Stuart Brereton

Or maybe the filmmakers were just trying so hard to be clever that they forgot to be comprehensible. If you don't intend for your audience to understand the dialogue, why write it in the first place? Opinions will obviously vary, but personally, I don't want to have to watch a film seven times before I understand it.

Gordon Willis was an extraordinarily precise DP who used under exposure as a tool, not as a crutch. Worlds apart from the kind of work we’re discussing.

If I wanted to be uncharitable, I'd say it's because they don't know how to light, so they use underexposure as a crutch. If enough people do it, it becomes a look in its own right, and its origins as a failure of technique get forgotten.

Hasselblads are not cheap. A 500c with a film back and an 80mm lens can easily cost well over $1000

I agree. As cameras have become more and more sensitive, there has been an increasing tendency to not light, and to let practical lamps do the majority of the work. This can sometimes make things look flat because practicals are not as controllable, and so a lot of DPs resort to underexposure as a way of creating mood where there is little contrast.

I doubt that Joe Dunton would rehouse lenses. He was semi retired last time I saw him, and that was several years ago. As Dom says, the expense involved in prototyping and building a one off lens package would likely be more than just going out and buying a set of Atlas Orions or similar.

Print stock has a dynamic range of about 7-8 stops, I believe, although my info might be a little out of date.

As far as I remember, the PD150 was interlaced only. XL1, of course, was progressive. Back in the days when I used to shoot low budget music videos in the UK, we occasionally used both cameras , and any standards conversion to NTSC was done by simply dropping the clip onto a 23.98 timeline in FCP7 and letting the software figure it out.

With a bit of practice, this is probably the only practical way of doing a whip pan on a geared head, but I wouldn't want to have to do it repeatedly throughout a scene.

Kodak Double X B&W stock, which is probably the most widely available B&W stock, is an old stock. It has been in existence for many years, and has not been updated with the same frequency that the color stocks have. Consequently, it's not going to have the same fine grain and wide latitude as Vision 3 film, so there will be noticeable differences between Double X and desaturated Vision 3. That said, shooting with color, and then desaturating does give you flexibility in being able to channel mix the RGB to fine tune the exact B&W look you want, as well as being able to change your mind later.

You might say that sunstars and internal reflections are more desirable, and veiling flare is less desirable, but I can think of reasons why both might be useful. Many DPs (Roger Deakins, for instance) hate lens flares of any type, whereas other people actively seek them out (anamorphic streaks, for instance). Ultimately, it's down to personal taste, and the needs of whatever effects you are trying to achieve.

That's a tungsten fresnel of the type you usually find in theaters. Probably a Rank Strand of some sort. I think Minims were 300w, but I haven't done any theater lighting since school, so I could be wrong. Edit: It looks like a Rank Strand model 803

Hmm. I could have sworn it was an Otus, but we had a mixed set of lenses, so it could have been a Milvus. Whichever it was, I believe it's the same glass that is in the CP-2s, and I'm told they share the same problem. If it was a Milvus, you can safely ignore my original post... 😉

I had the misfortune to have to shoot a low budget show with Zeiss Otus lenses. They were all bad, but the 35mm, in particular, had the worst CA of any lens I have ever used.

All films have a ‘bit of DI work’ (using the term loosely) and credit a colorist. That signifies nothing more than crediting an editor would.

I wouldn’t have said that prices for the RB67 are insanely high. Compared to the Pentax 67 it’s pretty reasonable. However, I also wouldn’t describe it as an SLR. It’s a big, heavy chunk of metal. With a prism finder, you can use it handheld like an SLR, but honestly, it’s a better experience with the waist level finder and a tripod. I don’t know if Mamiya made a wider lens for it than the 50mm. I tend to use the 65mm more often anyway. If you decide to buy one, try to find one with the 6x8 rotating back, so you can use the 6x8 film backs. I bought mine like that without realizing.

Thank you both!

Here are some frames I shot a couple of years ago when this same question came up on a different forum. First one was shot on an s35 sized sensor at 18mm, second on FF at 28mm, third on 6x7 medium format film at 50mm. The camera did not move between shots. DoF was matched as close as possible. The frames are near identical, although there is a slight difference in perspective in the third frame as the lens height on the MF camera was different.

Cadrage does 1.37:1. Artemis has 1.33:1

I have one of those little ‘zoomfinders’. It has a range of different aspect ratios, but I wouldn’t describe them as being particularly accurate. For a start, they use an adjustable hard mask to change the AR, which is, of course, very out of focus when you look through it. They are an approximation at best. I think you’d see very little difference between 2.20:1 and 2.40:1

Any lens with an extreme wide angle field of view will exhibit distortion, unless it is rectilinear in design, regardless of the format you are shooting. There's really no difference between shooting FF with a 28mm and s35 with an 18mm in terms of distortion, assuming both lenses are of similar design. I don't know whether you plan to be shooting only from inside the car, or if you will be using door and hood mounts, but I would say that inside, you would probably be using focal lengths in the 18-28mm range on a s35 sensor, and perhaps longer if shooting from outside. This is not particularly wide, and any 'bending' of lines should be minimal.

Is there a reason why you can’t just use wider lenses?

Swing a tungsten fresnel (or par) across the windows? Or two, if you prefer.

It really depends on the scene. What is happening, and what do you need to be able to see? Here's a couple of frames from a movie I shot a couple of years ago. The character is exploring a house at night. It's meant to be dark and mysterious, and we already know who the character is, so I let her play mostly in silhouette. We also created little pools of light that she could walk through so that we could occasionally see her face. In another scene, where she was on the phone, we needed to see her face more clearly, so I brought the moonlight a little from the side to light her face. It's still pretty dark, but as soon as she answers her phone, she's lit by that as well.

David, can you recall your setup for the foyer part of the shot? Was it just the two table lamps, or is there a soft fill source in there as well?