc. so that you are very confident that you can handle the "film aspect" of the production correctly. THEN, learning to use a new type of camera is very easy and you don't necessarily need that much practicing with one before the actual shoot, especially if having an AC to maintain the camera on set. the rental companies are more than happy to arrange you couple of hours with the camera at their place so you can learn how to use it and practice loading the magazines if that can be done when they don't have very busy day and asked beforehand. If you need to test the lenses beforehand and compare them and get to know them thoroughly this can be done with digital cameras, for example a Micro4/3 camera with a PL adapter.

you should first test briefly if it's working or not, and IF it is working somewhat correctly, then you can determine how much adjustment and service it would need to fit your purposes (if you for example shoot a roll or two per month you probably don't need as careful overhaul to it than a person shooting dozens of rolls per week...) if there is anything wrong with it other than some very minor problems (like light meter not working which is quite insignificant for most shooters because they are using separate meter anyway) it probably is not worth repairing but can be a great display piece instead, or used as a prop in period short films. ...never take a camera apart without first knowing what problems to look for...

I normally try to avoid talking about crop factors unless I'm discussing with still photographers who are only talking with crop factors instead of actual sensor sizes :blink: anyways, as others said, a 50mm lens IS a 50mm lens and the used sensor size behind the lens determines the field of view. it is best to NOT USE the "35mm equivalent focal lenght" s at all, they just confuse people very much and are not really usable for anything other than comparing some small sensor prosume video cameras with built in zooms :mellow:

If using a n16 centered ground glass in a s16 centered camera, your optical axis would be slightly to the right from the frame center which causes some problems though you could definitely film with that kind of setup. If you dont have a s16 ground glass which has 1.37 or 1.33 markongs i would recommend switching the pl mount to n16 position to avoid problems. .

I only use the 14beta because of the red helium support. It has very bad audio glitches so it may be completely unusable for mastering at the moment depending on what you do. I basically have all the other systems with 12.5 and only the single one with the 14 witch I only use when i really really have to..

If you have a gg that has s16 centered 1.37 or 1.33 markings, then it would work fine if just changing the screen. Otherwise the optical axis would be off centered which would make weird off center flares and parallax errors when tilting and panning

I don't have any experience in software development but I believe it is close to zero with amateur/semi-pro products like Premiere where the bugs don't necessarily need to be corrected on regular basis because most of the customers are hipsters more interested in the new cool features than actually using the software for any real work B)

I noticed I might have been too harsh for Avid and FCPX :( maybe I should comment the other software too so that it would be more fair comparison ^_^ FCPX: "this auto-UNsync all audio -feature is very helpful in real production environment! now we can remove all the manual controls completely! " Avid: "we reject the reality and substitute our own!" Premiere CC: "really boring to correct old bugs and nonworking features! let's just add couple of cool new features instead so no one will notice!" Davinci Resolve: "no need to test if the new version is working or not. let's just throw it out and let the end user do the corrections!" Edius: "we are pro, even if no one uses our product!" Vegas: "if we just refuse to see the bug, maybe it will go away by itself " Fcp7: "we planted some really nasty mines here and there which will ruin your project when you least expect it ^_^ "

All of them are of course good for certain purposes and all have their challenges and weak points..

To me, fcpx seems like a program made by some kids on acid who have no idea how a nle should work and therefore have just glued together all the first ideas coming to their minds. Like some open source programs which add lots of unnecessary and unworking features every version and remove the necessary and good working ones.. My avid experiences are more limited but it seems more like a program either made by persons who really really hate editors and want to make their life as difficult as possible, OR made by persons who really really love editors and want to aid them to keep their jobs by making a program with horrible logic and learning curve so that it is as difficult to learn as possible and no one else than the editor has ability to do anything with the program without ruining the whole project :P ("Oh you want to finish the edit by yourself? Of course you can, here's my avid... ")

of course not ;) making their cameras cheap would mean less testing, cheaper parts and full scale mass production, instead of hand assembly + testing every single camera + careful machining etc. it would drop their product to the "Blackmagic Design range" where cameras can fail you every now and then, have really odd problems which appear from nowhere and can't really be trusted on in a real production environment. it would probably cost them much more than the revenue would be from a 6k mass produced indie camera. but if they would like to try this, they could set up a subsidiary company with different name which could afford bad reputation and lost high end sales it causes :lol: as for the C200, I think it would be great camera for specific kind of doc and small/mid range indie and commercial work. mainly for situations where you are shooting limited amount of material with great amount of post time and usable backup solutions for the data rate. The sensor seems to be quite nice quality and probably it is a great handheld camera so it could be good for certain smaller uses, for example second unit /B-roll, VFX stuff, etc. But the new Panasonic camera will probably be much better multi-purpose camera for low budget work when shooting larger amount of material (just like with for example the C300Mk2 and sony FS7. the 300 to 400mbps 422 intra codecs are close to the current "sweet spot" for indie and doc use: they don't waste too much memory cards and hdd space and are relatively lightweight to edit and post process but still have good enough picture quality for serious work and allow longer recording times and easier backup solutions than a raw based camera would have ) Maybe Canon would later see the problem (may not happen) and add a mid range codec to it afterwards which would be a 422 or 444 intra codec at about 300 to 600 Mbps range... the camera's form factor, usability etc. would suffer with an external prores recorder so for the C200 a onboard solution would be the only way I think

by my standards the 44-2 is a little bit too high quality for "gritty look" but it depends on the project and the look you are after. they have at least quite ok flare characteristics so may be ok for your purposes

44-2 should be possible to fit to a pl adapter with little machining (I have one here + rafcamera m42-pl adapter). the focus ring is on the way so that it is about correct ffd +2mm without modifications. without machining tools not possible to get infinity focusing though. there is indeed some helios44 pl modifications on ebay, they may be a bit 'clunky' as far as I have heard but should normally focus to infinity. note that the different 44-versions have different irises which affects the bokeh a lot. the newest ones having 6-corner bokeh and the older types normally having 8-corner, either rounded or straight depending on the version