Brian Kehrer

The 180mm uses ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass and muitiple coatings on its 5 elements. It stops from f/2.8 to f/32. Its picture angle is 13 degrees 40'. It focuses from 6 ft. to infinity. It has a built-in lens hood which I will have removed. Filter ring is 72mm. That's good because you can use step-up rings for the 52mm and 62mm ringed lenses and only buy 72mm filters. I have a set of Nikons I use on a Bolex EBM, and while the adaptor isnt the greatest, sometimes giving me a slightly soft image, the lenses are amazing. That 180 ED is one of the sweetest lenses cine, or still I have ever seen. I haven't benched it, others have-its very sharp. The only issue with using the old nikons (and im planning on getting all the ZFs i can afford) is color balance, (and any AF lenses breath like crazy, and sometimes unpredictably). Also, the 15mm f3.5 rectilinear is a nice wide, if a little wacky. No barrel distortion, but sharpness is odd. The wide end is where i might consider getting a cine lens. Again, holding out hope on the ZFs I am considering renting an Aaton 35-III, and using some of this Nikon glass, for an upcoming film, testing the limits of low budget experimental with some actual production value in terms of image quality.

I'm working on early brainstorming of a low budget independent feature, hopefully to be shot on S35, incorporating sections of B&W and color. I was wondering about creating the look of a still B&W print that has been partially bleached, sepia toned, and gold toned--only on film. Obviously these are very different processes on photographic paper, than on print film, or are they? Is there a way to achieve that sparkle of a Selenium Toned print, The cool blue of a Gold toned print, or the rich warmth of a gold toned sepia print (keep in mind this would only be a section of the film, not 90 minutes, so costs MAY be affordable)... Since we would be on a smaller budget, at least at this point, digital post might be the only way, and I know there is a digital contingent on this forum who would tell me a photoshopped digi-cam pic is passable, but lets assume i don't think so.. ;) The masochist in me has considered shortening the section to apply this affect to, to say the order of seconds, and actually printing stills and doing hi-res scans of them--and while that might be pleasurable in the zen sense, matching exposure on hundreds of prints to that exactitude would probably be brutal, though rewarding in proportion. And I know what I might hear about super 35... To justify this I should be shooting anamorphic or 65, or something ungodly expensive, but I'm trying to stretch that cash as far as it will go... Anyone have any experience with this sort of thing? A young cinematographer--

I am wishing i could give them my drive too, but unless you want to pay a ton for cineon files.... Anyway, What do you guys think of DVCPRO-HD if the end result is to dvd? Supervised transfer to DVCPRO-HD, then edit in FCP? Does anyone have any experience with the format?

Depends on your framing, etc. If you are in close ups the whole time, you could probably get away with a real good vocal mic like an AKG 414, or KSM 44. But most likely, at one time or another, you'll need a wide shot. The 416 is probably the way to go. You probably don't need a shotgun, but something with some directionality is nice. Again, controlled environment inside, if you can get a mic within about 3 feet, a high quality vocal mic would probably sound good. The 416 is the safe bet though.

Kurosawa.

Go super and get some nikkors. Prime AIS nikkors are very cheap on ebay. The 28 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.8 can be had for probably 200 bucks for both. The problem is finding a wide enough lens. The 17-35 f/2.8 is awesome, though will set you back a bit. There is a rectilinear 15mm f/3.5, but its somewhat rare, a little pricey, and slow. The other advantage to owning nikkors, is if you rent a 35mm camera for a day, you have lenses...

Hey, I just had a crystal sync put in an EBM, and the guy there had a really great Eclair up for sale, though i don't know the price. Super 16, and 3 mags (2 400, 1 200). Heavy duty motor, and in great shape. If you want the guys number... In addition, the mounts are usually better then adaptors. Adaptors tend to be a little looser, unless you have a really good one. Les Bosher does a great job, but still, the hard front is well worth it

A sculptural artist can work with scrap metal, after all, and create art with it. Like i said before... I've seen some damn good films be made with those Fisher Price Pixel Vision Cameras. I don't think any working professionals question your artistic talent for making the best of what you have David. That's what making movies is. Besides your thousands of posts have been really helpful. Thanks! I think everyone is just afraid that if we don't keep reaffirming the virtues of film, or that producers believe HD is actually superior, all of us who love film(and sometimes get stuck shooting digital, or have a need for it at certain points) will wake up without any more film stock. Or, more likely, it exists in a niche market, but is so expensive no one can afford it, and then we all have to shoot digital. I am not independently wealthy, and when i write a script, i have to work damn hard to pay for my film stock and processing, when i could easily shoot dv, or some mid range video. It wouldn't take much to price me out of film entirely. So its troubling when producers or directors don't care anymore, because a lot of us do. The day I bury my Bolex will be a sad day indeed. Remove the spring and let it finally rest in peace.

Imagine a world without any more film. Simply digital capture to digital computers to digital projectors. Sounds like an economic workflow to some... And I don't mean digital at its current state without film, I mean 20 years down the road when it is so cheap that everyone has HD. But, uh, since when has art been about saving money, that sounds more like business, and while money ultimately makes the decision, as a community of artists we should make decisions based on what we want. Now honestly, how many times have you heard a director say.."I really want that video look." Probably about as much as you hear them say "lets shoot on 8mm," maybe even less. Yes it may be faster. Yes, the bank can watch over your shoulder. But when those things happen, regardless of what medium you are using, are you really making art? Can good art be made by committee? I want someone to convince me that the new Star Wars looked better then 35, or even super 16. The story was just as cheesy as the old ones, but all i saw were the electrons flying around, CGI this, composite that. Many people recoil, an artist uses whatever medium he sees fit! But the medium has a meaning. Ask Pixar. They don't try to make The Godfather, they embrace their medium. The point is, digital is not film. Even if they make those individual color receptors in the ccd smaller then the silver grain in film, which may never be possible, it still won't be film. What I see video doing right now, is facilitating the wishes of the money people. Faster turnaround, faster editing, cheaper. You don't like it? Add some grain, or distortion, or maybe another character? Why not? Absolutely video can be used creatively, no one said it can't. I've seen some really cool stuff done on Pixel-Vision cameras. But right now, those with money see it as a film replacement. If i told you, I want the best image... 65mm, why not? If i told you on a budget... 16mm. If i told you image didn't really matter, no one can tell anyway, use this. Now the producer is the DP, and Im a camera op/gaffer. Welcome to 1984.