Chris D Walker

I've figured the main reason why the trailer didn't impress me: the design. Near everything in the movie will be CG and a lot of it looks uninspired. The blue cat people (Na'vi), in my mind, look ridiculous. The twin-rotor gunships and 'walkers' look goofy (the first word that came to mind when I saw the trailer). There's more but I'll pace myself. As for the 3D, I've seen maybe half a dozen movies like this (both animated and live action) and it's never more than a distraction and later a headache (IMAX 3D being the big exception). It should work in 2D just as well as it does in 3D; a beautiful image is a beautiful image regardless of dimensions. Last thing, James Cameron has said the technology to make the film is revolutionary. How much does this contribute the viewer's enjoyment? At $200 Million+ of Fox's money, isn't Cameron being over-indulgent? Who expects this to make back its budget and promotional costs at the box office with the potential for a franchise like 'Star Wars' or 'Harry Potter', like Cameron expects it to? After all this, I may still go see it in December and change my mind.

There seem to be so much more films this year that have been shot in anamorphic and I wanted to know what people here thought of them. On Thursday I finally got to see Friday the 13th on Blu-ray (there wasn't a single print of this within 100 miles of where I live so I had to wait for the American import months later) and last night saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (out a week earlier here than in the States?) so this got me onto this topic. I single out anamorphic over how it's such an 'unusual' format to go though a DI process, where Super35 is the predominant format. And I personally really like the anamorphic look. Friday the 13th: I really enjoyed this film and loved the look; really flash for a Jason movie. Though, on Blu-ray you can tell where they pushed the film a bit too far as it looked soft with high distorted colours. Star Trek: Flares, flares everywhere. A decent film which had a sharpness and polish in its cinematography that made it all the more impressive. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: Orci and Kurtzman wrote Star Trek, yet they also wrote this near-incomprehensible, head pounding two-and-half-hours of alien robot ass-whooping. Don't get me wrong, it was good but it should have been way shorter and less 'in your face'. This is one one the films that has made me think that people shooting anamorphic today are doing it in way different to how it was done more than 10 years ago; I can't explain why but the frames have changed. He's Just Not That into You: I haven't seen this but thought it was interesting for a multiple-character piece genre film to go 2.39 anamorphic. Confessions of a Shopaholic: Similar to what was said about 'He's Just Not That into You'. Duplicity: I didn't watch this on the premise that Julia Roberts is in it. $15 Million a movie? What a terrible waste. If I've missed any please add to the list. Thanks to any and all who read and/or reply.

I know the resolution of the effects in T2 were done at HD (near 2K) because James Cameron had the whole film scanned and stored as 1080 PsF files for when the technology in the home reached the point it's at now. I also remember having either read or heard that the visual effects for Jurassic Park were done near 1.5K. Most films have visual effects rendered at 2K, the same resolution that most films now go through for a digital intermediate process. Just as examples Jarhead went through a 4K DI but had the 2K visual effects 'blown up' to save on storage space requirements and rendering times, while I, Robot had a 2K DI with 2K effects, both of which were blown up to 4K for recording back to film. I'm not sure about the early days but modern film scanners like the ArriScan and Northlight can capture film frames as oversampled 6K, 10-bit Log files which can be filtered to 4K, 2K or HD for effects and DI's. To record a finished effects shot back to celluloid back in the late 80's and early 90's the film would have rested on the glass of a special CRT (cathode ray tube) that would project the final rendered image. However, this didn't wield enough information so later one frame would be exposed three times for each of the primary colours, effectively doubling the visible resolution. There was even a process where the glass of the CRT was taken off so the photons made direct contact with the film in three passes: red, green and blue. Now, visual effects and whole films are output to film via laser recorders. Hope those were the answers you were chasing after.

I've been. I've seen. It was pretty cool. I don't do spoilers, however there will be things in the movie that purists won't like. I personally didn't like 'the mascot'. The rest was great; it had that balance of action and trek-talk for those new to the story and familiars alike. I can now remember going to the cinema and enjoying what I've saw, cause it was only a few hours ago. To add to my good mood, when I got back home and read the listings in the cinema for next week I found there's a local screening of Barry Lyndon on. Sweetness.

Digital Content Producer's sister magazine Millimeter (read by registration only) has an interesting piece about the new Star Trek film which I'll be seeing tomorrow (May 7). It describes how they had two guys with flashlights on both sides of the frame deliberately shining flares into the lens and how ILM had to fashion software to create realistic artificial flares for entirely CG shots. DP Dan Mindel also apparently pleaded for the film to be anamorphic to give it that 'big movie' feel. Anyone here going to see it? If so, is there a hint of excitement or a casual shrug of the shoulders? As someone who enjoys the occasional Star Trek episode but neither Cloverfield nor M:I:3, produced and directed by Abrams respectively, I'm a little weary about how good it's going to turn out. Someone made a joke to me the other day that they can't remember the last time I enjoyed a film I had seen at the cinema; I can't remember either. Tech Specs: Kodak Vision2 5212 200T, Vision2 5218 500T (I read Vision3 500T somewhere but it wasn't in their piece), Panavision Primo anamorphic primes, AWZ2 & ATZ anamorphic zooms, DI (2K) at FotoKem.

When a film opts to shoot on 35mm with anamorphic lenses and go through a digital intermediate, whether it be at 2K or 4K, what is the standard for scanning resolution when recording back to film? I ask because Super35 4-perf at 2K will be 2048x1536 pixels during the scan or telecine, but as anamorphic uses slightly less of the horizontal film area it would be 1828x1536. Would the anamorphic scan be slightly uprezzed to 2048 horizontal by 1712 vertical pixels and recorded out to film or be recorded out at 1828 horizontal by 1536 vertical pixels? Is the number of vertical pixels something other than 1536? I have tried to find the answer online but I haven't as of yet. As someone with an obsessive compulsive tendency I find it hard to drop this thought. I would appreciate anyone answering this small but 'impossible to get out of my head' riddle so I can lay it to rest.

I watched it last night from Apple Trailers at 480p, even then I didn't like what I could see. What I deem as the worst looking elements from the trailer include a close-up shot of Marion Cotillard and extracts from the bank holdup that both have that distinctive video motion; I also had issues with and a wide angle of a car crash and several shots in the woods that had extreme noise issues. This is how I see it. If I do go to watch this film I feel I wouldn't be able to watch it without being distracted by how Mann and his DP chose to use the camera. How is it this film is so blatant in it's video origin when others such as Zodiac look near seamless when compared to a film shot on a Kodak or Fuji stock? When experimenting you want the viewer to be aware of the aesthetic and the medium itself. Experimenting the technology available in a narrative film such as this would seem to be conflicting as to where the viewer should be directing their attention, to the medium or to the story. I foresee getting heat for this remark.

Greetings to all readers and early thanks to anyone who replies. Two ways to light a night exterior: 1) Using a daylight balance stock like Fuji 8592 500D with daylight balanced lights. 2) Using a Tungsten balanced stock like Fuji 8573 500T with tungsten lights. I see an advantage to the former in the respect of using higher efficiency Lumens/Watt lights over the latter, and when shooting night exteriors the more light the better. In addition, converting an HMI to tungsten balance would lose 2 stops, whereas converting a tungsten to daylight balance would lose 2/3rds of a stop. Admittedly there would be more considerations lighting for daylight balance (ballasts, striking, etc.) so my question is whether the pros outweigh the cons? Is this something that has been done already on previous shoots?

I think I've got it now. If you were to use rate 500 ASA speed film as 250 and pull process by one stop, you would get a normal density exposure; you would be pull-processing an overexposed negative. It would look less grainy and that subtle difference in resolution would be there also. Concerning low contrast, wouldn't that issue be reduced by duplicating to an interpositive stock and so on? My confusion lay in mixing scene underexposure with pull-processing an overexposed negative when in development. Thanks for clearing that up. My mind was going in circles for a moment.

Thanks for your response. I suppose using an outdated stock such as 5277 against 5260 isn't the best comparison. Having read in other forums how underexposure heightens grain I was thrown off by what I read in the American Cinematographer Manual, 9th Edition Vol I, under 'The Future for Traveling-Matte Composite Photography' by Jonathan Erland. Here is the extract: "...re-rate the film stock to half its normal rated speed, thus overexposing it by one stop, and then compensate for this overexposure by instructing the lab to pull-process one one stop, thus reducing the development. This maneuver results in a negative with a normal density range but with noticeable reduction in graininess and improved resolution. (Push-processing on the other hand, increases grain and contrast while lowering resolution, and should be absolutely avoided in composite photography.)" I'm reading two differing explanations. Although this extract concerns composite photography, the processing of film stocks used in visual effects is the same as when shooting sync sound. Have I missed something in my reading?

This may read convoluted. What different effects would there be on a negative stock rated and developed in the manners I have written below? For the sake of argument I'll use two stocks to ask my question despite one having been discontinued: 5277 Vision 320T and 5260 Vision2 500T. 1) Using 5260 500T, rating at 320 ASA and developing as normal. 2) Using 5260 500T, shooting a gray card rated at 320 ASA and developing. 3) Using 5277 320T, rating at 500 ASA and developing as normal. 4) Using 5277 320T, shooting a gray card rated at 500 ASA and developing. I have rough ideas about each outcome but would appreciate from the knowledge to be found on this forum. Any information about the effect on sharpness, contrast, grain, colour saturation and resolution in any of the four examples would be most gracious.

From what I've read yes, anamorphic lenses are heavier. Yes, they have a shallower depth of field when compared to Super35 with both at the same aperture. However, Panavision have built fast anamorphic lenses that go to T/2, sometimes faster, and the depth of field issues can be resolved by shooting at a slower stop such as T/8 or T/11. The reason some choose to shoot anamorphic over Super35 is the 30%+ extra real estate that is captured on film, providing a cleaner image (given that both are shooting with similar speed film and equally performing lenses). When going through a DI, anamorphic tends to look better on screen if I do say so. A downside to Super35? Perhaps if one were rating the stock at 500ASA or more there would be more pronounced grain than in anamorphic due to less film area being used to create a 2.39 aspect ratio. There are more pros and cons for both, I just don't feel the need to list them or their proponents/opponents.

Released on February 13th (Friday, when else?) comes this 'retelling' of Jason Voorhees and Camp Crystal Lake. Directed by Marcus Nispel and DP'd by Daniel Pearl, ASC, who both worked on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, I was pleasantly surprised to find an article on the Kodak website about the production of 'Friday' as I am a big horror fan, particularly 'Friday' and Halloween. Kodak- Friday the 13th It's interesting reading about how Pearl used Vision3 5219 500T for night shooting; rating and pushing the stock usually by one stop but in circumstances going further to two stops, with Pearl responding that the results were "mind blowing." On top of this the new G-series anamorphics were the core set with the E-series 135 & 180mm primes, AWZ2 & Angenieux zooms. Taking a side-step, could anyone list other films that have also used the G-series primes just to satisfy my burning curiosity? I was excited before this article but this is pushing my anticipation so much more with the promise that it will at least look great. From the trailer I'm hoping for a good chill. Lastly a little trivia, there will be three months in this year where the 13th will on a Friday: February, March and November. I suppose that's not good for the superstitious.

Last week I got to watch Frank Darabont's 'The Mist' on DVD. It was a two-disc edition that featured both colour and black & white versions. Listening to what my brother had to say I watched the black & white version first and then the colour version a little while after. I happen to agree with him that the black & white version of the film was far better despite being identical in every other respect to the disc in colour. Before I watched the film there was a small introduction from Frank Darabont where he said he had always intended for The Mist to be black & white but came under pressure from the studio to shoot colour. The black and white film felt more atmospheric, evoking 'Night of the Living Dead' and adding to the sense of dread, the mist of the title was more brooding, and the visual effects looked more convincing and scary. If you think black & white is the way to go you should fight for it. Alternatively, you can release a DVD with a black & white version so you can later tell people how much better it was than the colour version despite being released that way.

When I first watched Natural Born Killers a few years ago I was thrown out my usual viewing experience, best described by Oliver Stone as "watching two weeks of TV in two hours." On the Region 2 DVD's featurette I remember Tommy Lee Jones detailing Robert Richardson using as many as 12 different formats to shoot the film in order to ingrain the impression of someone actively flicking between channels, never having a singular objective point of view. My question is what formats did Richardson use? I know there was 35mm, 16mm and 8mm but is there a concisive list available anywhere or could someone here enlighten me? This is purely for my own curiosity and would appreciate any information given. Secondly, which films have you enjoyed that have mixed formats for a desired effect? A few spring to my mind. Could it be considered that Natural Born Killers is the most extreme example of this style of cinematography? Thanks for any and all replies.

In what was a primarily throwaway talk about the new Terminator film, the director mentioned that they were using a 'new' stock that has triple the amount of silver in the emulsion compared to current film. Trying to find anything else about this new stock or what format it's shooting in have left me with nothing. So now, I turn to the board. Could tripling the amount of silver mean the stock has more sensitivity to light? What about grain, contrast and saturation? Can anyone else speculate what this may possibly mean (I could be barking up the wrong tree)? I've seen the teaser trailer and it doesn't give much away (being a teaser and all), but much of it seems to have a blue-tinted and bleached out look on exteriors the most pronounced. It could be that this is attributable to digital grading instead of the stock, however. Please, speculate with me or if you have a real answer please post it here. Thanks for all replies.

From what I read about The Dark Knight there was a mixture of photochemical and DI. For the Imax prints all the the anamorphic scenes were scanned from a positive contact printed from the negative at 4K which went through the DMR process; visual effects in Imax were scanned at either 8K or 5.6K while shots without digital effects were contact printed from the negative. Reversely, the anamorphic prints had all of the native 35mm material go through the IP/IN steps and the Imax segments were recorded onto 35mm at 4K in the IP stage. That's what I read. As far as DI goes I see a few issues with how they are now: 2K, an IP/IN generational loss, and which people call the final 'look' of the film (I hear producers mentioned a lot). Ideally, every big film should be 4K recorded onto several 'master' or 'original' negatives from which all prints are made (maybe a growing trend). Lastly, the final look should be that of the director and their DP. To smaller features perhaps HD or 2K with a handful of 'original negatives' will be viable and affordable in the foreseeable future. I'm not so sure what to say about independent features, though.

A little more than a month ago I posted in the Standard Def forum asking whether shooting in DVC PRO 50 for an independent film in Cornwall was a good idea. Over the course of weeks I've read replies that liked the plan, while others have suggested shooting in an HD format or Super16. For those who haven't read that particular post I, along with a dozen others, will be hoping to raise a 'budget' of £15,000-£20,000 so that we can shoot a feature-length film next year that will ultimately end on DVD. The film itself is not that ambitious so we think it can be done for that price. I am now writing to ask who here would shoot DVC PRO 50, who would shoot HD, and who would shoot Super16? Our original reason for wanting to shoot DVC PRO 50 was that there was fair trade between cost and quality while looking near filmic (I have since learned that segments of BBC's 'Rome' were shot on the Panasonic SDX 900). HD doesn't have a clear distinction but we don't want to shoot on HDV or AVCHD (the Sony PMW-EX3 recording to disk via an HD-SDI was an interesting prospect, however). Shooting Super16 would be great but it has been said that the cost of lab and telecine may be too much if we want money for other things such as actors, lighting equipment etc. Are they any other possibilities that I may be forgetting? Lastly, to those in the UK, does anyone know of rental houses near or in Cornwall that offers any of what we need to make the film? I've done research into it but I'm weary that I may have missed something. As always, thanks for all replies.

Here's my understanding of why I love film over digital; I grew up with film. I'd walk into the cinema and the only way to see the movie was in 35mm. Going to the cinema was an event, it got you away from the TV in your home and put you inside a dark room with a hundred other people for the same reason, to watch a movie that was like nothing you could see on TV. You can buy decent camcorders anywhere nowadays, and people with video on their mobile (cellular) phones can have their footage on prime time BBC and CNN news. Digital is a convenient way of money saving for broadcasters and the consumer. Film-making is something different, it's a separate being from the TV soaps, chat-shows and reality series. The average person has a DVD player and PC in their home, but they don't have a projector that plays reels. I end up going to see a lot of movies shot and projected digitally in the cinema and I know where I'd rather be watching them, at home. Why? Because digital doesn't feel right. When I pay £6.00 for a ticket I would rather have a print instead of a hard drive. I aspire to use film because the medium takes me half-way towards what I understand as making a movie. I may have to attune to reality at some point and grow out of my crush, but I am a big kid at heart. Lastly, instead of paying Keanu Reeves or Tom Cruise $20,000,000 a movie why not cast a better actor for less and put back some of that money into the budget for the best 35mm film cameras you can get? You know it's the right thing to do.

I've been doing some reading about these kind of lenses and have been wondering whether they have ever been used in cinematography for extremely long focal lengths and macro photography. They look as if they could produce excellent images and are constructed in a way that they are physically shorter than long and telephoto designs. I also like the ring-shaped bokeh that the mirror lenses create. A few other questions about these lenses: How close can a mirror lens typically focus (let's say a 500mm)? What would be the difficulty in converting a still photography mirror lens to a PL or B4 mount? What's the shortest focal length of a mirror lens? Thanks for any replies and information.

A lot of films are have been shot with anamorphic lenses and still are (Star Wars, Heat, Flags of Our Fathers). They use a 2:1 compression ratio and pass though a 1:1.19 aperture gate to get the 2.39 Scope ratio. When you're in the cinema watching Scope the projector is using an anamorphic lens to restore the image to its original shape for viewing. Often "shooting with Panavision" means using anamorphic lenses. You can use anamorphics on video but I can't think of any well known film yet that has used them, although the Arri D-21 allows you to use anamorphics in addition to spherical lenses. I don't think there is a anamorphic system for DV cameras but I have heard of 1.33 ratio anamorphics for HD at 16:9 to create a 1:2.37 aspect ratio, very close to 1:2.39.

The intent is to have two distinct looks for exteriors and interiors. Exteriors would be shot normal and wide with deep depth of field and have a high contrast look with a blue tint to suggest winter days. Ideally the weather would be overcast (something very likely being it's England). Moving into the interior we would then changeover to long and telephoto shots for shallow focus in addition to a soft focus filter. To emphasize the warmth in difference to the exteriors we would set the colour balance to daylight, then use tungsten lights gelled with 1/4 or 1/2 CTB's. As the film progresses the interior colours and shots would change to the same as the exterior to suggest the change in emotional tone. In terms of motion it would vary between static, dolly and hand-held shots dependent on the action on-screen. I'll be doing the storyboards once I have the final script. I don't know everybody's thoughts about this but I would like to capture all the aesthetics and visual elements in-camera instead of relying on effects in post. It may be that it could turn into something 50/50 between the camera and colour grading but for the moment I'll be sticking to my first stance.

I'm back again. Even though it's still quite faraway from shooting my thoughts have rested on the EX3 for capture; I'll have to run it by the others before we finalize anything. One question about the camera: what choices do you have when recording to disk via an HD-SDI connection? Is the limit 1080p, 4:2:0 at High Quality 35Mbps or can you record 4:2:2 at a different bitrate for the best image possible? Is this confined to Sony's higher-end cameras like the PDW-700? What are the number of lenses available for 1/2 inch and 2/3 inch cameras. I would guess there are more 2/3rds than 1/2 inch lenses around. Lastly, is there anything I should know about differing lens mounts?

As I was quite ambiguous as to what our film will be here's a little clarification. It'll be a 90 minute feature and we'll hoping for a straight to video release, not sure about the numbers yet. I'm thinking Super16 will be pushing our budget into the red as we'll be renting lighting equipment and paying the caterer among other things for those four weeks. Reading up on the PMW-EX3, but haven't seen any footage for it that I'm aware of. Interchangeable 1/2 inch lenses, variable frame rates, HD-SDI and genlock; this could be the one. I read the price as around $13,000 (around £7,000) so would it be worth purchasing or simply renting? Does anywhere rent this camera in England? One more thing, can XD-CAM HD footage only be edited in Final Cut Pro or could we convert the footage into another format usable in another NLE? Again, thanks for all your replies.

It's just one film, no company. The plan is to rent all of our equipment. As far as ambition goes, we've got lots of it. Working regular jobs, we're each aiming to save £200 a month and pool in the pot together after ten months, then take fours week out to shoot. We want to do the job to a professional degree even though it is for our own interests. Expensive hobby, I suppose. The shoot will happen next year either during May or June predominantly in Cornwall. Having checked, there are no rental houses anywhere near close enough so that does have us in a quander. Not much of an industry in the South-West of England. This is simply a preliminary step just to be sure we run into less problems later. Who else thinks we should shoot HD? If so, DVC PRO HD or HD-CAM?