Chris D Walker

I ask you to reconsider leaving this forum. I don't know the full history of the spat between Keith and yourself but it shouldn't cloud your vision to see that this forum can be informative, resourceful and supportive. Yes, there can be pissing matches but the same is true of any message board. When push comes to shove, I believe there is an ignore button, though I haven't used it personally. Members of the ASC continue to post here to share their expertise with others. You say David and Stephen's posts are valid and real; please follow your own words. When a person who once posted 'I Hate Red' is asking you to stay on Cinematography.com to hear your contribution that has to mean something. Does everybody remember Robert Mitchum in 'Night of the Hunter'? Across his knuckles read the words 'Love' and 'Hate'. The members of this forum should have the words 'Don't' and 'Quit' on theirs.

I once started a thread titled 'I Hate Red.' Incendiary, I know. I got criticism for it and much of it was justified. An opinion I continue to stand by is the vitriol that some of the Red camp direct towards others with a differing or contrary view to their own. Jim Jannard's heated response to Keith is out of order. From what I have read of Keith's posts, what criticism there is present is light-hearted, informed and not spiteful. I cannot say the same for Jim's response. "His opinion matters and yours doesn't." - Jim Because Keith does not own a Red camera means he cannot make observations and use knowledge he has? Does the opinion of an ASC, BSC, CSC, ACS or ICG member mean nothing if they do not own a Red camera? Red and its products, especially the Epic, hold promise of greatness; I can't wait to see 'Prometheus'. Don't tarnish your reputation with venom. Make the best camera you can and rise above your critics, listen to what they have to say. Criticism can be constructive; something I have learned on this very forum over several years. Hold your restraint better than I once did in an old thread. Please observe that I wrote 'some of the Red camp', I won't make a sweeping statement.

I'm surprised no-one has made a mention of what is happening with the Star Wars Blu-ray. George Lucas has made more alterations in addition to what was already done in the '97 Special Editions and the DVD release. The Ewoks now blink, Darth Vader cries "Noooo!" before he throws the Emperor into the reactor, there are more X-Wings in the battle of Endor, and there's a reverse 'Planet of the Apes' zoom when C-3PO and R2-D2 approach the door to Jabba's Palace. That's only from 'Return of the Jedi'. It wouldn't shock me if more has been changed that hasn't officially been announced yet. Beyond the alterations, the image quality should be excellent for 'Attack of the Clones' and 'Revenge of the Sith' since they will be direcetly transferred from the HD masters. 'A New Hope' should look great since Lowry Digital did a 4K cleanup job with it years ago; hopefully 'Empire' and 'Jedi' have gotten similar love. Segue: which Blu-rays have you been pleasantly surprised by? Where you didn't expect a significant difference jumping from DVD to High Def but which made an impression?

My cynicism has got the better of me. The footage from the trenches and the battlefields does look fantastic, but the central character is a horse. There are several shots from the trailer that made me laugh embarrassed at what I was seeing; the boy carries a drawing of the horse around with him. Maybe my cynicism will fade if I decide to see the film in December. My faith in Spielberg has been shaken since 'The Lost World - Jurassic Park' and hasn't got much better (The Terminal, War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). I'm not particularly excited to see 'Tintin' either.

You're right. That was mentioned in the show and I forgot about it. They put 'Witchfinder General', 'Blood on Satan's Claw' and 'The Wicker Man' into a 'folk-horror' genre. It's good to get the facts straight. I haven't seen 'Blood on Satan's Claw' yet, but I have seen 'The Wicker Man' at least half a dozen times. Edward Woodward and, once again, Christopher Lee. I've even got a Summerisle t-shirt in my drawer.

The BBC had a great three part series called 'A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss' several months ago which led me to watch and buy a number of Hammer Horror films, the most recent of which I've seen was 'The Witchfinder General' with Vincent Price. I wasn't interested in Hammer before because of their reputation of being campy and derivative and stuck with non-British horror movies of that period, but have since watched a dozen or so and find many of them to be great for their age. They're not all good, though; for every 'Dracula: Prince of Darkness' there's a 'Dracula A.D. 1972'. The second episode of 'History of Horror' mentioned 'The Mummy', 'Frankenstein' and it's many sequels, 'Plague of the Zombies', 'Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde', 'Blood on Satan's Claw' and a few more that I've forgotten for the minute. I plan on watching the good ones. Now Hammer is back from the dead. Last year they produced the American remake of 'Let the Right One In', an original called 'The Resident' with Hilary Swank and Christopher Lee, and this year there's an adaptation of 'The Woman in Black' starring Daniel Radcliffe. About 'The Witchfinder General', I was watching the film on BBC4 a couple of weeks ago and it was clear that the version I saw was assembled from two sources. The main bulk of the film looked good but violent moments like the the witch burnings were obviously from an old video dupe with fuzzy quality and tracking lines. Does anyone know whether there is an intact copy of 'Witchfinder' on DVD? Or was it the BBC having an edited copy which they filled in as best as they could?

I had just read the same thing last night about The Fellowship of the Ring being messed around with. I have been waiting for the extended edition box set, not for the films themselves but rather for the extras across several discs. I've seen both versions of all three films a number of times and I prefer the theatrical cuts of each installment far more; the additional and extended scenes stand out in comparison because they disrupt the momentum of the story for me. Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie have supervised a new transfer of the extended editions; entire scenes have changed in hue and saturation. From what I've been reading Fellowship is the worst affected; one scene in particular on the snowy mountain tops before the fellowship enter Moria has gone from clean white snow and blue sky to a cyan/green hue over the whole picture. There are theories abound that Jackson's attempting to establish a continuity in look from Return of the King back to the two Hobbit films being made now. People who claim there was a problem during the transfer I ask them to look at The Dark Knight, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Alien on Blu-ray and claim there was a problem during their transfers; the Lord of the Rings went through quality control, they signed off on it, what you see is what they want you to see. I doubt the extended edition box set has the theatrical cuts unaltered, so I may buy the Blu-ray of the theatrical cuts that's been around for a while and stick with the extended edition extras from the DVD version which I've had for years. Saying all this, this doesn't detract the Lord of the Rings from being a great trilogy of films. Whatever Jackson and Lesnie may do to them now and in the future.

It appears that James Cameron and I have differing opinions on 3D. Sharing a stage with Michael Bay talking about Transformers: The Dark of the Moon, Cameron said that he feels every movie can benefit from being in 3D. Au contraire, I say. I will go out on a limb and say that a great many of us having been watching a 3D movie where it would be better flat because the stereo effect does nothing to enhance the story of the characters within. On the reverse, there is no movie that I have seen flat where I have thought "this has to be in 3D." So to my questions. Of the many people who read and post on this board: - How many of you enjoy watching 3D movies? - How many of you have worked on a production using a stereo system? - If the answer to the second question is 'no', then what would it take for you to want to shoot in 3D? I imagine the hesitation that many cinematographers have are the issues and limitations imposed by shooting in stereo, namely: - Size and weight (usually over 50 lbs. for a mirror prism rig) - Alignment issues - Convergent vs. parallel - Restrictions with using long lenses/miniaturisation - Workflow and data I'm sure there are more but I'll stick with those for the moment. Granted that post conversion is a more popular option now, but many movies are being sold as being shot natively in 3D in the trailers. I don't agree with James Cameron's all-3D future when flat has been working just fine for me. It's not about stopping progress in film-making, it's about what the audience is asking for.

A cinematographer creates a beautiful image. Whether it be with an Epic, an Alexa or any other camera on the market, professional or otherwise. Is every film shot with an MX or an Epic going to look good? No. Is every film shot with an Alexa or Sony F3 going to look good? No. With regards to fanboys, the people who manage Reduser encourage their fanbase by closing threads and banning members that talk out of the comfort zone of "Red is it. It is the greatest camera in the world and every cinematographer who uses this camera is a forward thinking mind who has seen the future." No camera can make someone a visionary mind. A greater insight does that. Others have attested to there being problems with dropped frames and factory repairs in Red products. They're not unique in that respect to having glitches; I'm sure those same people have had similar problems with other cameras, but you don't see anyone running to their defence with the same resolve, if any. As far as resolution and all that jazz, the new Sony camera I expect will be the professional tool that will deliver true 4K images and the film-like dynamic range that can outperform an Epic. The Alexa currently has the edge over the Epic in the respect that is has been readily available since last year and is getting wide use throughout the industry. Perhaps most important, when Sony, Arri and every other manufacturer promise a deadline they meet it. "It is impossible to deny that the Epic is the most revolutionary and advanced cinema camera on the market." - Allow me to wholeheartedly disagree.

What also occured to me is how much light they will have to use. They're going to need at least an extra three to four stops over shooting flat 24fps; lose one stop for the mirror prism, another for doubling the frame rate, and to achieve a necessary greater depth of focus they must shoot at least at a T4. Even if you're being liberal with the ASA rating, the lighting rental company is going to be very happy. Say they rate the camera at 1000 ASA, the exposure compensation leaves the camera with a sensitivity of 125 ASA at best. Imagine if they wanted slow motion... Peter Jackson also mentioned firmware upgrades so digital projectors can display 48fps in stereo. I don't know if it's that easy. The DCP package specifies 2K at 48fps but only for flat films. Can 10,000 projectors be ready within 18 months? Will anyone else in Hollywood follow suit? Quadruple the footage for data wranglers, visual effects artists and distributors to handle over flat capture at 24fps. No chance to watch the film in real IMAX 3D either. There's a shedload of obstacles in the way.

I bought the Alien box set on Blu-ray a couple of months ago and took my time watching them. It's strange to see the decline in quality of both the films and their cinematography in order of entry. Alien, shot in anamorphic, looks absolutely incredible in terms of detail and contrast with great blacks but by the time you get to Alien: Resurrection, shot in Super35 2.35:1, the grain is very inconsistent and many scenes look milky in the shadows. The inconsistency of the film may be in part because of the partial bleach bypass Darius Khondji applied to the whole film (I think the ACE process). The transfer may also be to blame. With Aliens, I always remember and have read the film stock used as being grainy and lower contrast despite much of the lighting in the film. I know that they did a big cleanup job on the transfer and tweaked some small continuity errors with CG which I feel belies the original vision, much like what fans say about the special editions of the Star Wars trilogy. I suppose my point is that the Blu-ray should reflect the director's and DP's original intent. If it means grain and scratches so be it. Is that not the prime motivation for buying Blu-ray discs?

Peter Jackson has posted on Facebook (of all places) to announce that The Hobbit, in addition to being shot in 3D, will be captured at 48fps, with the hope that by December 2012 10,000 screens will be able to project 2K 48fps. I'm not sure what to think. It's good that he's being ambitious with such an anticipated film, but is it possible that the film may be diminished somehow? How will it compare with the Lord of the Rings trilogy in terms of aesthetic? Is the Hobbit going for continuity? Who wanted to see Guillermo Del Toro's version more (and At the Mountains of Madness, too - sigh)? You should be aware that I couldn't stand King Kong and I have yet to see The Lovely Bones. I don't see Peter Jackson as being among the great modern directors, despite really enjoying The Lord of the Rings. On a sidenote, 3D at 48fps from a dozen 5K Epic camera systems - that's a lot of data.

Do you own any movies that you'd consider dumb? That kind of movie where you can just sit back and switch off from the world? Forget taste, substance and have some fun? You can't judge them with the same merits as something from the greats of film because they serve a different function. A film will move you, a movie will rock you. Battle: LA isn't a film, it's a movie. I can change from being in film mode to movie mode no problem. I watch the Friday the 13th movies knowing that they're bad. My sister watches Van Damme movies knowing he's going to do split kicks and whoop ass. There are limits, however; no-one in my family will watch a Steven Seagal movie. Before watching Battle: LA the last film I saw in the theaters was Black Swan, and I would class Black Swan as being down the middle between a movie and a film because I had a great time watching it. My best of last year is utter rubbish but I will watch it over and over again. I can imagine watching Battle: LA at home with some friends and a few drinks because its a lite bite, not a Derek Jarman film (I once had a physical reaction to a Derek Jarman film because I hated it so much).

Did anyone watch this over the weekend? I saw it on Saturday and I thought it was a good movie. It does have cliches and cheese, but it's not over the top like a Roland Emmerich movie (take your pick). Critics appear to not like the style of cinematography which I thought worked really well in heightening its realism, despite there being an army of evil alien invaders. The camera for the most part stayed at ground level, in amongst the squad as if the cameraman were physically there in the story as a participant instead of taking the more usual God's eye approach. It appears the DP does enjoy his 100mm lens. One observation I made was that the framing was often very tight in its composition with high eyelines; it made me feel as if they had cropped to 2.40 when they originally had composed for a 1.85 frame. I also enjoy that it was shot on film (don't know the specs - 3-perf Super 35 on Fuji is my guess). So, what does everybody else think? Thanks to all who read and those who reply.

I wholly agree that an Imax-sized negative has far more than 4K's worth of resolution, I would never dispute otherwise. My original post asked if a digital Imax camera would be worthwhile to build as technology stands today; maybe the answer is no. 15/70 film may stand as the best capture format for a long time to come; the demands for speed, storage and exhibition of 8K or even 12K images in a digital landscape is still far away from becoming a real possibility for film-making. Having said this, what do many of you think is the plateau of resolution in a digital image? If 4K isn't enough for the capture and exhibition of big-format motion pictures than what is the uppermost limit? It surely can't go on forever. 8K? 12K? More?! Look at The Dark Knight; there was a large number of visual effects with 15-perf 65mm film as the capture format that were recorded back to film at either 8K or 5.6K. When people were sitting in Imax theatres watching The Dark Knight how many of them noticed the difference between the 5.6K Imax shots and the 8K Imax shots? How many of us can see the difference between a scene shot on Kodak 5205 250D and Kodak 5218 500T pushed a stop on 15-perf 65mm negative? We can't see the difference because our eyes most likely can't resolve any more detail beyond a certain point. Why waste time on resolution that the vast majority can't perceive? Imax has been doing fine for 40 years with 15/70. Maybe they should stick to it for a little longer. Maybe what makes them special is that they stick to what is still the best. There's a lot of good talk going on here.

You make a good point. Although, remember that I'm the person who feels 2K is good enough and that anything above 4K is overkill, especially when you're in a dark theatre more than 20ft. away from the screen. That's what bothers me about those demos NHK present with 8K cameras and projectors; people stand directly in front of the screen to notice the difference because the average persons' eyes can't from a viewing distance. Is resolution the only difference that Imax provides with its massive negative? How many of us could actually see the difference between a 4K and an 8K projection if we were blind-tested? I doubt I could. But this is the point of the discussion; to ask what would it take to produce a digital Imax camera in your opinion. I feel greater sensitivity and dynamic range would be of greater benefit than a marginal visual improvement from 4K to 8K that would eat four times as much data and bandwidth. But that's me. I enjoy a constructive disagreement.

A while ago there was talk about Imax making a digital cinema camera. There were no specs drawn up and I haven't heard anything more since, so the question becomes what would make a good Imax digital camera? Can we speculate what the Imax boffins could realistically build? I'll take a stab at it. First, the sensor would need to be 70mm wide and have a 1.44:1 ratio or close. Maybe like the Alexa and higher-end film scanners, which oversample 3K to 2K, the sensor could oversample 6K to 4K. Without doing much math, the sheer size of each photosite would give the camera an extra two stops of sensitivity over S35 chip designs; a conservative rating of 2000ASA native. I think an oversampled 4K image printed onto 70mm Imax film or screening from a 4K digital projector would be more than enough resolution. It would be a law of diminishing returns for the viewer as the resolution goes beyond 4K in terms of noticing a significant difference. With regard to colour resolution and a compression scheme (if any), I'm not so sure. The number of people and venues that could fully utilise such a camera would be very small; much the same as it is now with film Imax cameras. Any differing opinions? Different specs? Is it worth building such a camera? Thanks to those who read and reply.

Imagine a director and his DP are shooting a reasonably big film. They decide to shoot on a Red One. In another universe the same director and DP choose to shoot on an Arri Alexa. And in yet another universe the same director and DP choose to shoot on a Sony F35. In every universe the director and his DP have the exact same budget, the exact same lights, the exact same crew and so on. Does any scenario have a significant advantage other the other two in terms of latitude, colour, workflow or time? The simple answer is that each camera has its perks and its pitfalls. There is no absolute better or worse camera. Whenever a big cinematographer makes the decision to shoot on a Red camera there is an outpour of both praise and derision. If a big cinematographer makes the decision to shoot on any other digital camera there appears to be a shrug of the shoulders because it's not a Red. Why? I don't understand this heated discussion of one camera over other equally performing cameras that get bupkis attention.

I think the big mistake people are making about the Epic is thinking it's made for independent film-makers and smaller budget films. It's not. Big productions have the money and resources to use the Epic camera in the right way, small films most likely don't. This is my major gripe with RED; their strategy to democratize cinema. It doesn't work. I'll try to explain my case point by point. Price: Of the thousands of RED One cameras sold, how many were to rental houses and how many were in to private hands? Productions save money by renting cameras and not owning them; it also ensures you have a fallback should something bad happen. A DP who owns a RED will most likely still need to rent lights, lenses, a dolly, etc. The strategy Arri, Sony and Panavision have is to rent cameras, not sell them. So, why is it so important how much more an Alexa or F35 costs if you're not paying for it? The price of a camera means little to a large production when they have to pay for big lights, cranes, steadicam rigs, production design, crew and so on. A 'cheap' camera doesn't mean a cheap production. Also, the Canon 7D, 5D, and even the Sony F900 cost less than a RED, and they can deliver great images provided you've got the right people behind them. Sensor: Personally I think having a 30mm-wide sensor is a dumb idea. You can't use cine lenses because they will vignette, so you're left with using stills lenses that have a smaller focus rotation, deliver less optical performance which should be important when you're shooting 5K, and typically have a larger stop wide open. Some Panavision and Zeiss lenses have a larger image circle than S35, but not all of them. Only the Zeiss cp.2 lens range has a universal large image area, and even then your limited in focal lengths. If an indie were to shoot on an Epic, they would probably be shooting with stills lenses. This would belie the point of shooting on a larger format, higher-K sensor. I doubt many independent films will shoot with Leica or Hasselblad lenses. Also be prepared to have an excellent focus puller. Post: RED have created a monopoly in regards to their capture of images. Other manufacturers have HD-SDI as a standard output to deliver uncompressed 1080p and even 4K (via 4 HD-SDI signals) which can be captured into a multitude of other codecs (HDCAM-SR, Cineform, P2, AVC Intra, etc.). With RED cameras r3d files are the only way to go; what may be right for you may not be right for some. Post houses and NLE's were made to accommodate themselves with the r3d codec, thus far only being used in one camera model with several builds. Not every production needs RAW 4K files and so are wasting data because of RED's stubborn and inflexible post path. So my feelings towards the Epic being used on The Hobbit and Spiderman? I say the best of luck to them. They have the money and power to deliver great movies, but the camera itself won't make either of them great. The Epic camera should be used by professionals who can use it right, and in all honesty that's a very small number.

Before tonight the only Resident Evil movie I had seen at the theater was 'Apocalypse' (the first sequel - I felt violated afterward). I can't grasp why I'm going to see 'Afterlife'; it may be the same reason that I watch and enjoy movies like 'Friday the 13th' despite and because of their flaws. Those in-your-face 3D moments are what make people watch movies like this for. It doesn't make any bones about being a shameless gimmick. It doesn't help that I don't buy Milla Jovovich as an ass-kicking lead nor her supporting cast of Ali Larter and Wentworth Miller as talented actors. I try to reserve judgement before seeing any film, but... Having said about gimmicks, I've had a recent, small change of heart about 3D films. I feel that more can be achieved in the format than what's already been done, especially in a horror film. Most 3D films have used the effect to evoke awe and provide scale, but horror can create something different; atmosphere. I've seen two horror movies in 3D, 'Piranha' and 'My Bloody Valentine', and neither accomplished that, but if it were done right you could really scare the crap out of the audience without in-your-face trickery. Provided Guillermo Del Toro can pull off 'At the Mountains of Madness', we may get some real belters.

Where will the line be drawn? BBC Approves Canon 5D Case-by-Case For every cinematographer that oozes over this 'incredible' camera (Shane Hurlbut, Gale Tattersall etc.) why is it we never hear a horror story from a professional about its obvious limitations? Before drifting off to sleep last night I was thinking of maybe sharing some bad experiences. No one can be working in a perfect business with the right tools at any given moment. This isn't a case of naming names, but maybe through sharing some of the bad we've suffered we can learn to become more vigilant in our future work. How about: - a camera that kept breaking down or didn't yield the desired image - actors or crew members with a bad attitude - an overly ambitious director ignorant of what they want over what they have - bad equipment - no time/overworked - no money/pay dispute - creative differences I'll start off to get things rolling. I was working as a cameraman on a documentary crew for a local artist and her dance installation tour around the country. There were four of us plus one; a boyfriend who wanted to work in the business. We were on two cameras, working around the dancers and their setup which was low light and shifting from one room to the next. We're doing a great job and approaching the end of the show; I've been operating the camera back and forth with my colleague for the whole day and now I'm shooting the final furlong. But then, while filming over the shoulder, I feel something pulling against me, maybe trying to get my attention. I couldn't believe it. The boyfriend was trying to take the camera off my shoulder so he could shoot the finale. This a**hole was trying to rip the camera away from me so he could shoot it himself. Naturally I was pissed, but I wasn't ready to get into an argument with the boyfriend of a crew member so I acted like I was cool with it. I wasn't and I'm not now. Anyone else care to share? This could be therapy.

Observe 'he' also as 'she' where appropriate. How does a director/'film-maker' get a better result over having a skilled professional assume the same role? Is the argument that a DP can't produce a better shot than his director? Moreover, why is it when a director takes it upon himself to act as his own DP he must operate the camera, too? Simply, they can't let go; they refuse to believe that anyone can approximate or even better their artistry. As I've already said, a low-budget independent film has to cut corners in terms of crew, equipment and time among other things. With a film that does have a sizeable budget, a big crew and a hundred other points it's unrealistic that a director should expect to operate the camera. He wants to be the DP, not because he's the best man for the job, but for the simple reason because he wants to. It's a selfish want, and if they get what they want it only inflates their ego further. Also, answer why a director never wants to pull focus, apply make-up or hold the boom mic. Personally, I don't like the moniker 'film-maker'. I've said many times on this forum that film should be an elitist profession, and to be part of that group you have to work hard to get there. In my mind for every great indie shot on a RED, 5D or EX3 there are a hundred other pieces of crap that exist because of people who are bad writers, directors, actors etc. who don't know the craft. Our ambition should be to become the best through study, hard work and experience. I believe part of that is through collaboration, and having faith in the abilities of other, often greater, artists. Would someone care to back me up?

I'm excited for this. I own the first three volumes of the comic (out of 11) and there's great writing and set-pieces that should transition into television no problem. I also think it's great that Frank Darabont is prepared to take chances with how he and his crew are shooting; it reminds me of how he originally wanted The Mist to be shown in black and white for that 1930's Universal horror movie aesthetic. Where Super16 is a no-no for the BBC it's a yes for AMC. It's premiere over in the states is for the fall (or as we Brits call it, autumn), so we over the Atlantic should be watching The Walking Dead soon after that. Also, hooray for slow zombies on TV.

Picking up from January: Channel 4 over here in the UK has been showing all the Star Trek films, one every weekend, for six weeks now (The Motion Picture all the way to The Undiscovered Country). What I find strange is the tendency for the better photography to go hand in hand with the lesser films and vice versa. Case in point: The Motion Picture- It was the first time I had seen it all the way through and wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. The cinematography and visual effects were great. The Final Frontier- There was a real unbalance in the tone of the story with bad plotting, but there was a great shot in the beginning of the film - a sci-fi Lawrence of Arabia. Wrath of Khan- The best of the original crew outings. A great score, decent visual effects and an excellent finale. The photography isn't up to scratch with the other films. Best to worst, top to bottom: Wrath of Khan The Voyage Home The Undiscovered Country The Search for Spock The Motion Picture The Final Frontier It's been interesting watching them all after reading what each film had to go through to get made, from a book called The Greatest Sci-fi Movies Never Made no less. Channel 4's now playing the Next Generation films starting with Generations, so I may post again when they're done in four weeks time. For the record, my favourite series is Deep Space Nine.

I heard from a friend that he once had a script supervisor who had the slate marked with letters before and after each scene number, on account of how many rewrites the screenplay had gone through the shooting script had scenes such as 2A, 3 (omitted), 3A (omitted), 3B, 4, 4A etc. So, if you were to shoot your master it would be Scene 2A, followed by your second angle that would be A2A, third angle B2A. The 2nd AC would call: "Ay-two", "ay-two-ay", "bee-two-ay" etc. So a full slate mark could be something straightforward: "Scene 25, take one - marker." (25) - to something less straightforward: "Scene see-41-ay, take one - marker." (C41A) A very concise method, but easily confusing.