J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR

BTW DavidSloan, click for the Mesmeriser

Well you could be talking about something different. If you're thinking of the "NYPD Look" I would call that jerky movement simulated hand held (because you can tell it's on a fluid head) or just over active hand held. I guess it stems from trying to give it a documentary feel but when I shoot documentary I spend all my time trying to keep the camera still not move someones head all over the frame. Is that show "The Days" still on? If it is watch and try not to vomit. :lol:

Hi Bill, I thought it could be a mesmerizer creating that effect. Just they only do that one move and avoid the angular stretching effect. The other thing I'm thinking about is the Squishy Lens. I think you can shoot normal then compress the lens from all sides at once and get this instant focal change. I don't know if that is how they are doing the effect I'm thinking of though. If you happen to have a copy of the video "Redneck Wonderland" by Midnight Oil you'll see it. I've seen it other places too.

You can make PVC rigid by spraying that foam in place stuff inside of it. I just built a 4x frame out of 1/2" aluminum angle iron held together with 90 degree brackets and screws. Got it all at Home Depot. It's good if you need a knife edge frame to stretch and snot gels to.

Besides testing them personaly you can go see films knowing what lenses were used. You can really see a difference with the Cooke lenses. Watch a Deakins film you'll see it. Lovely in the OOF areas.

For the most part, IMO that technique always looks cheesy. Recently on that show "The Days" they were doing that and IMO it was completely laughable. Why do you want to simulate a hand held look anyway? Just hand hold the camera. I could see not wanting to hold a Panaflex all day but it would still look better. I have seen some really crazy snap zooms lately that look more like a Shift & Tilt lens or something similar was used to do it. Looks more like a lens element was shifted in order to pop the image in close or something. Looks weird but kinda cool. I think that glass warping thingy that goes in front of the lens can do that. Can't remember what it's called

Smallville is shot on 35mm. IMO, This current season looks a lot better than the previous seasons. I don't know if they made some type of change or what.

Personally, I've been playing with hard light a lot more lately. I'm bored with whipping out the Kinoflo all the time. I've always liked 'COMBAT!' but I'm loving it lately. Hauser's work on that is so incredible, sometimes I can't even figure out what exactly is going on with the lighting. It's so expressionistic. However, it's extreme and you couldn't use it all the time. I also liked Daryn Okada's work on "Mean Girls" I saw some Haiwaii 5-0'ish topper shadows on the walls. I would really like to learn to light like Conrad Hall lit Tom Hanks house in "Road To Perdition." It's just this ambience that is coming from everywhere and on top of that there are these little kicks and hits on the walls and floors. Uber Naturalism.

Mine too. It's a self portrait I took when I got tired lighting and had to sit down. I look kinda pissed off if you could see it good.

I'm pretty sure he is the guy who constantly outbids me for old AC issues on ebay. I still haven't read one pre 1980. He controls the knowledge and he owes me a hamburger next time I go to LA!

Yeah, I was thinking it could be some kind of coop arrangement. Just didn't know if there was a standard way to setup an arrangement like that.

I just got around to reading the AC article on 'Vanity Faire' and Declan Quinn mentioned that he used a softbox to light candle light interior scenes and "...put four or five lights in there..." Now when I think of softboxes I'm thinking of the normal cones that go on single lights and the big ones made of speed rail that you would fly. This sounded like something rigged from the floor. I could see using a big silk etc. though I wouldn't call it a softbox. Does anybody know what else he could be talking about?

Uhh, once you use a spool you then move it to the take-up side. Kodak spools have a slot in them to accept the end of the film.

David, I'm actually a bit confused. In the shot with the boy in the bed you say the key is a Kino behind the headboard. So is that what is creating all that backlit look? Or is it what is giving the glow to Nolte's face and the HMI providing that backlight?

Just understand that the movement and gamma rendering only mimics film. It isn't film so after you use the format you might start to feel it lacking. It's a little like shooting with only one film stock all the time. If it is properly shot and shown on analog TV it can be very hard to tell it's video. If you're not planning on film outs you should stick with shooting in 24p (not 24pa) the movement will look a bit smoother and you can easily author 24p native DVD's. As far as using the anamorphic lens on the DVX versus shooting cropped. You really should try it out both ways and see what you think. I shoot mostly cropped in-camera but if some weird transition or effect is to be applied I shoot full 4:3 and put on black bars in the NLE so the effect isn't rendered on the black bars. That situation also depends on what NLE your using.

Yes Bleach, that is what you run into a lot is people that intend to shoot for broadcast. I think both the DVX and XL-2 are good cameras. I've shot many hours with the DVX and I really like it, however the XL-2 appears to be a bit sharper and cleaner looking. Which makes it a bit more video like to me. I have piled through the menus a bit and I'm positive it can look more film like. The XL-2 lens mount is a great option but you're likely to just use the manual lens and a wide angle adapter. With a PL or B4 adapter it opens up the possibility to use some good primes, I think those adapters multiply the focal length around 2 wich isn't bad. The 7mm Digiprime becomes a 14. So you should look through the options plus what type of support kit you will want. Tripod, head, mattebox and monitor. See what the best combination of camera and kit you can come up with.

If the FX-1 cineframe24 mode looks bad in person and the Pro version doesn't have a good 24fps mode, I wouldn't get it. But that's my opinion, I'm all about shooting 24p or 30p before 60i.

LOL, you know I can even recall seeing something similar once where the camera pushed in and it seemed that the cutters actually moved closer together during the shot. I don't react to it as negatively as you fstop but it does look a bit strange being unmotivated. This reminds me of one thing that I do hate and that's when an attempt is made at glamour lighting where they shade the actress forehead. This effect is classic and ok looking if it was achieved with an open end net or a couple of scrims fanned on a lolipop or something. I can't stand it when it looks as if they floated a solid in right above the camera that cuts a sharp shadow. Looks like something is caught in her key light rather than an effect done on purpose.

Is anybody watching lost? I find it to be an interesting show. I've seen two DP credits, either Larry Fong or Michael Bonvillain. It's shot on S-16 and the lighting is good, they actually have an honest to goodness highlight in the frame. A lot of TV seems so low con these days, I prefer something my eye can grab on to. They got the HH 'shaky-cam' going on but it doesn't look like they are trying to enhance it by moving in weird ways and zooming a lot like that show "The Days" that looked dreadful IMO. It just looks like regular handheld and they often cut to a stedi or dolly wide shot with a bit of drift in it.

I didn't see that film, I assume that light is unmotivated? I mean he isn't looking through a crack in the wall or anything right?

Do you have your eye tuned to ENR? If I remember right you were also flashing so I guess you have to be pretty sure about where a subtle light is going to fall. Just for clarity what are the units used to light the scene with the boy, a Dedo eye light and I guess an HMI back light?

Here are David's eyelight examples;

I'm thinking that last shot might be over by more than one. The CR says it's over by one but my assistant might have done something wrong. It was very noisy after the TK. There is an alternate take that was normal.

Yeah, I'm wondering if I'm playing back these files in the proper way too. I looked at it with WMP and that media player they listed on the DVinfo site. It played the material but froze my PC like four times so I deleted it. I guess like all cameras we'll have to wait and see it fist hand. I will say it's good HD video but that 24 movement was wacked.

Here are some R-16mm screen caps, all from DVCam; 7218- Ursa Y-Front>Da Vinci, Arri 16bl R-16 7246- ITK Mellinium, K-3 R-16