J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR

There is the McWilliams Eyeliner which has been around for many years. It is a sillver mirror device which lets the questioner sit on the right side of the camera and his face is seen directly in front of the lens. DP Patrick Blackard rents one out of Fort Worth, Texas. See this link for an explanation and pictures; Eyeliner And the McWilliams Eyliner site, all one page of it; http://www.mceyeliner.com/

This sounds like a classic disagreement between the artist and the business. The artist wants to shoot 4:3 for artistic reasons and the business wants 16:9 for distribution reasons. I can sympathize with Adam, because there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about aspect ratios. Many people don't realize camera gate aspect ratios have nothing to do with projection/display aspect ratios. I would think you would want to use whatever frame protection scheme gives you the most consistent look among all of the release formats. I would want to compose for a 4:3 action area inside of a 16:9 frame so there would be a common top, rather than having a hairline on 4:3 and a browline on 16:9. But I see the contrary quite often on Letterboxed to 16:9, 4:3 TV. I'm assuming at some point this will stop and we will see better composed 16:9 frames. 16:9 TV format is here to stay which I like because it's closer to the cinema format. I would rather have the screen realestate filled with image than bars. Though I do hope it becomes acceptable to shoot 4:3 pillarbox if you want to. I think people are rediscovering that the 4:3 format can be a unique and quite beautiful one. I have a 6X7cm still camera and I've learned to love that format. It's good for making graphically strong compostions with squares, triangles and circles that interact strongly with the frame. Whereas 16:9 format is better with a more linear composition style. Recently there was a car commercial (I believe) where it was just a bunch of naratively unrelated shots but all of them had a strong square subject. It was a perfect use of 4:3 compostion. It allows you to contrast a massive square building to a small square sponge or whatever. That commercial would not have the same impact in 16:9.

Just thought I should let you guys know that I, or rather Kirk Miles at GEAR Rental in Austin finally tracked down the cause of this strange color shift problem. It was a couple of bad, glass B+W Schneider ND's. They apparently were not manufactured in as "tight a tolerence" in color neutrality as they should have been. I wonder if anyone else has experienced this phenomenon with these filters, I've never had any problems with them before. Kudos to Kirk and GEAR for staying on top of this problem until it got solved. Schneider has replaced the filters with clean glass. Here is a screen cap showing the odd coloration, this shirt is actually a very rich blue! ND .6 & .9 Again, shirt way off skin tones whacked, ND .6 & .9 Here is the culprit caught in the act, look at the color tint in the sky, ND .6

Changing the gate would allow you to install a S16 gate or just one with a longer guide path for the film. The one that comes stock on the K-3 is a bit short and the top loop can easily bump into an unfinished part of the interior and cause scratching. It is easy enough to form a smaller loop that will not touch the interior of the camera.

I have a 16BL with a Media Logic motor and speed control. Power from a Bescor rechargeable belt. (old cells) It has a Bescor 12V 800mA wall wart AC/DC convertor. If I get the proper 4 pin XLR adapter can the camera be run straight from the wall with it? Or does anybody have a number to Media Logic?

End tests aside, is there a way to tell how old Fuji stock is just from the lot numbers? I'm looking at 8671 in a square can. I'm not sure how long they've used square cans.

It's been a good show. I think it's interesting that they shot the title sequence in 24p. Don't know what camera it was but it was definitely a video camera on the crane up past the boy sawing in one of the behind the scenes shots. Frame rate matters so much in the "film look" that I wonder why there aren't more 24p cameras being produced. It's my greatest fear that in a few years we'll be going down to the cinema to watch 60i TV. "...Oh, the horror, the horror..."

At the risk of making an assumption, I guess these scenes need to be dark because they are meant to be spooky, creepy, scary etc. If so you have to light them in the appropriate way. You cannot create a mood in post in terms of the lighting style. Modern DV cameras have enough latitude to handle high-con low key night scenes. You have to really knock down practicle lamps to get them to look good on screen. Avoid having only one small area of the screen brightly lit with a single source or practicle.

I'm shooting a low (no) budget documentary right now. The project is about a sculptor and there's only so much tedious chiseling I can shoot. I only shoot once, maybe twice a month and that has been going on for the last couple of months with a DVX100 and since July 2003 with 16mm. I drive 300 miles round trip to get the DVX-100 package on Friday and another 300 to return it on Monday. I wish I didn't have to do that but the rental house rents the DVX for $125 a day versus the usual $250+ a day and they give me a good weekend deal. I've been saving money doing this so far but gas is getting high. Some people have asked why don't I just buy a DVX-100. The way I look at is, 1. Up until recently I wasn't sure if it was worth the 3K to get one. But people have shown interest in hiring me if they could "use it" on their project so it might be worth it. 2. I don't really have 3K to buy one outright and I don't want any more credit debt. And remember you really have to buy more than just the camera (tripod, head, monitor etc.). BUT, I do have the rental fee in my pocket and I really need to shoot this weekend. The thing that really sucks with renting is the insurance. It can be cheap (per day)if you shot every day for a couple of months straight. But if you shoot only occasionally you really have to get a year long policy. The plus side to having a policy like this is you can rent any piece of equipment you want and feel good about it.

I would definitely get a couple of open face lights. They are easier to spread onto a bounce card or diffusion frame in a shorter distance. A 2K is going to be the biggest fixture you can run safely on SOME household circuits in the U.S. I would concentrate on getting 650's and one or two 1K's. Pepper's may not seem useful with such low wattage but I always find somewhere to work them in. Having a snoot for them allows you to pick something out precisely. Don't forget to spend a little on some light shaping tools. There have been times when I would have killed to get a couple of open ended singles.

Speaking of B&W changing to color, was "Wings of Desire" shot entirely on color negative? Or just the scene when it changed to color? I really love the look of the B&W material in that movie, espescially the film prints.

You can fill the pipe in with spray foam insulation. It dries up pretty rigid inside of the tubing. Alternately you can hammer a suitable sized wood dowl into the tubing.

It's erroneous to say no one really uses lighting ratios or footcandles. Rather you should say, used less often. Footcandles are a superb way to convey light levels independent of any exposure variables, i.e. t-stop, film or camera speed. I keep track of lighting ratios often, especially if there is a chance that part of a scene will have be shot later or there will be lots of insert or cutaways shot at a later time.

Try using something like a Pepper or small Arri as an obie with a 1 foot square diffusion frame in front. Use the thickest diffusion you can get. Maybe rig it as two small softboxes side by side with eggcrates, then put them on dimmers. This will definitely bring out the eyes but you'll have to figure a way to build some contrast and balance into it. If it's supposed to be an allien maybe rig the lights below the lens, just keep them very close to the lens axis.

Unlike, some others my L-508c is very accurate even at low light levels and the battery lasts a fair amount of time. I know that some of these meters do have real issues though, I guess some people have gotten lemons. Over time the lack of a spot readout in the eyepiece has proven to be a huge issue causing me to buy a Spotmeter-F. Of course that problem was solved in newer versions of the meter. Now that I have the Minolta I'm looking to get a Spectra incident meter. I too still have a 398 II and it gets used every now and again. Probably the best of the analog meters.

>>I read that the exposure time with the stop motion is 1/30th of a second, for the animation, and that this can only be done with a plunger in the back end (ok, so that's a little funny). Yes, Attaching the cable release to the rear of the camera will allow 1 frame to be exposed per push of the release. >>It is still necessary to keep the eyepiece covered - but what about the lens, does that need to be covered in between shots, and while manipulating the subject? I would opt to keep the lens covered as Mr. Nash mentioned. BTW a lid from a Kodak 35mm still film can fits perfeclty onto the diopter adjustment ring of the K-3. >>Also, when I depress the plunger, does that expose one frame at 1/30th of a second, or will the shutter stay open while the plunger is down? When you depress the cable release the camera will pull down, hold and expose one frame of film at 1/30th of a second no matter where you set the speed dial. It will not hold the shutter in and "open" position. Releasing the cable will allow the pull down claw to return to its ready position

Congrats Greg, good luck and good fortune.

I did not mean to imply you should use one lighting style on every subject. The reason I said lighting style was to point out that you WILL be lighting with a different style as the shot/project warrants. You might have a particular contrast ratio in mind or you may want people to always be with the sun at their backs in exterior scenes etc. because that is the style you are using for that particular movie. It is an artistic decision you make for every movie and in fact you may decide to not even have a style that is consistent throughout the same film. Either way you better know what you are doing or you could wind up digging yourself in to a deep hole. Obviously you will be a much more versatile shooter if you set yourself up to use many different stocks and various equipment. Sorry, I didn't point that out clearly. Me personally, as far as still film goes for the subjects I shoot, it is because most print editors prefer Velvia or the new Kodak E films. They are industry standards. Some editors, for various reasons, will even reject shots not captured on these films. And yes, T & L still photography does have a "look" that editors want to see that can be confining. As for MP film I'm familliar with most Kodak stocks, intimately so with the '74,'46, '85 and '79. The big exception would be the '77. I would want to do tests before I shot with it because I haven't used it. I could know everything about the film after a short test and using it in the real world for a few days. I don't like to fly by the seat of my pants. I guess you CAN choose to shoot blind if you wanted too, but then you have become what the anti-DP people claim we are. I hate when people say we are guessing at what we are doing. It's just not true. I have spent many hours deep in the night doing lighting setups to figure how to expose them various ways and how far you can push a film stock etc., etc. I'm a total cinematography geek. I've even had the cops called on me for running lights late at night in my backyard because I wanted to try something out. And that's just on my own. If I can get in some testing on somebody elses dime you can bet I'll think of something.

This is probably more of an economics question. Check with different post houses and get a FREE test/demonstration of both methods and a quote for your job.

I would say more like 100% predictable and repeatable. Especially shooting stills with reversal film. If you have your light meter calibrated to a particular film stock and laborotory there is no need to even shoot test polaroids. The only time I ever shoot polaroids is if the client wants to see it now. When I shoot travel and leisure stills for magazines I never test a shot and 95% of the time I don't even shoot brackets. I gave up doing that because the first frame was always the right one. No worries. I used to be calibrated to 6x7cm Velvia and now I'm calibrated to E100VS because I want the extra stop and like everything about the film. So what happens if conditions are really contrasty and I fear the film might "pop" too much and look garish? I either use fill or shoot at a different time of day and just maybe pull the film. I usually never use a different film stock because it would upset the system. Film, if used right, is always amazingly consistent because it is a "system" of a particular camera (meaning you know the shutter is absolutely accurate), particular set of lenses (accurate stops and known contrast), particular film stock, speed calibrated to a particular (accurate) light meter and a particular lab. This is the reason for motion picture film dailies and communicating with the lab. You can get locked into a rythm with your exposure, and lighting style and know EXACTLY what you are going to get because you got your system set up for a few particular film stocks. Unfortunately you're probably the only guy on the set absolutely sure that everything is A'OK. Point is, the same goes for digital shooting too. Even with the ability to watch the "final" product on set. You are probably going to be the only guy who is absolutely sure of what the final output of the tape will look like. Shooting HD 24p going to film? Shooting SD 24p going to film? Shooting SD 24p uprezzing to HDTV? All require you to set up a system of image capture that goes right down through the chain to get the final image you want.

Congrats David! You deserve it. Just think, maybe now you'll get to use things like maxi-brutes and Musco lights!

You can always have it snip tested at a lab to be sure. I haven't run into any real trouble yet with 16mm recans but I had two rolls of double perf that had been fogged along their entire length in the perf area. I don't know how it got that way but it never intruded into the image. It's pretty scarry to have the lab call and say there is a problem with your neg. Of course you should avoid it like the plague on anything serious, but that's for you to decide. Some places like Film Emporium in NY sell factory sealed at near recan cost. Some of it might be outdates.

Frame rate is the most important part of the "film look." That's why 24p video cameras exist. You have to realize that we are dealing with human visual perception that is learned over a lifetime. Depth of Field is always changing but frame rate is learned by the brain. 24fps is percieved as film, 29.97fps (or 60i fields) is percieved as TV. I don't think faster frame rates in general are percieved as looking like video, unles they are 30fps and your mind says "hey this looks like TV." 48fps IMAX looks like film to me but film shot and transferred at 29.97fps has the disturbing earmarks of video. All you need to realize in the whole digital vesus film controversy is the fact that digital is always trying to look like film, not the other way around. I think digital will eventually dominate but only when it is an acceptable immitation of film. Video be it analog or digital is the bastard of all imaging formats that nobody wants and is forceably being beaten into something that can approximate film. Why do you always concentrate on how film will die and never look at the fact that video is trying desperately remake itself in the image of film? The problem I see we may be unwittingly stumbling into is the fact that 1's and 0's are always going to be just that. So what makes one film different from another? Lighting alone can't do it. It's similar to modern digital effects, they all look the same and I wonder if there is any escaping from that.

This is all purely an effect of 24fps material be it film or video. It is increased by faster (smaller angle) shutter speeds, rapid panning or movement across the screen. It is common practice to work around it by not panning fast unless you pan WITH an object (or just do a swish pan) not have the subject move rapidly across the screen at obligue angles. Or use longer shutter speeds to smooth out the movement, something I generally don't do for fear of getting a too soft image. You can shoot at a faster frame rate but IMO it starts looking too much like NTSC video. My advice is to follow the above rules and don't worry about it, I haven't even noticed this phenomenon in years until it was brought up here. Try to stay away from medium speed movement. Go slow so you know it won't happen, go with the subject so it only happens in the BG or go FAST (swish) so it blends together. Go SLOW-Go WITH-Go FAST Personaly I think the movement of 24fps material is a most important part of the "film look." If cinemas started presenting 30p or -gasp- 60i material, THEN, I'll say you might as well stay home and watch a DVD. BTW, I shot with the DVX-100 for the first time a few weeks ago and we did plenty of tilts and pans and had not one "judder" or "studder."

If that was the only way to make the flame look good I would have went that way myself. The simplest thing you could have done to improve it would be strong backlight to seperate the guy from the back ground. If you had a tweenie or something similar you could have had somebody hold it up behind him.