Aapo Lettinen

if you want to try different options, I think there is still Arriscans at the MediaMonks in Stockholm (Stockholm Post Production, "STOPP" ) . And Dirk Dejonghe does 3k scans with custom built pin reg scanner in Belgium. There is even possibilities for high quality telecine or scan here in Finland (Reel One has a Millenium2 which is capable of 4k transfers if using external recorder, the standard setup is 444 hd prores. There is one Spirit HD telecine, I think at YLE, with very good operator. And the National Film Archive, KAVI, has a 4K Scanity which is setup for dpx workflow and the operators are used to handle damaged material if needed. ) Michael mentioned the Cinelab option, and there should be some options in UK and France I think. And the USA option as well if shipping is not a problem. Europe may be a bit expensive but you just need to ask around. I don't know about Poland, is there any good labs there which have proper telecine/scanning options?

I personally like to use heavy walled aluminium pipe (48-50mm outer diameter) for that long overhead rigging... maybe if the light is very very lightweight like under 1 pound or so, then you might get away with the thin alu pipes but that thing seems already falling apart so could not stand any weight at all I think :blink: one thing we did in cheap ass school productions was to use a c-stand or other heavier stand mounted on grip heads and telescoped to the suitable lenght. that should hold small lights in place as long as you are careful with it and don't over extend it. but like others suggested, when not sure just back it off so that the light does not fall on actors if the system breaks :ph34r: remember to always use safety wires btw when overhead rigging

It should not be that difficult to make a new version of a ipad slate app which would just send the same data to the metadata fields of the camera files, for example on ursa mini. the main problem with metadata is that the camera dept guys generally don't have much time to edit them and add descriptions etc. because they need to concentrate to the current/next shot being made. the task must also be possible to do fully remotely without any need to use the camera even for a second (that would basically stop all the shooting for a moment every time the metadata would need to be edited in camera so it must be able to be done remotely by someone who does not have anything else to do at that moment) It would thus be easiest having an additional person who is fully concentrating to metadata editing only (someone who is positioned near the director and script supervisor. maybe an assistant script supervisor who would be hired for only this metadata task? or an additional assistant editor hired for the task? audio recordist generally names the audio files with shot and take number based on the slate data he/she sees on the monitor so the audio is easy to find with current workflows without camera metadata altered. if the slate is correct of course. Multi camera shoots with remote metadata editing on all the cameras for every shot? I don't know how much this is actually done nowadays, do others have experience with for example 2 or 3 camera movie shoots with very detailed metadata for editing purposes applied in camera?

On the shows I have been DIT the audio dept has either set up a wireless audio send to the camera by themselves or I have requested one on the first shooting day and the rest of the time it has used continuously. This is only a preview stereo mix from the audio recorder and meant to simplify and speed up dailies workflow, the audio was normally synced again from the original wav files before editing. Just a wireless audio transmit+reseiver like sennheiser or similar. Being able to have dailies without syncing is a huge benefit but the stereo mix was not used in editing because it would be of no use for makimg omf or final audio and wireless has problems every now and then

the main problem with F5/55 is that editing programs like FCPX can't handle the raw natively and it also takes lots of hdd space. But the cameras themselves look great and they are very versatile, especially in documentary use where the interchangeable lens mount is a great benefit as well as the size+weight and frame rates. we have actually normally transcoded the 4k F5 raw material to xavc-i 4k 10bit for editing and it has worked fine for that. One of the weakest points of the F5/55 is that damn viewfinder connector... such a bad and fragile design on a otherwise good camera :o the menus can be tolerated easily and mostly one would set them once per production and then only format cards and adjust a setting or two if needed. I don't understand this "complicated menus is so bad thing that I cannot use this or that camera model" thing a single bit, one does not need to go through all the menu pages for every image being shot, it is more like once a day max type thing :blink: Red cameras have quite excellent image nowadays (Helium and Dragon sensors) but their filesystem + folder structure is kind of dumb and complicates post a bit. plus it is slow to make previews and render offlines from the material. sony raw is a bit faster to work with by my experience and it has the benefit of having the clips in single files rather than split to million small fractions which are all over the place like that damn cinemaDNG, such a mess and can cause additional problems in online every now and then :huh:

idiots + guns is never a good combination...more training for the police would be needed :unsure: the Finnish police officers have different training than the US ones + generally less handguns around (carrying one 24/7 for self defence purposes needs special permits which are very difficult to get, normally a gun licence is granted only for either hunting purposes or shooting practicing or collecting purposes) so their first assumption is not that an unknown object is a gun when they first see it. if you would attack them aggressively with a tripod they might taze you however if talking would not help :rolleyes: The biggest risk here would probably be that someone accidentally drives over you when you are shooting on the street and the police thinks that the accident was your fault so you would need to pay for the car repair in addition with your medical expences, very annoying :o there is also always lots of people who think that everything which looks like "CHEMICALS!!" is primarily meant for making bombs (the normal film developing chemicals for example) and one always needs to explain them what stuff they are and how it is NOT possible to make high explosives from Vitamin C or Hydroquinone or Sodium Carbonate :blink: so an suspicious looking tripod would be very safe to carry here without risk of being shot accidentally but if you would publicly carry an empty chemical bottle looking thing or an erlenmeyer bottle or other lab stuff someone would definitely be interested and you would soon have all kinds of security personnel around you asking questions :lol:

greenscreen lights should generally be neutral or slightly cooler than the key... warmer is not optimal but depending on your noise levels and front/background color separation it might be good enough. one of the reasons of lighting greenscreens with daylight balanced units is to avoid too much blue channel noise on the screen, by raising the absolute color temp of the screen lighting (by aiming of having equal amounts of blue,green,red on the light to avoid too much blue channel gain when balancing the colour temp in camera or in post). this is separate from the subject/foreground lighting however and it depends on the subject and camera model if you can live with the too warm screen or not. I personally would either change the greenscreen lights to daylight (just light it separately with daylight units and switch off the original tungsten lights) OR go with the tungsten greenscreen lights and light the subject with tungsten as well. If your camera has lots of blue channel noise (like the original Red One) then I would definitely go with a daylight color temp lighting completely and forget the pre installed tungsten units. but current cameras should handle the situation OK and if having problems you could go with some intermediate temp like 4000K

you can also think it this way: if the both batteries would have the same Ah's (10.4 Ah) but one is 14.8v and the other 7.4.... then you would need two of the 7.4v batteries in series to get to the 14.8v (7.4 + 7.4v =14.8v) . so there is double the amount of li-ion cells in the 14.8v battery compared to the 7.4v battery so the theoretical capacity is thus doubled. if you would convert the 14.8v 10.4Ah battery to a single 7.4v battery you would have enough cells for two parallel 7.4v battery assemblies so the total Ah rating for the converted system would be 20.8 Ah with 7.4v output. Kinda similar of having one AA battery for 1.5V or two AA batteries in series for 3V

it's the Wh ratings you need to compare, NOT mAh's. the Wh will tell how long the batteries would theoretically last with for example 40W load (Wh divided with load in W = hours) . 14.8v x 10.4 Ah = 153.92 Wh , 7.4V x 9 Ah = 66.6 Wh . More than double the difference in capacity so the voltage matters quite much ;)

reminds me of the Matrix trilogy and the moss-green madness back then :blink: anyway, one can also accidentally make somewhat similar type look from normal looking movie if using the jpeg2000 xyz (DCP source) version as a raw material and just making the rgb exports from it without converting the colour space, or converting the wrong way. that will make somewhat overall green colour shift to the whole image and if slightly adding contrast or boosting saturation it could look exactly like the stills posted here

maybe they were accidentally delivered the XYZ colour space image and they decided to "just make the VOD version from it without conversion, should be no difference compared to RGB master" B)

movie trailers are generally sent through completely different editing/post/grade pipeline than the final movie if you are comparing the early trailers. at that stage the movie has not finished editing stage and therefore online most likely not made even partially, so the trailer is done from early edited select scenes and fully onlined and graded separately from the raw material. so the early trailer grade may not have anything to do with the final movie look: it usually has different trailer editor but also may have different post facility, different colorist, different programs used, vfx scrapped together from non-finished fx previews, etc etc. They may for example have a grade very close to the dailies look (aka add LUT and render out -style) or only slightly tweaked... and the grade made noticeably different on web and cinema and tv versions. the later trailers may use final graded movie material depending on the post workflow but it kinda depends. One can, for example, cut the final trailer from a clean tv master on some films, or online the trailer based on the finished movie edit so that it is easy to copy the grades from the full movie's grading project and then slightly tweak them for internet use etc. but as said the trailer look does not necessarily have anything to do with the final movie's grade, depending on for example in which stage of the actual movie's post work the particular trailer needs to be edited and published. one Finnish film for example had a very warm retro tone lower contrast trailer (kinda warm tones + warmish greys+neutral shadows) BUT a much higher contrast cold look with very cold blueish shadows in the final movie, graded by different colorist with different style.

your topic title is incorrect by the way... it should read "MOVIES RUINED BY DIGITAL GRADING AND CURRENT COLOUR TRENDS" which is really the issue here rather than the shooting or projecting format

yes we are living in the era of stupidity, I'm glad you noticed it :lol: if needing more you can just check YouTube or some lifestyle sites :) or the average newspaper website, any of them ;) anyway, that neon-green instagram filter is quite annoying indeed. haven't seen the new movies so don't know if their grading choices worked or not but in still frames it looks horrible most of the time :ph34r:

Has anyone else had any experience with this lab, I tried their Black Friday developing deals this Spring and ended up never getting my hard drive or developed film back (they screwed up the return shipping: sent with Italian post with non working tracking service which transferred it to who know else which transferred it to UPS and UPS did not send me the changed tracking number nor send any notifications for delivery attempts so I could not get the shipment the first time... then it was returned to Film and Sound and they refused to send it back to me unless I would pay them another 35euros for another shipping try (the shipping error was clearly their fault so I wanted them to pay the 2nd try and charge UPS for the error... ) . ended up in conflict with them with getting all caps emails and never getting my stuff back which was already fully paid for including shipping and everything) . I was just wondering at the time if their "lab" is some kind of Italian Mafia's web scam or if there really is a pro lab there developing film for real customers.... especially when the developing took close to 3 months plus shipping and communication problems with customer service etc :unsure:

I had a Bolex H16rx0 and a Krasnogorsk 2 with me the last time I visited Varanger Peninsula, used 7203 and 7219 and it was great choice for those Nothern Norway colours and contrasts. But if you need low light and relatively small size etc. I would maybe go with the Sony, probably with the a7s2 or a7r3 if you can wait for it. the GH5 can do 10bit and slow motion and can use smaller easier lenses which may be a benefit (I regularly use my GH4 on making of shoots with a tiny 12,5mm f1.4 cctv lens and rode mic, can fit the whole kit to my pocket even with couple of extra cctv lenses if taking the mic off. but low light = sony better , I think. you don't want to carry tons of memory cards with you so you probably won't use the 10bit that much anyway

the screw mount lenght can be an issue with some lenses like Samuel said. they can most likely be modified however, especially if the mount part can be taken off easily. I modified one Canon lens with sandpaper years ago (was 1mm too long mount for Bolex RX0 ) , can also be done with for example a metal lathe, belt sander, etc. and is relatively easy to do as long as not causing damage to the threads or letting metal dust go inside the lens. the ffd can change if taking the mount off for modification but otherwise quite easy

I personally use 3-sec drop as a base. but the balance depends on the moves you are going to make with it. bottom heavy may be ok for straight moves but for fast turns/arcs longer drop (more balanced) is better. you just have to test it out with your current camera setup and adjust based on the shot if needed

the one year for frozen film would be totally wrong estimate... for refrigerated it would be somewhat correct though it would be more like 1.5 - 2 years for refrigerated in an indie production (using the same batch for the whole movie) and maybe 4 - 6 years for frozen film. freezing does not stop the ever-going gamma+cosmic rays damage so frozen film does not last forever either, you may start to see small blue flashes etc. radiation damage after the years of storing in the frozen state. one catch with the long refrigerating is to make sure all the sides of the can stay at the same temperature. so it is not a good idea to completely fill your refrigerator with film and other stuff because the other side of the film cans may have very different temperature compared to the other side and the other half of the roll thus ages quicker than the other which may lead to the extremely irritating "pumping grain" in the final image or other weird symptoms. this is one reason why it is best to have a separate refrigerator for film and keep all the food stuff in the kitchen refrig, your wife was correct in that you should not fill the kitchen freez/refrig with film stuff ;)

you don't really want to store exposed film for long periods before processing, couple of months is absolute maximum and you will see elevated grain and fog levels if storing it for long. I have stored exposed film in fridge on doc projects normally for max. 4 months before processing and that is ok if you don't have to match it to other footage stored differently (for drama shoots a month or two would be fine I think). some rolls have stayed in the fridge for about a year before processing and I don't recommend it, you will have very visible contrast and grain issues with the stuff and difficulties matching it to any other footage. especially 16mm will be very bad for long storing because of the smaller frame/more magnified grain. I would never freeze exposed film, if you have too much humidity in the can you will ruin the film and you will need to process it soon anyway so there is no point doing so in any circumstances. If you have issues with storage space you can buy a separate fridge which you will keep in the garage... if you have some factory fresh rolls which you will want to store at least three or four years before shooting them it may make sense to freeze them but otherwise one does not need to freeze any film and take the risk of ruining it. if you have factory fresh roll which you want to shoot next year the fridge is fine for it, and if having a short end you don't generally want to freeze them because of the possible humidity in the can which may cause serious damage if freezing it

most of it doesn't look particularly diffused and even when it seems to have some diffusion it is not that much. I would maybe just have some fresnels or other lights and use either 250, 251 or 252 ( 216 if needed, I generally don't use that at all...just doubling the 250 if needing more than half diff) on barndoors depending on the look and light levels and spread wanted, and additionally have some 4x4 frames with the same diffusion medias and use the barndoors on the lights to crop a smaller area within the diffusion surface to light so that the light level and "softness" and "softness symmetry" could be controlled very easily by lighting different size and shaped rectangles on the diffusion surface. if needing more area than 4x4 just setting two of them side by side

so you don't necessarily have to use 37mm filters on the lenses, you can for example use 52mm filters which are much easier to find

one can find most types of adapter rings cheaply from Chinese eBay sellers. 32.5-37 is pretty common and should be easy to found. if you have a rare thread size on the lens you should buy an adapter ring for it which changes it to a more standard size (ideally the one you already have filters for) and then use that one filter set on all the different size lenses. I personally use often 2 or even 3 step up rings on top of each other to use large size filters on small lenses, or even using the step up rings as a lens shade. it is also useful to be able to use the same size front caps on all the different lenses and it speeds up things a lot if using mattebox. the point being, filters are very expensive compared to step up rings so it is much more economic to just have one oversized filter set and adapt them to all the different thread sizes when needed

saw one sold on ebay couple of years ago and never after that, seems to be quite rare camera. the lens mount is its own but some Ukrainian and Russian ebay sellers sometimes confuse the aks mount to the much more common oct18 mount even when the diameter and appearance is different. so it is possible to find some extra lenses for it if you're lucky. the aks mount has a heavily slanted groove's edge on the mount and a slant at the end of the mount too, when oct18 has a narrower more of a straight cut groove with possibly only tiny slanted edge and the end of the mount is usually pretty much straight cut with no slant. you can spot them from the images even if the description is incorrect. there is old Soviet propaganda/doc stuff on youtube etc. where you can see these cameras used for example for filming nuclear tests (having multiple aks's in a row pointed to the test area) https://youtu.be/INSTW8xfKU0?t=46

I was once told that about HALF of the budget of a 100M+ megabudget film goes to the marketing and distribution. so it is really a 40 or 50million budget movie with "some" marketing money added on top... studios ARE doing the small budget stuff also, it has traditionally been good business to do the cheap b-comedies and such which every film brings a little revenue and the risks are small. maybe todays audience just would like to see some good scripts and acting and directing occasionally and the studios are just trying to feed them some crappy badly written mega budget stuff which worked couple of years ago but is not that reliable anymore