Nicholas Melo

The Canon XL2 is a solid camera. It does not shoot High Definition, but was great when it was released you should be able to find one for roughly a thousand dollars at this point. But I would agree, as soon as you can afford to, start shooting film it's really worth the money. Im broke because of it. LOL. But seriously its worth it. If you want to shoot a documentary make sure you can operate hand held, and have a tripod. If you have an idea already figure out what you want to convey to your audience and see what you need to shoot to get there. If you don't have an idea then start shooting something your interested in and hopefully you find a story you want to keep shooting. I know this person who met a skydiver who was also a farmer. He found the relationship between the sky and the ground interesting he started shooting and let this farmer/skydiver lead him to a story. Sometimes it just happens that way. And find people to talk to about the project, people who can give you feedback and tell you what in the story is working and what is not working. Best of Luck Nick

Depending on what equipment you have available to you you have a number of options. Your looking for a cooler look so the daylight bulbs your using wont really pose a problem in terms of being too warm as you are shooting with a Tungsten balanced stock. It would definitely be easier if you had access to 2 575 HMI's or a 1.2 HMI (if renting isn't an option) but we can try and take this the poor mans route as I have done so many times. Stylistically there are many things you can do. Gelling the window, absolutely a possibility you just need to make sure its dressed right. Buy a large sheet of CTO depending on if you want the light coming in through the window completely balanced or slightly cooler. Choose what temperature you want the light to be at 4200k-5500K+ is about the "daylight spectrum" But those are creative details that you'll have to decide. But to actually get the look your going for... take a 650 or 2 300's and bounce them off the ceiling opposite the window, thats your fill. If your in a white room, you might need to create some negative fill. With your window gelled with a cut-to-size piece of CTO, take your chinaballs and find a place to hide them just off camera motivated from the window. I figure your key should be probably a stop and a half over. So if your shooting at a T4 let your ket get to an 5.6/8. Now the other route you could go which would eliminate gelling the window is get an 85 filter for your camera and gel all ur lights w/ full CTB. Only use have for your chinaballs though. I'd agree w Chris, rate the stock at 320 if you don't use an 85. If you do go the 85 filter route than rate it at 160, you'll get a denser slightly more contrasty image when you print back or go to tape/ there will be more info for your colorist or DI tech to work with. Personally I love 5219. I find myself coming back to it over and over again. For one its very forgiving. It has a nice grain structure, just the right amount of texture for me. Beautiful color rendition greens and blues are just really organic. Recently I finished a project where I pushed it 2 stops and overexposed it another stop and the image really held up great with very little increase in grain. So I like the stock and its resilient. If you can, as i know how student shoots can be, test out the stock for yourself. Only you know exactly what your looking to do and try some different lighting setups at different exposures. Shoot 200 feet and watch it over and over again until you understand all the little differences between lighting, exposure, grain, highlights and shadow. It'll give you a better idea how to execute it the day of the shoot. And keep in mind... if it looks like poop you learned how not to do it for the next project. I know an expensive lesson to learn but thus is the nature of filmmaking. Hope I was able to help. Good Luck Nick

Well it really depends wholly on the situation. I don't think anyone would really be able to say yes more often than not they are diffused. As I'm sure you know there's no rule to any light fixture that says it has to be a particular way. You are right that an 12/18k emits a hard light and would be sourcy as hell, but backed up 200 yards lifted 200 feet in the air maybe it wraps the right way. Personally I would probably bounce it or fly some mus in front of it but it depends on the story and how i want to use that particular unit. Nick

I agree. This was a great film. Hilarious to watch if your in a bad mood and need a pick me up. Actually I didn't notice that it was shot on the Genesis until the beginning of the 3rd act. I was sufficiently impressed.

Personally I haven't shot with it myself, but from what I read it has similar changes as 5219. Higher latitude in the highlights and a tighter grain structure. I suppose it would be more "forgiving" for hot spots you might find in frame or in low key lighting. Recently I worked on a commercial which used 5207 and the dailies looked really tight. Personally I can't wait to try it out for myself. Really though, you should test out both stocks first, if your budget allows, and see which one you like best. Hope that helps, Nick

I've seen the commercial also. Many times on tv. To me it feels more like film. I really don't think it has that HDish look. I think the glossiness may come from a slower film stock maybe over exposed a stop. That would account for the more saturated colors and virtually no grain and the crushed blacks. I have also heard that GM really likes film because of its longevity and consistent quality. Im watching the commercial on tv now and it must definitely be film. In which case the camera is either a Panavision or Arri.

I should clarify a bit... Yes, I do know how to use a light meter and I realize that 5219 and 7219 need the same amount of light to reach an exposure. What I meant by stopping down, which is absolutely the wrong language to use, is if I wanted to use 500T on 35mm would a 16mm with similar grain structure be 1/4 of that specific ISO... So would 500T's grain structure on 35mm be similar to a 50 or 64 ISO film's grain structure on 16mm. After having time to really think about it I'm leaning towards no, but thats what my original question. I apologize if I confused anyone before for not making clear what I was asking. And actually I am investigating using the rental companies test bays on Monday when they open, thanks for the suggestion. -Nick

Thanks for everyone's replies, Im going to get my producers to talk to the rental house here about doing the camera tests, if not I think I might be able to get an Eymo to test the film with although it wouldn't be with the same lenses. I agree it does sound absurd to really try and compare the two. So hopefully I can get my hands on a 35mm camera to do the tests. Thanks again everyone. Nick

Hey All, In a few months I will be shooting a 20 min short on 35mm. The problem is that I won't have access to a 35mm camera until the week we shoot. I've been thinking of doing film tests to look at latitude, grain structure, and push a few different stocks to see how they handle. Could I still do these film tests on 16 or would I have to compensate somehow for 35 having a much larger image size? In other words when looking at grain structure will 35mm film and 16mm film look just as grainy if they are the same ISO? or since 35mm is roughly 4 times larger than 16mm would I have to step down say 4 stops in the 16mm test? I hope I made some sense... Nick