Jason Hinkle RIP

Thanks so much for the feedback. Bruce's idea of the reflection actually makes some sense, the rear element on the nikons is huge compared to my 16mm lenses. I think it is safe to rule out the transfer, I was there at the lab and we were noticing the problem shots which are only a select number of shots - what they all have in common is that they were shot in fairly bright sun at around f11. I am starting to suspect that using 35mm lenses on my 16mm camera just doesn't work in bright light, which is depressing. I would rather there was some operator error that I could correct. The camera is an ACL and the lens adapter is custom made by Les Bosher, basically the best adapter made for this setup. It looks exactly like a stock intermediate adapter for an ACL. Here's a screen grab of one of the bad shots in case it helps. (btw, I've managed to salvage all of these shots using a an inverted vignette plugin, but it's annoying and tedious)

That is not silly at all actually, I suspected that problem and it is a possibility that happened on a shot or two. But the weird thing is that I had this problem even when I was using another camera w/o video assist - so my eye was always against the viewfinder. So, it sounds like having a bright spot is not a normal problem - in other words it is probably not a typical problem where I need to shade the lens more..?

I use the lenses all the time with my old Nikon w/o any issues & they even look fine on the 16mm camera as long as it isn't in the bright sun. It must have something to do with the aperture and/or light shining onto the glass..? It seems so random though, I can't figure it out.

I got some footage back and a lot of my exterior shots have a bright hot spot in the center of the image. It's sorta like vignetting except the outside looks good and the spot in the center is overexposed and washed out. This is the second time I've seen this but I can't figure out for sure why it's happening so that I can avoid it. I'm using Nikon 35mm lenses on my super-16 camera (but the same thing happened on my r-16 camera too). It seems to be some combination of lenses 50mm or wider plus bright sun and stopping down f8 or more. It's not 100% consistent either, some shots look perfectly fine. I'm wondering if using 35mm lenses on super-16 are just unpredictable in the bright sun, or is having a hot-spot something that happens with any lens? I don't want to blame the lenses if it's some other thing I'm doing. As for my setup, I had a matte box with a french flag and an 85 filter and it didn't seem as though the sun was shining directly into the lens or anything. Some shots look fine and others vary as to the degree of the hot spot in the center. I can't seem to find a pattern in my camera report. thanks for any ideas or suggestions.

the more legitimate sites that link to the spammers site, the higher their ranking on google. at least that's the theory. it probably isn't even a real person, it's just a computer somewhere crawling the web for forums. it also hurts the search ranking of whatever site links to lots of "bad" sites, so it's in the best interest of the forum to get rid of the spam messages.

I'm editing a short and a couple of shots had some problems that were fixable, but require fairly severe repair, by which I mean using a several layers of masks and plugins. I'm wondering in that situation, would you edit the un-repaired footage and then worry about cleaning up only the pieces you need later? The downside being that you probably have to apply the tedious repair work to various clips. Or would you render a new repaired source file and use that as the master? The downside of course being one generation lost. My master file is Apple ProRes HQ 1080p if that makes any difference..? Thanks!

I kinda feel like half the fun and magic of a movie is missing when they use the "amateur video" plot device. But then again it got this director's foot in the door so who am i to judge?! For my money, i'd rather see pi, primer, clerks, el mariachi or any indie film that doesn't pretend to be home video footage. It did get me thinking, though, how far this genre might go. Reality TV is a significant percentage of show on the air these days. i started thinking about some good movies i've seen recently and wondered how they may have looked had they been shot "blair witch" style? obviously it imposes a lot of limitations but i suppose a great story can be told all kinds of ways.

Hey Scott, I hope you'll post some ultra-16 footage and also talk about the experience of getting it processed too? I have an ACL i have been thinking about doing that as well. btw, you probably already have the camera but in case anybody else was reading, i don't think there were any stock motors for the ACL that are non-sync. That motor has a sync light on it too, so that would be a strange thing to put on a non-sync motor!

I have to put in a good word for the Eclair ACL, like all film cameras there are some great deals happening on ebay. Though it doesn't have pin registration, the ACL has a claw registration design that is solid and quiet. to get great images, though, you need quality lenses. unfortunately lens prices have not gone down as much as it has with cameras. The ACL is nice in in that it has an adapter lens mount system so you can use anything from c-mount to nikon to cinema PL mount lenses.

just as a follow-up i decided to try a resin filter for the heck of it. having used only glass before i have to say they feel cheap and flimsy by comparison. also i had to kinda tape it into my filter holder because it's a thin wafer compared to my a big hunk-o-glass filters. i consider this filter to be "disposable" but i have a feeling if i keep it in it's plastic case and treat it with a lot of TLC that it will last quite a while. so considering the price I don't feel like it is a bad deal.

thanks, i guess i'll have to see the footage and decide if it's usable. for one closeup i may even be able to flip the image, but i'm not sure. :angry: stupid mistake from trying to get too many shots in a short amount of time!

somehow between 3 experienced people we managed to talk ourselves into shooting the wrong angle and, after i got home and pondered it i realized we broke the 180 degree rule. i'm re-shooting once close up that we really need but i'm wondering if you have ever gotten away with breaking the rule (not including intentional shots to disorient)? The mistake was done on a shot where both people are in frame looking the same direction but one is about 10 feet behind the other so it's a kinda extreme angle. the other is the basically the reverse of that. Both kinda odd angles, i'm wondering if it's basically going to be unusable and i shouldn't even pay to have that part transferred? thanks!

For a dirt-cheap option you can use CCTV lenses like Cosmicar, Fujinon, etc. The 1" sensor size seem to cover S-16. (ie, you can't use lenses meant for 1/3" sensors). I got a Cosmicar 12.5mm lens on eBay for I think about $35. I tested various lenses that I had for coverage after I got my camera converted - http://www.vimeo.com/5039428

thanks for the suggestions, it sounds like the standard thing is no reply. i told a few people i'd let them know either way so i suppose i owe them an email. it feels a little weird not getting back to people but i guess in the scheme of things they probably have lots of auditions going on and my project isn't as big a deal to them as it is to me!

Do you send a rejection letter to actors who audition but did not get a role? If so, what is the tone and/or do you have any sample text?

the nice thing about being DP it seems to me, is if the movie is a stink-bomb, the director takes pretty much all of the damage while the DP can sweep it under the rug. But if the cinematography is beautiful then you still get your DP props. I have directed as well as DP for others and it is definitely a tricky relationship. Luckily I've never had any major creative problem, but I start to get annoyed when the director hasn't planned the day well enough and time is being wasted. People are wandering off, setups are taking forever, etc. After the 14 hour mark when you feel like you could have easily been done in 2 hours - it gets really frustrating and it's very hard to keep your mouth shut!

Well, again the director is quite happy and the extra work in post is a small trade-off for the price. I was mainly just curious because the footage is fairly consistently in color, assuming I shot the gray card I figured that would be balanced out during the transfer. now I know not to assume that will be the case. the conclusions I'm drawing are a ) don't trust any floro bulbs and b ) my local lab is worth the higher cost thanks again everyone.

costco or sams club are great places to get bulk stuff for cheap. I don't personally ever have the time but I have heard about friends who cooked a home meal for the production. cook a great rice dish or something, or hire a friend who likes to cook to be your craft services person. instead of buying pre-made veggie trays, buy the veggies and cut them yourself. there's no rule that says you have to order pizza. there are lots of ways to save money, they just require more labor so it's a trade-off. good luck to you with your production!

to think i had some minus green sitting in my light kit too. i didn't dream that desk light used for decoration would turn the whole room green. i was even hitting the lampshade with tungsten to make it seem like it was the primary source so not much light is coming from that actual bulb. it sure didn't look green and i figured whatever tiny effect would get balanced out with the gray card too - i guess i shouldn't assume that anymore. i can't say for sure about the contrast except that i was playing with hard light on the actors, trying to get interesting shadows and let some things go black. i've been experimenting with 35mm stills and extreme lighting situations so i may have been pushing my comfort zone a little bit. The meter numbers looked good and it looked amazing through the viewfinder so i'm a bit disappointed in the results. but i did some correction on those frame grabs in photoshop and its going to look pretty good in the end. thanks a million for the advice, as always it is greatly appreciated

well i should say that the director is quite happy with the shots and has no problem correcting them, and I also think they will be fine after correction in post. it was the most affordable transfer the director could find for HD so certainly nobody is complaining, rather i'm just curious to know if you might have expected different results? i normally have used a local lab who are not the cheapest but they always deliver really nice colors, so perhaps I'm just spoiled by their service? Without going into every shot, we shot on 7217 w/ tungsten lights for most of it and did shoot a gray card for every setup. Saul you are correct there were warm fluoro practicals but i was a ) surprised a 30 watts lamp would so completely tint 2k of tungsten and b ) that would have been corrected out. I might have expected the practical to look radiate a tiny bit green but not to totally tint the room. The practicals also look whiter than the rest of the room which would seem to indicate that was not the source of the green. Am I making really bad assumptions there? i'm not so experienced that i thought the footage would be perfect, but i was expecting it to be a little more neutral.

I'd appreciate any opinions on these stills from a transfer that just came back: http://jmharper.blogspot.com/2009/09/warpa...creenshots.html I was a little surprised to see the footage dark and green. It's not a major deal to correct but it made me curious what others expect during a transfer - would you expect your footage to come back looking exactly as it was shot (ie if something was a bit underexposed and not 100% color balanced). Or would you usually expect the lab to adjust that stuff within reason? I don't have the negative so I can't say what the footage really looks like. I don't have enough experience with various labs to know what the standard is. Thanks for any thoughts.

thanks borris - i talked to bernie about it and he said pretty much the same thing, the internal ACL parts were hand-tuned at the factory so they don't usually work as drop-in replacements from one camera to another. i don't plan on attempting it!

thanks guys. if i may ask a follow-up - are resin filter still glass with just a cheaper coating, or are they actually a more flimsy gel material? all of my other filters are glass so i've never actually seen a resin one. if it's a gel material i probably would rather just save up for the glass.

Having spent entirely too much cash the past few weeks, I've been hunting around for a bargain on ND filters. I've gotten ridiculous deals on eBay in the past but there don't seem to be any steals coming up. My search led me to this place and I was wondering if anybody had experience with some of these less expensive brands like HiTech? Also, any thoughts on Resin vs Glass vs "White Water" Glass? http://www.2filter.com/4x4camerafilters/4x4ndgraduals.html Thanks!

there's a lot of different type of fluorescent lights, but the most likely answer is that the footage would have a slight green tint (due to the florescent) and would also have a blue tint due to using tungsten film w/ lights that are more daylight. if this is your only light source, just make sure to shoot a gray card and the lab should be able to color correct so your footage looks fine. if you want to get the best image possible on the film w/o relying on color correction you should check the bulbs and find out what color temperature they are. then you can use the appropriate filters on the lens if necessary to get everything balanced. if you also have daylight coming in through a window then it gets a little trickier because you have two light sources of different color and so the lab would have to correct for either the daylight, or the florescent. i've shot both of these situations going to great lengths to color balance and then also just shooting without even bothering to do anything. the lab was always able to get the footage decent, though if you mix daylight and fluorescent light usually you'll get some green tint that you can't get rid of, however it may not be a big deal depending on what you want.