Evan Andrew John Prosofsky

Hi all! I have a shoot coming up where the director would like to accentuate the harsh flourescents. Ideally they will be flickering like crazy and as ugly as possible. Think 8 mile. Now, I understand that flicker can be caused in camera (by shooting off speed) or by the actual light itself. I have seen flourescent lights flickering with my own eye, but can other lights flicker as well? (tungsten? mercury vapor? metal halide?) So I guess my question is, what would the best approach be if I want to ensure the light is flickering on film? (We are shooting 5219). Should I shoot at an off speed (it is a music video so it doesn't matter) or can I "trick" the light to do this? Ideally I can get the light to do it as well so that if the dir. wants to we can shoot at safe speeds as well (eg. real time, 24fps). I have attached an example video shot by the ridiculously talented Matthew J Lloyd CSC for Flying Lotus "Until The Quiet Comes". You see the effect very strongly at 1:44 and at 2:18 onward during the dance scene. Do you think he was just shooting at 32fps or something "inbetween" that allowed for flicker? FLYING LOTUS -- "Until The Quiet Comes" As always thanks so much for your help! xx Evan

Hey Kip thanks for the great help. Appreciate it. Just curious if you know which lenses produce different colors of flare? I seem to see some produce a more neutral white flare, whereas others produce that characteristic deep sci fi blue flare. Does it differ between squarefronts and round? And lastly, do you find you have to deal with mumping with the lomos? And is there anything you do to avoid it? Stop down? What about in low light situations? Thanks so much!

Cool. Thanks Kip! Do you have much experience with the square/round front lomos? What are the main differences? I've heard varying opinions on which square/round front is better and I know some who own a variety of both in their kit. Very tricky.

In your experience have you found that a mattebox is enough to reduce flare entirely? I'm worried about instances where the camera is pointed directly at overhead fixtures (lamp posts, flourescents). I'd imagine that the only fix is simply just "dont point the camera there", but I'd be curious if there are any tricks.

Thanks David! :) Great. Conversely, just out of curiosity, which PL mount lenses in your opinion exhibit the most flare and the blue lines?

Additionally, if it helps -- the lenses we currently have access to are V series Hawks, Lomo Roundfronts, and Optica Elites. Would love to hear what your opinions on these lenses are. I'm personally biased towards to the hawks because I'd imagine being modern they are the sharpest and flare the least, but who knows. (stupid music video budgets, never have the time to test :( ) Thankyou!!

Hi everybody! Topic really says it all. Have a shoot coming up on 4 Perf 35mm which I'm absolutely ecstatic about. The director wants the sharpest neg possible with creamy skin tones and shallow DOF that makes anamorphic so beautiful. HOWEVER the director is really not very keen on the characteristic blue horizontal flare that so often happens. Having never shot anamorphic before, my main question is what lenses flare the least? And what lenses flare with what color? The director loves lens flare, just not the overtly obvious sci fi blue. It would be nice to have the option to flare the lens if possible. Otherwise, what are techniques you guys often use to avoid it? Most of the film will be shot during the day away from the sun, in which case I have nothing to worry about. But there is a scene under a bridge lit primarily with street lights and overhead flourescents and I'm worried that these relative point sources will flare blue? Looking forward to your input, Evan

Those shots were intended to be out of focus, I agree. However what we're talking about aren't shots that are obviously out of focus, but shots that are soft, often because of missed focus pulls, general soft focus, and shallow depth of field. Honestly -- these aren't reasons to pick apart the film at all. My main critique was of wallys cinematographic approach regarding the IMAX format. It is my personal opinion that sitting upfront in the IMAX cinema was completely jarring and too revealing as far as shallow DOF and focus mistakes. I believe that a new approach needs to be taken for action film and IMAX that facilitates a better viewing experience. Perhaps shooting with wider lenses and at a deeper stop would allow for more revealing, intimate, and less jarring camera work.

Whoops! Let this thread slide just when it was getting interesting for me. I would love if David or someone else qualified could follow up regarding my questions above. I'll quote them here: "Ah, thanks david! So, essentially all this work to get a lower con negative with muted blacks? The underexposure results in the muted blacks and the pulling helps to reduce contrast? Is pulling then also just a tool to reduce grain? Eg. Would the negative been grainier had Savides just underexposed 2 stops and left it at that? And -- Any insight into whether these processing techniques work when going into telecine? Or does Savides arrive at the final look via the print (something that can't be done in telecine perhaps?" I'm most interested in whether this look can be achieved even when going into telecine. As most of my work with film is done at HD telecine quality and rarely at a 2k/4k scan level, I'd want to ensure that I'm not screwing myself by only doing half of the process (underexpose/pull but without printing to a positive photochemically and telecining instead) Thankyou!

Thanks everybody! Just got back from the desert and the shoot went great. However -- I did find that no matter how careful I was the dust (incredibly fine) always managed to get into everything. Wiping things off at the end of the day seemed to do the trick but it was still scary. The main thing that still confuses me is how people do lens/mag changes during shooting, and that has yet to be answered. If someone wants to chime in I'd love to hear. In the end I just ran to the van for every reload, stripped the housing off as quickly as possible, etc. It didn't feel very elegant and dust always enters things during the time I take the cover off the camera.

Great thanks! Sorry for my ignorance but what is a bin liner? And what did you do for mag and lens changes? Take the camera to a car and strip off the bag?

I have been extremely unhappy with the performance of my video tap on my Arriflex 435. Because of this I've been forced to decide the time is ripe to buy the new HD IVS and corresponding monitor, etc. Unfortunately there is nowhere in town I can test this product before I make the rather large purchase. So I'd like to know if any of you have experience with it and if you believe the jump in quality is worth it? What does everyone have to say about it? Cheers!

Hi there! The topic really says it all. I'll be shooting in the Nevada desert in the heat of summer. Apparently there are occasionally dust storms and severe heat. Being from Canada I have absolutely no experience with this kind of weather/conditions, and as the DP I'd love to know how to best protect the camera. Specifically during lens changes/mag changes. We will have a van with us that I am hoping we can have on standby when I need to swap out a mag or lens, but this might not always be the case. I know sand/dust/dirt love to get into everything (including lenses??? uh oh, we're shooting s4's and cooke zoom) so I was planning on using a standard visqueen rain cover over the camera with a small hole for the eyepiece. Can anybody suggest anything more/better? (I've looked into the Camera Essentials cover and they no longer stock it) And what about lens/mag changes? General camera upkeep? Shooting in the heat like that? Please let me know , thankyou! Evan

BUMP

Wow interesting. Good to know. Does a typical household outlet offer 3 phase power? I've never heard of this before :/ Fortunately we don't need to run anything else on the 6500, just the "spotlight".

So I've been reading on the forums here and there seems to be a bit of a dispute with Xenon lighting and whether or not it flickers when shot off-speed. I have a shoot coming up where I need to spotlight an ice skater inside a massive arena with a xenon and film her in slow motion (probably 100-120fps). Can anyone please confirm 100% or not whether I will have issues? Do I need to rent a specific style of xenon or ballast? Secondly, in regards to achieving the actual lighting effect: I have actually never worked with a Xenon before so I can only conjecture at the result. I imagine that the Xenon will be best for creating this spotlight effect because of its near parallel beam, am I correct? And can anyone recommend roughly what brightness of xenon I need? I have access to a 2k or 4k. Again -- the light needs to brightly spotlight the ice skater within a regular hockey sized arena. Or is this whole thing better suited for a larger HMI unit? I am limited to a Honda 6500 genny. Lastly, I have read that Xenon's only work at angles of 15 degrees or less, is this true? It would be good to know, regardless I am hoping this won't be an issue because I can simply position the light at the top of the arena and tilt it moderately towards the ice, which shouldn't require too much movement. Can't wait to see what y'all think. Thanks so much as always! Best, Evan

Thanks very much everybody. I feel safer about the shoot now. If anyone has some time, I'd love to kindly point you in the direction of the Arri Film forum where I ask about how to properly take care of a 435ES in the desert dust/heat. Still trying to figure out the best way to be prepared for lens/mag changes and general upkeep! Cheers and thanks very so much as always, Evan

Ah, thanks david! So, essentially all this work to get a lower con negative with muted blacks? The underexposure results in the muted blacks and the pulling helps to reduce contrast? Is pulling then also just a tool to reduce grain? Eg. Would the negative been grainier had Savides just underexposed 2 stops and left it at that? And -- Any insight into whether these processing techniques work when going into telecine? Or does Savides arrive at the final look via the print (something that can't be done in telecine perhaps?) Thanks as always! Really interesting stuff for me. Recently read that the DP of "Beasts of the Southern Wild" also likes to employ this technique. I emailed him and asked about his process. If I get a response I'll be sure to post it here, with his permission.

I too saw a 15/70 print and hate to see it but I have to disagree. Admittedly I was sitting relatively close to the screen (6th row or so) but I noticed a fair amount of soft focus shots and unnerving motion blur. Kudos to wally for shooting IMAX and pushing the limits of what has/can be done; but I found that not enough focus on his part was put on shooting IMAX differently than 35mm. What I mean to say is.. I am really beginning to think it deserves different treatment. Scenes just look better when photographed wider and with deeper focus in IMAX. Otherwise I just get lost in the frame, its too large; a mess of action/blur/shallow focus that I personally found distracting at times. I also noticed quite a few focus pulls where the focus just wasnt 100% there. No doubt extremely difficult because of the limited depth of field but I guess my hope is that as time goes on and (ideally) as 65mm becomes more in vogue, DP's can start working at deeper stops again and/or with wider lenses. This is my own humble opinion. Overall I found the picture to be quite beautiful and tastefully lit. The camera movement was pretty great but I often found myself wishing the editor wouldn't be so ADD. Let the damn shot linger! So many great shots lasted for less than 2-3 seconds. I guess we all just had such high standards after dark knight that I hoped this film could be the "ultimate action movie" , photographed and edited so tastefully. It was better than most, but still left me feeling bitter. Lets do better.

I know there has been much discussion already in regards to Savides' work on Birth. It seems to be confirmed that he underexposed two stops, then pulled two more stops. It has been stated that he did this to "break the black" of the film and get a more painterly image, in combination with baking the negative. All this I understand. But what I'd really like to know is.. what exactly is the point of underexposing and pulling? Why pull? Why not just underexpose four stops? I'd love to know where exactly the pull comes in and what it does visually to the film. I'd also like to know if processes like these are meant only for photochemical finishes eg. can a telecine handle this kind of rough film treatment and still get the look savides would have gotten with a photochemical finish, or to put it another way, was exposing/processing the negative like this only half of the process for savides, where printing up the positive added the final touch. or would underexposing/pulling get me the same look as his in telecine. Hope thats clear. And sorry for all the questions of late if anyone has noticed. Its just that recently I've discovered how incredible a resource this really is and decided to try and take full advantage. Thanks! Evan

Sad story. Tell me about it.. It really is a buyers market these days for film gear. Grabbed a 435 with tonns of accessories this year for under 8k, that would have never happened a couple years ago. As far as whats fair. I like to go to visualproducts.com and compare with what they're selling their gear for vs what it actually gets on ebay. Based on that 500 for an arri III mag felt fair. But its tricky, maybe someone nabbed one for like a 100 bucks in a freak auction, and now everyone thinks 500 is a rip. The fact the equipment is so old (although obviously extremely dependable eg. the only reason I can still sell it) doesn't exactly help.

Thats a good point. We'll make sure to rent a light colored van! No we are shooting 7000ft total. But we aren't going to have room to bring multiple coolers unfortunately, thus my worry. It seems like the consensus is even if the film gets hot its not going to get damaged due to the low duration of heat it will actually see. Is this correct? I'd feel much better having some sort of conclusion... Would also still love to hear back regarding my questions about heat/film for effect eg. savides/birth

Haha. Well then what would you consider fair.

I have one yes. Are you still interested? I could do 500 plus shipping?

Title says it all. Looking to buy a PL mounted directors viewfinder. Either new or used. If anyone has any leads that would be much appreciated! Cheers, Evan