Alain Lumina

Deferred and "spec" are different in my opinion. I "deferred" some pay until I got my next day job paycheck. So I paid half on set and half from my next paycheck a few weeks later. But it was a definite ( though small) amount, that I said they would get and they did. Even the PMSing AC who quit the last day. I also offer "spec" points based on the gross if the things gets sold after agents, lawyers, and other slime balls take their cut.

I am shooting episode 2 of a microbudget science drama fantasy Interference Wave. I need a diner or restaurant (preferably not carpeted) and a bar. Ideally I want a run-down town which still has some functioning businesses, but no McDonald's or the like betraying the current era. Limited modern stuff could be masked out. I can pay a small amount to locations where I will be portraying a run-down company town- Nuclear Sands, NV. The town of Nuclear Sands grew around an experimental nuclear power plant built in the remote Nevada desert in 1962. It attracted the unemployed, geniuses, eccentrics, and the simply forlorn. The episode revolves around a Beatrice, a waitress who is trying to get a night off from work at the Radium Room bar so she can play a gig with her band the Caterwaulers at the Kilowatt Cafe. ======================================= -- I am not in the roll of ordinary men -- at my birth the front of heaven was filled with fiery shapes. -- Henry IV, Shakespeare =======================================

HI, i'm not much of an authority, Bernie at super16 is the guru, but as far as chattering and the claw seeming to not come out into the holes, the bottom loop being too tight seemed to be the problem, it has to almost touch the floor of the interior compartment as it bends around and heads upward. Other problems I've heard of that relate to your situation: 1) If the spindles in the film magazine onto which the rolls of film mount ( particularly the take up spindle which is the only one that the belt should be looped around) are not turning freely that could restrict the take up. I believe I heard this could damage the cam mechanism by excess strain. 2) I've had trouble with low batteries I think once or twice starting chattering or other problems.

even a no-budget nobody from nowhere like me, skulking around darkened film school parking lots begging for short ends in a tattered trench coat, doesn't really find film more expensive. I am so sick of buying endless hard drives, which I know will be unusable in 6-8 years to manage the multiple backups digital needs. Film is its own backup. Plus, most important of all, when I use film it attracts a far higher degree of cast and crew talent which far more than makes up for the small higher costs. It's like oil paint: Do you really want one of your most important creative decisions to be based on a 15% difference in costs? We've got enough MBAs/climbers.

From Ridley Scott interview ( slightly paraphrased) There are lots of technical difficulties...there are 50,000 reasons not to shoot your movie.... just shoot it.

I don't know if it has telescoping, i've not owned one, but the Canon 17-55 2.8 has image stabilization, is a recent design ( better sharpness than the older 17-40 f4) and gets good reviews except for some dust vulnerability. Image stabilization is great for hand-holding, or use with things like shoulder mounts. I have owned the canon 10-22 which isn't constant aperture but was so sharp and sensitive it made me want to start a religion. Below is a screen cap from test footage in Palm Springs in movie mode on a 7D, in fairly lousy light, no corrections.

I for one would love to see hi-rez screenshots side by side of the same frame, one at 2k and one at 4k. As an ancillary note, I recently got some Ultra 16mm back from Rob who's commented above, and I could only afford the uprezzed SD scans even though he was very flexible about price (I'm not complaining, he wsa super-helpful and took a lot of time explaining the theory and the options available). Even at that low resolution, the difference between 50D in daylight and 500T in low-lit living room was very noticeable and marked. My micro-budget situation also probably meant that the 500T was not up to snuff ( early vision, not 2 or 3, uncertain history.) The 50D looked really good, but my subjective impression was that if it was done at 2k I think there was more detail in it. However, with the marginal 500T, I think it would have just highlighted the seriously grainy images and not helped much. I think it makes sense to keep in mind accumulated resolution, (not sure it's the right name) -I think it means that film doesn't really have a fixed resolution because of the random placement of the grains. So although the single frame resolution might be considered, say, 2000x3000, frame #1 might have a grain at 350.4/1000, frame # 2 at 350.0/1000, and then frame #3 maybe at 350.7/1000. If all these random grain placements are in the image, the brain may merge the conveyed information across the succession of frames and you have a higher aggregated resolution than implied by the rough size of the grains. I read somewhere that 80% of our brains are dedicated to processing visual information. So the tiniest, tiniest differences may be meaningful. I wonder what two of the three last Best Picture Oscar winners, (Wrestler, Hurt Locker--both S16mm) were scanned at?

Could camera shake/movement have been a problem here? The background looks like it might have movement blur. Was this shot on a tripod? Was there panning happening?

grouch: Nice zombie movie you videoed there, kid. kid: I had a lot of hot chicks in it. grouch they look great. kid: did you say you were shooting something with film? I didn't think anybody used that anymore. grouch: oh no. You can't use film. it's too expensive. You should stick to video. kid: Yeah, hi-def is great. grouch: sure is. it's really....clear.

I don't know this particular camera, but the advantage of U16 for me was with the CP16r with canon 12-120mm zoom converted by Bernie ( who posts here and will know your answer) was that I needed no other lens, U16 just uses a little more on each side of the gate so no lens recentering is needed.

I agree you need to convert to ProRes, the H264 raw material is too compressed, resulting in too much excessive processor load to decompress it on the fly. What makes it extra fun is there is several TYPES of Prores, which result in varying file sizes. That's where I got a litle lost, but I just love buying big hard drives so overkill is always a sturdy approach, also allowing one to turn one's nose up at people who use "lesser" resolution. From better to worse quality: ProRes 4:4:4:4 -- ~330 Mbs ProRes 4:2:2 (HQ) -- ~220 Mbs ProRes 4:2:2 -- ~145Mbs ProRes 4:2:2 (LT) -- ~100Mbs ProRes 4:2:2 (Proxy) -- ~30Mbs (meant to be used in combination with a higher res) Here's Apple's page on the types: http://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/professionalformatsandworkflows/index.html#chapter=10%26section=2%26tasks=true

Bernie did my CP-16R, now U16. Here's a screen cap (reduced from 1920x1024) telecined by Cinelab from a surrealistic SciFi pilot I did, not a fancy prime, just the stock 30 year+ old Canon zoom with "Flourite" spelled wrong ( "Fluorite"). This isn't even their best quality, it's the smart uprez option which is a lot cheaper. Actress Caroline Slaughter formerly of "As The World Turns", cinematographer David Mallin. Both Bernie and Rob at Cinelab are fun to call up and interrupt to ask typical moronic director questions. They're both very patient and explain everything so even I can almost understand it. As long as I'm kept away from the camera, you can see the images can turn out quite good.

Just viewed the Criterion restoration of Black Orpheus (1959) And also here's a frame from "Story of a Prostitute" from Japan. Yeah, it's over for film. At least for me-- when they pry my Ultra-16 cam from my cold, [broke], dead hands. Viva analog!!

You don't need to deal with that unless they're really going to sell tickets and make _you_ money-- making money with film being something I have no experience with! Even in Shark City (LA) there are people who _want_ to see scripts. Everything starts- if it starts at all- with a script. This sounds like the kind of problem you have when there are investors. I'm not criticizing anyone else's choices, but all I have is stories that aren't ridiculous crap. No zombies, slashers, vampires, serial killers or kidnapped kids. (Not that I didn't like From Hell with Johnny Depp, that was great drama, what I'm trying to say is I'm not pandering.) I am the definition of a nobody, I mean what I write, and I am tough enough to stay a nobody forever. I have a "real" job, pay for my own films, and use vacation time to shoot them I make the point in my casting calls of the fact pay is super-minimal [by necessity, not by my choice, I would love to pay SAG scale] advertise on nowcasting, actorsaccess, lacasting, and get hundreds of people seeking each part; too many to read their resumes as I have no casting help or any other kind of help for that matter. There are many, many brilliant people out there giving their hearts and souls to act, I never knew the giant mass of talent until I busted ass and wrote the best scripts I could. It is heroic how they pursue an art that will likely never offer a decent living. As a director I show them the tremendous respect they deserve by throwing the most apoplectic, amusing hissy fits my nature allows to entertain them. Many, many people with serious conservatory degrees in acting ( which I have found out is a lot harder than a bachelor's in film) as well as people who are drop dead gorgeous and naturally charismatic want to act in my films. I don't think I'm that talented as an author, what they are reacting to is that someone is actually trying to tell a good story, that someone is serious, and that someone is writing who's done more in life than go to USC and hang around Hollywood five or six years. I was told Charlie Parker said "If you haven't lived it, it won't come out of your horn." Also, actors, as well as other very talented personnel with experience far, far beyond mine seem to be way more willing to collaborate with someone willing to use film. Film is the secret weapon of casting and crew recruitment. I'd say the additional costs of film have been much more than offset by the value of the higher level of talent that it attracts to my projects. It's sure not my personality or money. ( Attached screen cap from 1960's science drama pilot. Not that anyone asked, but ironically shot w/ Canon 7D, ASA 400, Zeiss 50mm 1.4, 1/50 sec . No correction of any kind. Available light only. Shot with sharpness, contrast and saturation set at minimum)

Sorry to impose, I got sudden availability of actors/crew to help me shoot a night scene eve of Mon the 27th in Sacramento Calif ( just a couple days away) On the off chance there's someone in this area holding onto some 16mm film they'd sell, I'm looking for some fast 16mm film. Probably Fuji 400/500 or Kodak 500 would do it. I have some 200T but mocking up the lighting with the 7D set to ISO200 at 1/30 shutter indicates it won't be quite fast enough. Telecine may end up noisy. As a follow-up, any suggestions on how to calculate: 1) I've shot street scenes with passing cars on 200T before and it actually came out OK. I could just open the sucker up (2.5T Canon 12-120 zoom) and try it.... 2) If I do #1 above, how do I know how much to tell the lab to push? Ballpark-- should I say one stop, two stops? I'm doing 7D also but I'd like to try to get the brief sequences on film too. Thanks!

Blacks look great to me too, wonder what kind of telecine they did, I see hardly any creepy-crawly noise. The 500 using just the fire's light looked great too. Only wish they'd labelled the 16mm sections.

double post oops

There's aesthetic considerations, psychological considerations, and I'll steal something from the book "Directing Feature Films" I forget the author. Of course the classic by Egri on writing from the 1940's is quite adamant about having a central theme for the artwork. One thing I've found in my admittedly limited experience is there always seems to be some tension/power struggle between a director and a DP. I don't think that's necessarily bad, the DP can help save you from super-dunderheaded moves and offer vast improvements with their ideas, but if you're a director and you want to have any kind of distinctive style, you're going to have to stretch some conventions. Accepting that there will be some power struggles makes it easier to accept and work through them When there's some kind of dispute like this (in the book the collaboration method described was between writer and director) he very intelligently advocated "backing up" or "zooming out" (cringe) on the artistic goal. You mentioned you actually did this when you asked him what the goal was in the wall color case. Perhaps it might get you two aligned better if you educate/request more info about what overall tone the film is intended to have, helping him build his film work verbal vocabulary. Is there a theme which you can capture in a phrase and work from there ( i.e. perhaps for Blade Runner, wild guess= "take advantage of your very limited time in life") When you've agreed on the general "mission", it might become easier to determine the goal of smaller parts, like the sequence with the wall where he can't articulate his goal. Help him. Does he want the scene to be gloomy, nauseating, frightening-- if you provide the adjectives, maybe it will help him crystallize what he's trying to do. People don't get angry when you just keep asking them about what they think and want as long as it's not like an interrogation, you're asking what they feel, you're willing to offer ideas, and you genuinely want to find out how they feel. I know this because I worked as a counselor, and there you're squeezing every damn detail out of them about their problems, but since you're doing it in the sincere interests of helping them, they don't mind it. "What's the overall message of this film?" (difficult but he should at least be able to provide a general idea.Anything to get a starting point.) "How should the audience feel when they see this scene" "What colors are associated with that feeling for you?" Also, I hate to pile on, but I too see a small but troubling sign when you place his title "director" in quotes --there's a danger you have condescension of some kind to his ability/role/vision. I think whatever the collaboration, you need to feel you have a shared goal with mutual respect and understanding. If you don't think the guy can make something good, why do it? I remember one power struggle with a DP I had as a director, I behaved pretty badly as he kept bitching about something I wanted to do which he really didn't understand because it was sort of a deliberately dumb idea. Eventually I had the required "director' hissy fit and requested if he didn't like it he should "...then write your own f*&^*&^ movie!!!" HAha...bad, I know. Maybe we know why Bergman stayed with Sven Nyquist all that time, they could work together without killing each other.

I'm biased toward film, and I think the points makes sense about the large footprint (FP) of making all these new video cameras all the time. And don't forget the hard drives as currently storage cards are still pretty expensive. Hard drives seem energy intensive to build, super precision metal must use a lot of electricity, and even emerging solid state drives are a big bunch of chips. Something I've found when shooting both 7d ( CF card+ hard drives as LT storage and backup) and film (hard drive for working storage and backup) is that there is more overhead with hard drives with digital, because since you're presumably going to ERASE your CF cards, you have to have at least two copies on at least two digital media, and only Blue Ray and maybe tape have enough storage outside of hard drives right now. You WANT to keep backups of your telecine for film, but the film itself is a pretty good backup, especially for someone ...ahem... disorganized.. because those reels of processed film are pretty big and heavy for even a true dunderhead to misplace. So Film is its own backup, making two BU copies of the telecine files acceptable ( for my low budget productions anyway)

Thanks for all the wise and honest input. Especially true I think is the need to avoid combining film and digital within a sequence, except for a specific artistic effect. Also-- it's embarrassing I need to be reminded of the fundamental truth that it's the story above all ! I think what I may do to incorporate the suggestions and still service my fetish ( which indirectly is part of the story as well) is to use film only on particular selected sequences that: -- Can be preplanned and not require many takes-- for instance desert landscapes without dialog, without any complex balletic movements of trucks, boats etc.-- where the texture and dynamic range are the central concerns. And I am a big fan of recans. Was bummed when the Raw Stock NY owner closed ( sorry forgot name for now) He gave great deals and always shipped what he promised when he promised it. Zero complaints from me.

I've been shooting with a combination of 7D and Ultra 16 for cost efficiency. With love of film yet extremely limited funds, I would like to try a systematized method of brutal ratios with fallback to digital. Here's the idea: 1) Inform all cast and crew right from beginning of recruiting how the system will work so they all know what to expect and can start adapting. 2) Select scenes/sequences best done with film according to your criteria-- rippling water in sun, desert, certain high contrast scenes, especially ones with less acting-- reducing variables. OTOH, super low light seems MUCH cheaper to do with digital with 5D/7D 3) Rehearse acting scenes a lot including strict adherence to planned camera moves/focus pulls. 4) Do film sequences with a two take maximum, if Take 1 looks good do one more backup take with digital. I guess you need someone setting up the shots with the digicam so you can roll over to Take 3/digital quickly. With this method, besides getting the DP to hate me, I can get film on the screen for less than $50 per minute including stock, processing, and telecine. Any other ideas for making this work as well as possible despite the obvious pitfalls? I already thought of "Get a bigger budget" and "Just shoot all digital" so votes for those are kind of wasted. Selecting shorter sequences I guess would help so you don't have a single digicam shot in the middle of a film sequence. Thanks for any suggestions.

Could you explain what you see as the drawbacks in Public Enemies? I'd like to watch it again after hearing you out to see if I can grasp what you're seeing. Right now I can only remember one scene in a hallway that looked extremely dark, grainy, and pretty much could not see what was happening.

Forgive me if this is glib. I know many great film ideas require special effects and wardrobe that make a certain budget level unavoidable. But the most important thing about my films is by far that they get finished. Not left somewhere at the idea stage. To make a fair/good/great film, you've to to finish it. For those of us at the bottom of the food chain, this is the most realistic goal. Super quality, a la real crews, 35mm or high end digital necessarily depends on getting someone to give/invest money. I try to stay focused on finishing, the hard way if necessary, paycheck to paycheck from my day job, which is a pretty good non-Industry one. If someone likes my vision and invests, great, but how can I claim to believe in my vision if I'm too lazy to shoot my stuff micro-budget?

Wow--stunning in-depth information on camera tech development--thanks. I'll have to put in some study time to even grasp what you're describing. I found another movie with Gene Tierney in it ( One of the most beautiful actresses ever ), Black Widow from 1954. She's not in the below shot, though ;) In the intro titles say color by Deluxe. Here's a screenshot, I tried to find a frame where there are a variety of blues to compare to the Technicolor blues: Used without permission under fair use doctrine for historical and learning purposes. Use of this image is unlikely to affect the value of any copyrighted material. http://www.magicalrealismfilms.com/technitierney.jpg One cinematic factor that also may be affecting movies of this era was that I think the films were much slower than current films, yes? If so that has implications for contrast, as I'm guessing they would have huge lights blasting the set for the bright parts of the frame. This would tend to create more contrast unless they had them coming from everywhere--dark areas would be _really_ dark. In the above frame, although this may be pretty distant from original quality, this may be presesnt in the dark suit of the man in the central foreground. This may make colors "pop" more. I really like the richness of this type of look. Does anyone know what would be ballpark figures for film speed used in a studio film such as this, shot in 1954? And arc lighting was mentioned, I guess isn't used now, but I assume they'd be using big Tungsten lights? Thanks again for all the expertise offered.

Thanks David, it is really educational for me to have someone separate out the factors that comprise the final image. If I understand correctly then, would one way to "fake" this marked separation of colors be to use coltored lights as mentioned elsewhere on this board in connection with technicolor/DPs of this era? ( Leave her to Heaven was about 1946) In other words, lighting a blue suit with some blue-gelled lights? What would be the closest way to fake/imitate the color of the arc lights you mentioned? Could I gel [tungsten/HMI/something]? You mentioned modern cinematography-- I'm not trying to be contrary, but whatever everyone else is doing, my tendency would be to do the opposite, and try to get candy colors!