Ben Rowsell

85 X 22mm, including the lip

Re: IRNDs + NDs, I think what Art probably means is that ANY standard non-IR ND will be letting IR through, so if you use one there is a risk of pollution. You can see from his tests that this can even be on a ND3. I would be fairly confident on knowing what the brand that does so badly on the tests are as I have seen similar results. But keep in mind that he does a fairly harsh test - synthetic black fabric under tungsten light with NDs, so you are unlikely to see that say in a day ext setting (with a ND3 or ND6). What I meant is that although the above is technically the case, in normal non-test scenarios you may fine that the combination of IRNDs and low level NDs (.3/.6/.9) give you a more desirable result visually as you are not ALWAYS effected by IR pollution and there may be less of a colour shift. If you were pedantic then you would say you have to use only IRNDs, but there is so many variables and only the end result matters. Re the cut Hot Mirrors, I haven't had to use them recently so would be catching up on what the latest is. I know that Dragon is going through quite a few early changes on OLPF, etc, so it might be different to the standard Epics, I have heard less effected by IR. I don't think it would have an adverse effect to put a hot mirror on the Alexa, apart from risking cutting near red in the 680-700nm zone, if the filter worked in that area. (i'd have to check but I though they targeted 700-750nm) As Art says, Arri intentionally didn't cut this part of the spectrum (680-700) as it has an adverse effect on skin tones, so we have to deal with it by filtering when it becomes a IR problem. Art is a pretty thorough tester and a very good source of technical knowledge. Ben R 1AC NZ

IR or "Near Red" is always present, its just that the camera only starts to see it at heavier levels of ND, often from 1.2 onwards but thats not to say you won't see it at .9, .6 or even 3 under the right circumstances - just not often or its very unnoticeable. Thats why general thinking is that it's not a problem until 1.2. The heavier the ND, the more of a colour shift you get as most gel based ND is not made from a neutral colour, but rather very heavy shades of off colour gels (purple, green, blue etc). On top of this some of the IRNDs such as Tiffen use a colour correction element (green) to combat the IR so you see that tint as well, which can be corrected in camera by introducing a magenta shift. So if you stack a IRND that has a colour shift on top of another IRND that also has a colour shift then you will see it even more which may be visually undesirable/unacceptable. In the case of the 2nd filter being less than 1.2, you may well be able to get away with using a non-IRND which will overall have less of a colour shift so will give a better result. Having said this, IRNDs less than 1.2 tend to be a lot more neutral than their heavier counterparts (1.2 >) anyway. IR pollution is a lot harder to correct in post than the shifts introduced by using IRND filters. With a camera such as the F5, I would be inclined to use the internal filters to get you to a decent base level, then supplement with either ND or IRND filters on top of those. The Sony sensors seem to be quite resilient to IR pollution so you could probably get away with non-IRNDs to .9 or even 1.2 I have found that the internal NDs on the Sonys (F65/F55/F5) are all neutral and IR protected to their level of ND, but any additional external filters will introduce IR to the system - it just might not be enough to notice / be a problem. The internal behind the lens filter module for the Alexa is also excellent (no colour shifts, consistent stop loss, full IR protection, etc). The external filters that are the best are supposedly the TrueNDs, that use a metallic cut system but I have not yet seen them and they are very expensive to buy. As pointed out you can also use Polas to being the level down but they do have an effect on the reflected light in the picture and that effect will vary as the camera moves relative to the light. Ultimately it's the choice of the DOP as to what approach to take as it all effects the final look, but it pays to be informed so you can answer any questions from a technical standpoint. Also remember that if they are any good, your DIT is probably the best person to critically (technically) analyse the image as you are only seeing it through an onboard monitor or EVF, so their opinion is also valid. Ben R 1AC NZ

I am currently using these on a feature and they are a very good system when supplemented with a handful of regular NDs. We have the base kit, which is a ND6, ND1.2, ND1.8. One of these (or the clear) goes behind the lens depending on the lighting conditions and the DOP rates his meter accordingly, i.e., 800ASA, 200ASA, 50ASA, 12ASA. Then we have a regular ND3, ND6, ND9 that go in the matte box to buffer light changes. This means you are not constantly changing the internal filters and you are not carrying a lot of regular ND filters. We often only change the internals once or twice a day. Also the internal filters are very neutral compared to most IRNDs so we have no issues with colour shifts. Rating the meter at different ASAs according to the internal filters is a nice way of separating the internal and external filters, and makes it faster & easier to calculate shooting stops from the base. We refer to it as "changing film stock" and it does bring it back to a similar filtering system that you would have used on film. For drama situations I would recommend it. The filters are fragile compared to regular ones so you need to take care with them, I use a bulb blower to take any dust off, but apart from that have not needed to clean them. They are certainly a lot easier than dealing with gelatine filters. Ben R 1AC NZ

The main point is that there are no rules. However you might want to consider the systems people above you (1st AC, DOP) are used to and stick with that to start with, that way they will be more comfortable with what you are doing. Personally for short term jobs I use white with coloured marker pens as I like only having to carry 1 roll of tape. Someone said that you cant see the colour of the pen in the dark? Have you also noticed that white and yellow tape look exactly the dame colour in under tungsten torch light :-) Also, some tapes that you get can be very dark tones of colour and black marker pen doesn't stand out... On longer term jobs I make custom colour coded mag labels. Also, Kodak comes with its own colour coding system so it makes sense to match that, and even wrap some tape from the can around the mag. 50D is green, 250D is blue, etc. Unfortuntately fuji uses all white.

In my experience, it is common practice to give the 2nd unit a letter abreviation, usually X. So all their scene numbers start with an X (eg setup 34D would be X34D on the slate) and all their camera letters likewise, so XA, XB, etc. This is an extension of David's observation, but in this case they can operate normal A, B, etc camera letters, but anytime anyone sees an X (telecine report, etc), you know it's 2nd unit. If they come and join main unit, the cameras can be assigned additional main unit letters as if they had come in as rentals. As for stock, seperate units usually have seperate budgets & seperate stock inventories. If this is not the case & you need to intergrate the two units, there are many ways to approach it. Talk to your production coordinator and make sure you both approach it in the same way, you want your stock reports to work for what goes into the DPR that production runs.

......what he said. If in any doubt, put something that you can focus on at a particuar distance from the focal point of the camera (measure the distance by tape, make sure it is a distance that is marked on the lens, such as 6 foot), then zoom in and do an eye sharp. Look at the distance marking on the lens. If it matches the actual distance that the object is by tape, then the lens is calibrated to the film plane, if not its probably the front of the lens (check that in the same way) As mentioned, ENG lense are usually from the front, cine from the sensor. A common giveaway on ENG lenses is if they have a green strip around the front of the lens. Also most eng zooms have an attached zoom servo, most cine zooms do not. As for tape hooks, on video cameras there is usually a attachement for the shoulder strap within 1/2 inch or so from the focal plane that you can hook the end of your tape onto. If you're good enough to pick 1/2 inch by eye you probably wouldn't be needing to ask about this :-) If you intend to be a AC dont bother using the front of the lens as a point of reference, it will disadvantage your distance perception by eye for future shoots. In this case you either need to remark the lens (or datum mark), or use eye sharps if you have to.

you problem probably is that the film was not attached to the takeup spindle, or attached in away that allowed it to become loose. If it is a collapsible core system make sure the locking mechanism is holding properly, or if it is a mag where you have to wind the film around a plastic film core, do it in a way that it wont come loose by itself. Try putting a fold in the film to jam it into the core slot until you get used to wrapping the film tight so you dont have to do this. This can be a problem for people that are new to loading coax mags. They form the loop and tread it into the takeup side then forget to open the exp side of the mag up to wind onto the core. Easier to do that it sounds in the heat of the moment. tey to develop a system that doesnt allwo that to happen, eg once you come out of the dark, open up the EXP side first before you form the loop, that way you cant forget to do it. NOTE: this applies only to loading up unexposed film in an empty coax style magazine!!! (SR, 535, etc) Be sure that the EXP side is empty before opening in daylight. With displament mags (435, 353, Panaflex, Arricam, etc) you have to do everything in the dark

slating...... something else to consider when using the hollywood system (letters): When all the footage get digitised into a system such as Avid, usually all the clips that relate to a particular scene will end up in 1 "bin", sorted alphabetically. What happens is that the shots with letters attached will get sorted BEFORE any number only shots, eg for Scene 23, the list will sort as: 23A, 23B, 23C, 23D, 23 So, presumming your master is the first shot (23), it ends up at the bottom of the list of clips, and would be better at the top. For this reason, the last 4 or 5 features that I have been on we have gone straight to A as the first clip (ie 23A). This is not standard, and is something that should be agreed on between camera, script & editorial before the shoot starts if you want to do it. This approach was suggested by one of the assistant editors on a feature I worked on, and as far as I know so far been appreciated by the editors that we have worked with since. Ben R camera assist New Zealand

Hi Lois. I have made my own program that runs on any computer, within Excel. As it does a lot more than anything that will run on a Palm, so unfortunatlely PDA is not an option, however I have found that a laptop in the camera truck is more practical. It is mostly for stock reconciliation and management, and works very well for long term jobs (has been used on quite a few high profile features now). If you are interested in buying, let me know. twelvestepplan *****at**** ****yahoo****dot****com