Aapo Lettinen

the main issue with film grain is changing grain texture if you have large exposure variations which are compensated in post. generally film is very forgiving in overexposure (in terms of dynamic range, the texture of course changes) but depending on the stock may be very unforgiving in underexposure, especially if you don't compensate underexposure with processing. generally exposure differences show in varying grain textures so if you need perfectly matching shots in terms of grain you should be quite precise with your exposures so that you don't need to gain anything in post. OR leave the underexposed scenes to be underexposed in the final grade so that you don't need to boost (grain) .

I also think that the 500T might be the best option unless you know for sure what kind of light levels can be archieved, which stop you want to use, etc. for lighting interiors with low budget, tungsten light is still one of the cheapest options and if you are shooting in single room you can always gel the windows with cto during the day and keep the interior lights at 3200 or lower. at night, you can remove the cto from the windows and use ctb on the ext lights (moonlight etc) or use hmi as a moonlight. if gelling the windows is a problem then it might be better to use 85b in camera and daylight balanced lighting OR 250D film and daylight balanced lighting. but for a budget it may be much cheaper and easier to just gel the windows with cto and use tungsten balanced film and lighting if there is not tons of windows in the room. as David said it depends on if you have access to affordable daylight balanced lights which are powerful enough.

So there is larger than 2000ft reels which you can store the film on and project it but there is no specific film "cans" for larger than 2000ft rolls. The large projector rolls always had either all aluminium or aluminium corners/edges+plastic sides -transport cases with handles and such where two big reels could be fitted side by side and the ocassional extra reel had a separate single reel box, otherwise similar but thinner. The courier company hated those dual reel boxes because they are very heavy and awkward to carry...

somehow I confused meters and feet again :O. We had two or three 4000ft reels normally per feature film, the ocassional third one having only a little bit of film on it depending on the runtime of the movie. These were shipped directly to us by the finnish distributor and returned the same way. The swedish distributor normally had the wooden box method with every little film reel on separate roll on plastic or wooden core and had to be spliced all theway together to the projector reels and disassembled after the show when the finnish ones were already assembled on the 4000ft plastic projector reels when shipped to us. Smaller projectors including the old nitrate film ones use 2000ft reels. I think the larger than 2000ft reels were even illegal back then when the print stock was a fire hazard and everything was wrapped on asbestos to be even remotely safe to project :/

yep and some older films may be even in 1000ft cans like some of the swedish dubbed disney films we projected when we ran a monthly cine event about 15 years ago. Normally it was two or three 2000ft reels for a feature film in aluminium transport cases or from 5 to 9 small 1000ft rolls (on core) in a wooden transport box

to me a "gritty" lens has somewhat "muddy" contrast with lower quality coatings and some unwanted bad-looking ghosting/flaring, normally (but not always) also low sharpness on everywhere else but the center of the frame. like "using a bad quality and bent plastic low-contrast filter on a cheap ass consumer level stills lens" type of look . Most of the current lenses (by current I mean most of the lenses made after about 1970 or so) may be too good and sharp though so you may need to augment the look a lot with filters. maybe you could check out couple of Chinese c-mount cctv lenses for starters (for example 35mm F1.7) which has somewhat muddy contrast and bad unwanted flaring http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujian-35mm-f-1-7-CCTV-cine-lens-for-M4-3-MFT-Mount-Camera-Adapter-bundle-hood-/271756458826?hash=item3f45f27b4a:g:sqwAAOSw3YNXYO2d I sold my Samyang/Rokinon 85mm F1.4 years ago because I hated its muddy contrast (gritty look in a bad way) compared to Nikkors. other lenses I practically don't shoot with at all because of the muddy look include Mir-1 37mm F2.8 and certain Pentacon6 lenses like Vega 90mm F2.8 (not as bad as the Mir though) -------- older zooms may be really bad so you could test them first :) you can for example use old betacam-era low quality b4 zoom with b4 to ef adapter and lens's extender switched on. that normally messes up the image quite a bit. you can add filtration on that if needed :)

viewer is easily fooled with a still image if you composite some moving elements to it (moving clouds, flying sand, etc.) which can be shot separately or even be stock footage. be extra careful to pre plan where your matte lines will be so that you don't need to rebuild half of the building in photoshop to make up for cars etc. in front of the lower levels of the building etc. as others said it would be easier to start with a high resolution image to make the composite and then degrade it afterwards to match other footage in the movie. remember to add the correct amount of noise/grain if you are using stills AND be careful to use believable depth of field if you have out of focus areas in the image (the most classic mistake with today's VFX is to have both the subject AND the cgi background perfectly in focus which defies the laws of physics and looks like totally fake all the time. camera can focus to only one point at a time and other parts (foreground, background) MUST more or less out of focus, period. I don't know where the trend of having the fake DOF in cgi shots comes from but it is absolutely horrible and for some reason used in even 100M+ budget movies :blink: )

It is more inspired by the mitchell bncr mount than arri pl which also explains the ffd and sturdier construction compared to the pl mount. I have a old soviet Soyuz us3n camera from the 70's which already has the oct19 mount. I'm not absolute sure if it is modified later or if the oct19 was fitted in the beginning at factory but to me it seems like it is factory installed. I guess the mount was available earlier than the konvas2m was made and maybe they installed them to other cameras at the beginning as well to test it out, soviets did lots of experimental stuff and constant changes with their cameras, almost every early konvas for example is slightly different than other unless they are from exactly same year and batch. I think there may be close to 10 different versions of the older straight viewfinder side latch konvas 1kcp which was between the straight viewfinder top latch model and the orientable finder 1m model

whoops then I won't post a picture of my DIY m42 mount modified Cameflex Standard :lol:

for dcp release I would not do the extra roundtrip back to Premiere but add the graphics directly in Resolve from psd or tiff files and also add the end credits which are previously rendered to tiff sequence or prores in other program like After Effects. then export directly to 16bit tiff for making dcdm package files and encode the dcp from that. it is also a good way to maintain color accuracy if you try to stay within the same program as long as possible when processing the movie towards dcp after the grade

the change you don't like maybe being the subjects being darker than before compared to background, sometimes flatter contrast, keys more top/frontal instead of side lighting and sometimes more neutral key? also digital color timing leading to artificial adjustments and sometimes more color contrast within frame. some people are distracted by the over use of power windows and gradients made possible by digital grading. I personally dislike the around 2000 over-boosted DI color timing (hey we can correct every colour separately, let's boost them all to the clipping point to make a cartoon-vomit-like color explosion) with totally artificial colours like green grass being neon green etc. The other one being around 2011 "let's leave the contrast all the way down to the log level so that the image is so dull you can hardly see the actors" style used in every movie and tv commercial then (some companies still use it for commercials, mostly the same ones still thinking that having dubstep as background music is a cool thing :P )

ok the original problem was the switch then? the local rental house taught me that switch to be the first to check with 35bl cameras if the don't seem to work. there is also the alarm sound which indicated it might be the switch. I don't know about the belt problems, seems like the camera may be in need of fine tuning. there may be more than just the belt. was the seller actually using the camera for shooting movies or did he just test running it without film like some sellers do?

the buckle switch is working correctly? do you see anything unusual when trying to run the camera door open?

our dp uses the ronin with f5 and raw recorder. should work ok if you balance it correctly (may need additional weights to shift the balance) and you will need to have the extension kit for ronin

I thought the pentaflex 16 is supposed to use daylight spools so it can be loaded in light anyway without special arrangements you specify? if you want to use cores, then the loading cart could be useful. spare a roll or two exclusively for loading practicing so that you can practice dozens of times in both daylight and in changing bag. you can use the same rolls for camera run tests if you need to test motors or mags

I also follow the "one year rule" with most client projects. For documentary and personal stuff I normally do hard drive copies and if the material is important and needs to be stored longer, an additional LTO copy for about 10 years of storage or more. for documentary stuff that may include everything even if the project is done: raw materials, offlines, edit and fx projects, finished masters, etc. Future proofing edit projects is very challenging even in two year time scale so it is best to simplify the project and export xml out of it so that it can be read at least to some extent with future programs. and all finished vfx rendered to tiff or dpx and audio to wav or aiff, you may not have the plugins anymore next year if you need to open the project for some reason. if you need to store client projects for longer than needed for editing purposes they should pay something extra for it for sure. for very small single day shoots I may additionally dump all the material to separate LTO tape or even BluRay disc if very small amount of material and let them store it as a extra backup. it is very typical that clients store the material on hdd's carelessly and will call you after a year or two to beg a copy of the raw materials they have lost. it may be easiest to give them an additional backup copy in a format they can't easily destroy or erase and then just erase all your own copies and never worry about the materials anymore :)

people are unsure how much they would use the program, they believe they would pay for nothing if they don't edit anything for couple of months. (one can plan these beforehand and cease the subscription for periods you wont need it so a bit odd attitude but nevertheless there is lots of people who simply don't like the idea of renting at all, they want to own it all no matter the cost. a piece of software is considered expendable nowadays and very soon renders obsolete so not a good investment I think... ) the main problem with current software and adobe products especially is that they are not very compatible between versions. so if you need to collaborate with another person who has, say, two years (or one or two versions even) older version of Premiere, you may not be able to share project files at all except using primitive methods like transferring the data in xml format between premiere versions. even converting the files from old to new version may not be possible. So it is good to always have the latest or almost the latest version of the software and then it is much much cheaper and easier to rent than to purchase anything (and also mandatory with adobe products). if one is just working with old video formats and operating systems and never have to share anything with anybody, then any 10 year old software would do. It's just like, software developers don't care about backwards compatibility anymore :( and if updating the editing software you most often need to also update the operating system nowadays which leads to all kind of problems and other software may stop working. challenging times :blink:

the 2perforated film may be a problem nowadays, needs modifications to the camera

the benefit of using the K3 is to be able to use very affordable Russian lenses and to adapt stills lenses to it. good lenses for an Arri may cost few dozen times the price of a K3 and zoom lens set so they have their uses and are good for shooting random tests and art stuff. for narratives, they might work OK for small silent shorts, but a bit better camera may be worth it even for MOS broll stuff depending on the project

the K3 image will be less stable and might have more focus issues than the SR. theoretically it should not matter much but in practice the quality and technology of the film transport matters quite much. whether the difference is significant or not is up to you of course. practical things like better lens mounts and viewfinder optics, larger mag capacity, stable speed and electric motor may matter much more than the image quality itself. the stability of the film is more of a multi-dimensional issue and you may have all kinds of problems with incorrectly adjusted cameras. horizontal+vertical+diagonal stability in addition with depth azis. one corner of the film may be for example more unstable and than the other... it's like trying to make moving rubber band completely flat :ph34r: or, like in this case, almost completely flat and stable but maybe just a little bit concave, just a tiny controlled amount

Arri cameras tend to be a bit more reliable I think and are a bit more sturdy. Sure they can fail you sometimes like any other camera but not as often as most of the other gear I think. Most of the problems I have seen with Arris (Alexa Plus/XT/Mini/Amira) have been them missing timecode sync when changing batteries and other timecode related. can usually be avoided by using backup battery when changing the main battery (using block + v-lock combination for example) some bad formatting happened once or twice with cards and with Amira the recording did not always continue when camera switched between cards on the fly. the main benefit of arris is easier and often faster data managing and post workflow I think, may save quite a lot of money depending on the production.

One of the benefits of shooting interiors with very sensitive cameras and using bare minimum lights is that the actors have enlarged pupils all the time like them being high on something :) One gets great day int drama scenes that way :P Good work Panasonic :D

There is a substantial difference between "yes" and "maybe" gigs. A great amount of the maybe gigs are not serious job offers, the more like want to compare prices and then choose from these options later if the order establishes. I would say it could be something like 10% of the maybe gigs and about 30 to 60% of the yes gigs will realize in the end

I am personally not a fan of Samyang lenses so the Xeens would be out of question unless I would have change to intensively test just the particular lens I'd been buying to ensure that it would not have manufacturing defects and it would be optically as intended. I have just had too many problems with every samyang lenses I've been using, especially mechanical problems, so it would need quite much work that I would trust the Xeens for any bigger project. the t-stops are promising but the mechanics and coatings matter more in cine work. For me the CP2's would be the obvious choice I think if I would not need wide angles much. their wides are not that fast and you still need to stop these down about one stop so it would be a bit limiting to use the below 25mm focal lenghts. the mechanics are good and one could trust them more than the samyang ones I think. CP3's may be over the price range. I would love to test the Schneider Xeon FF primes some time, they could still fit the price range you are after and could maybe be better for your use than the CP2's look-wise. I kinda like the look of most of Sigma stills lenses, they could work nicely in PL mount if the mechanics are fine. however, if you are mainly using digital cameras and the budget is an issue, you could be much happier with EF or Nikon mount lenses and just changing the camera mount when needed. it would also be much cheaper than trying to get everything in PL, especially if you are shooting lots of special shots and macro where you can benefit from much cheaper special lenses and adapters. calibration is a problem with "cine" stills lenses with for example EF and Nikon mounts and PL is much sturdier mount though

oh it was: 40mm T2 $6499 List Price. [$5849 Preorder Special.] 65mm T2 $6499 List Price. [$5849 Preorder Special.] 100mm T2 $6999 List Price. [$6299 Preorder Special.] I read it incorrectly the first time :) So it would be 19 997 usd normal price for the 3lens set. sounds very reasonable for a anamorphic set IF the mechanics are good and they are optically OK