Stuart Brereton

This is a gel pack for a Sodium Vapour look, not Mercury. For a Mercury Vapour look on tungsten, you could try 3/4 Plus Green & Rosco Cal Colour 30 Blue. This is the combination used by Paul Cameron.

I've had a Minolta Autometer IV F for about 10 years now and never had any problems with it. It's simple to use and read. They have now been replaced by the Autometer V F , so you should have no problems picking one up cheaply on ebay.

Time code is often set to 'Free Run' when jam-syncing cameras or other time code devices together. The more normal setting would be Record Run. Somewhere in your cameras' menu, probably the page where you set the TC, will be a option to switch between Free Run & Rec Run.

Technicolor do still process 16mm, and I've found them to be cheaper than Soho Images. have fun...

I don't have any direct dealings with ICE, but I know that they are the Aaton main dealer for the UK, and they have a very good rep. As you're going to be in and around London, you could try Panavision in Greenford, or Joe Dunton & Co a bit further out in Hertfordshire.

Try Technicolor in London. They have a Drop off/Collection office on Berwick Street, Soho. The phone number is 0208 759 5432 from the UK. I've always found them to be reliable and affordable.

Brian, I don't call one webpage of work-arounds, which don't work for everyone, a satisfactory response from a major manufacturer. There are many, many people who have the same problem with Compressor, and Apple has had ample opportunity to fix this problem in one of their ProApp updates, but they haven't. Given the cost of their 'Professional' software, I would have thought the least they could do was solve problems like this... Anyway, my original problem with the H.264 encoder in QT7 was not that it's bad, just that it's no better than Sorenson 3. I've tried re-encoding some of my promos, but found that, at the same file sizes, Sorenson seems to be just as good as H.264. So, all I can figure is: A. there is a knack to getting great results out of QT7/H.264, or B. Apple has been overselling the benefits of H.264....

Maybe I should persevere with QT7. Compressor doesn't work for me. All I get is an error 'Cannot connect to background action' or something. It's a well known conflict which Apple have done precisely nothing to solve, and it means that a large part of their flagship media package doesn't work- at all! I always liked Cleaner, the presets return really nice results, but the fact that they still haven't produced a work around to deal with h.264 doesn't say much for their R&D. ho hum...

I've seen some great looking WMV files (the BMW films, for instance, look great) but unfortunately I'm Mac based, and Microsoft has understandably not been too bothered with updating their Media Player for OS X. The H.264 encoder in QT7 is, as Phil points out, awful, and Cleaner 6 doesn't seem to know what to do about H.264. It recognises the CoDec, but returns errors every time I try to use it. So, what are Mac users out there using to encode H.264? Is there any software for OS X that can do it well, or should I just stick with Sorensen until Apple get their act together and put a decent encoder into Quicktime?

32 - 36 fps is pretty common in promos if you still need to lipsync. It's got a unusual look to it, but it doesn't scream slow-motion at you. It's also not too difficult to mime to the track. If you just want slow motion of the band in action then half speed is probably enough (48-50fps)

I'm glad it's not just me that is having trouble with the Quicktime H.264 encoder. Any recommendations for a better software solution?

Apologies if I'm asking this question in the wrong place. I've heard a lot about H.264 and it's incredible quality. I've watched a number of film trailers encoded in this way, and the quality has been amazing considering the small file sizes. However, when I'm encoding my own stuff, H.264 doesn't seem quite as good, in fact I'm finding that good old Sorenson 3 has got the edge in a lot of ways. I'm not the most computer-savvy person in the world, so it's probably something I'm doing wrong. Does anyone have any pointers for getting the most out of H.264? Thanks.

Careful Phil, those nuts may contain traces of nuts...

Thanks, Stephen, I've used the SD-I to downconvert as well. I was pleased with the results, but I am curious to know if there is a qualitative difference between that and a Card based downconvert. Stuart

I've got a promo coming up later this year. We're shooting HD with a F-750. The director will be cutting the promo on FCP. The camera has both the HD-I and SD-I boards in it. What I'm wondering (stupidly,perhaps) is whether the in-camera downconversion to SD is comparable in quality to a capture card based downconvert (probably a Blackmagic Decklink). The card hasn't been purchased yet, which is why i'm wondering if they can get away with downconverting in camera and capturing to a SD card, rather than spending 3 times as much on an HD card. thanks.

There are probably many sparks, particularly guys that have been in the industry for years that don't have any Electrical qualifications. However, it is getting very difficult to find work without being a qualified electrician. It's not that a lighting spark necessarily needs the full skillset of an electrician, it's that insurance companies demand it when covering for Public Liability.

According to the articles I've read about the XLH1, the 25F feature is implemented in a different manner to Sonys' offering. Before we all get up in arms about the lack of true progressive scan, we should wait and see just how good or bad the XLH1 actually is

Give it a rest, Phil. Just because your career hasn't panned out the way you wanted doesn't mean the same will happen to others. It seems to me that the only thing holding you back is You. It's so much safer to say 'what's the point, i'm not good enough, the industry sucks' than it is to actually try it yourself. You do yourself no favours, coming across as a hugely embittered person, who has nothing good to say about this industry. You carp on about how unfair it is, how unlikely it is, and yet all around you on this board there are people quietly getting on with carving careers out for themselves. You say that you only continue in this business because you aren't qualified for anything else, but that doesn't explain why you choose to spend so much time on a forum full of people whose ambition and idealism you so obviously despise. Maybe you should consider the possibilty that your (perceived) lack of success is directly attributable to your appalling attitude. You're a knowledgeable person, and from the little I've seen of your work, a capable cameraman. Why not lighten up and enjoy the community you're part of, instead of spitting bile at it?

I'm going to correct myself here; the qualification needed is actually City & Guilds 2330 Certificate in Electrotechnical Technology. There's a load more info on the Skillset website.

Sam, I believe that the qualification you need is the City & Guilds Certificate in Electrial Skills (Supply & Distribution) You can get this part time at many local colleges. I could be wrong, so anyone that knows better, please correct me. Tomas, It used to be the way you describe over here, too. A few years ago new legislation was brought in which meant that even sparks with 30 years experience suddenly had to get a qualification. It's probably not a bad thing, but I can imagine that it upset a few people at the time.

What's patronising about it? Surely it's better than simply telling people not to bother? You were saying that the situation is different in the US Object all you like, it happens to be true. Of course you can market yourself. You send out reels, cvs. You join a crewing agency. You make contacts at the production companies. If you're sitting at home watching daytime TV, then no wonder the work isn't flooding in. 'Hang around' anywhere for ten years and you'll end up in debt. You have to be proactive. And forget this idea that Hollywood has an abundance of work. There are just as many failures there as here This is absolute bollocks. I know many camera people and all of them manage to make a decent wage, buy a house blah blah blah. I do it myself, and I'm not shooting features. There is plenty of money to be made working in TV and corporate work. You actually said 'we are crap'. In the absence of any qualifiers, I take that to mean all British crew. That is undeserved and unfair. You've obviously got a chip on your shoulder the size of a house brick. If you're so bitter and disillusioned about this industry, why do you still work in it? Why don't you take your own advice and find something else to do instead of whining about how your life didn't turn out the way you wanted it.

The Film Industry traditionally attracts far more people than it is capable of supporting. This is true here in the UK, where the industry is small, and it is also true in the US where the industry is huge. There is always going to be competition for work, and it is not always the most talented person that gets the work. There is more to being a freelance technician than just ability. You have to aggressively self-market, you have schmooze, you have to be friendly, helpful, available. You have to be a 'can-do' kind of person, not a whiner. You have to be the kind of person that other people want to work with. You also have to be extremely determined, and accept the fact that it is probably not going to happen overnight for you. I'm sure that there are plenty of talented people who never 'made it', because they lacked the determination, or self confidence, or whatever. David Mullen said recently that he spent 10 years earning less than $20,000 a year working on indie features. I'll bet that wasn't easy, and I'll bet there were times when he thought about chucking it all in and getting a 'real' job, but it's paid off for him now. Determination, or bloody-mindedness or whatever you want to call it. The vast majority of people will never get to shoot a big Hollywood feature. Does that mean they should give up camera work altogether? Of course not, you just have to accept it and realise that you can still make a living shooting less prestigious projects. Phil, you're right to point out that this is a tough business to be in, but there are lots of professions equally difficult to crack. Any self-employed person knows how tough it can be to establish yourself, whether you're a bricklayer or a focus puller. It's fine to sound a cautionary note to others, to help them understand what they're getting into, but PLEASE, don't insult the abilities of other freelancers just because they are somewhere you're not.

He's right, everyone. Abandon your dreams and ambition. Don't even bother to try because it won't work. Not for any of you. It didn't happen for Phil, so it won't happen for you. You can believe this bullshit, or you can get out there and see for yourself. some people will succeed. some will fail, but if you don't TRY you'll NEVER know.

As a matter of fact, Phil, I have. I spent 6 years as an AC on features, TV dramas and commercials. I worked withh DP's and crews from all over the world, and not once did I think to myself "Oh, they're so much better than British crews'. Britain has, for a long time had a deserved reputation for excellent crew. To describe them as Mickey Mouse is offensive and highly inaccurate. Try saying that to Geoff Boyle next time you see him. You've just described British crews as 'Mickey Mouse' and yet you're 'not good enough'. What does that say about your level of competence? Christ, Phil, just how sour are those grapes?

Phil, The reason that camera like the D20 are patterned after film cameras is because they are most likely to be used by people who are used to film cameras. Sure, Arri or Dalsa could have made their cameras look like a DSR 570 or any other ENG camera, but why would they? Film crew are used to working in a certain way, with certain accessories. For the D20 to be a success it has to be popular with crews and rental houses (as well as being a great camera) and the best way to ensure this is to minimise the disruption to working practice and maximise compatibility with existing accessories. Your experience obviously differs, but in the six years that I was an assistant, I never came across a film DP who 'knew everything there was to know about every motion imaging device'. Quite the opposite, most were quite happy to admit their ignorance of video formats, as I am happy to bow to others who have a broader knowledge than me. Don't be ridiculous. It's not. And if you are offended, then I'm sure it's no worse than the offence you give to people when you claim, as you have in another thread, that there is no professional practice amongst British Filmmakers.