Jason Hinkle RIP

You can stand far back from your actor and zoom way in to frame up your shot. The DOF will be more shallow the more you zoom in. Probably sacrifices some image quality, but I do this on my cheap digital camera sometimes. You need a tripod to keep the image still while zoomed in really far. Otherwise, ND filters let you shoot at a wider aperture which makes DOF more shallow. Of course buying a Letus or RedRock DOF adapter is an option too.

I have a color AZ Spectum on one of my ACLs. I don't notice it being too much darker than my other camera with no assist. But I also had the ground glass cleaned and laser brightened so that could make a difference. I like having it a lot. If you plan to get a super-16 conversion do that first because otherwise you have to send it back in after the conversion to have it realigned.

wow, those shots look really great. Do you have any clips posted? I just had a good laugh because I looked in my FCP plugin list and the Neat Video demo was already in there. I gave it a 2nd look and noticed the "options" button that takes you to the advanced settings screen. Definitely more powerful that I had though on first look.

good point, i think there's some lights on the projector for the power switch. i suppose making a rewinder like you did and using a changing tent would be a decent option too. thanks again for the info!

Awesome - I love the DIY solution! I may have to try that myself. I thought about using my projector's "rewind" function too. Some of those 200' daylight spools would be perfect for the ACL, I much prefer the using 200' mags.

Thanks everybody for the response, well knowing what a camera conversion cost, it seems unlikely the projector would be very affordable. i suppose i can just watch with the edge of my footage cut off or maybe try to widen the gate and see what happens. at least projector are cheap so it wouldn't be a great financial loss if i ruined one.

I know this question has been asked before, I'm sorry, I can't seem to find it. What equipment do you guys use to re-spool your film? Is there a special machine for doing that or do you have access to a lab? I've been wanting to make some 200' spools as well. Thanks!

I recently got my camera converted to Super-16 which is fantastic. Before the conversion I used to shoot my tests and just project a work print instead of paying for costly telecine. Now I can't do that anymore on my R16 projector which is a bummer! Are there any projectors or viewers that work with Super-16? Of course I don't really want to spend a fortune. Thanks for any suggestions.

If you want areas of the frame to go dark then you can also light up the subjects brighter than normal so the relative light difference between the bright areas and dark areas is more extreme. Use barn doors and stuff so that very little light gets on the dark areas. Meter off of the bright areas. As far as overexposing, I don' t know, people much smarter than me say to do that, but I usually just go with the recommended settings for the film. As far as messing with the gray card exposure - all you are doing is basically fooling the telecine operator into adjusting your shot incorrectly. As people suggested, without doing tests you are really taking a wild guess at how it's going to look. The operator might see your shot, think you just botched the gray card, and adjust out your colors anyway. Another option is to just give the lab a good camera report and write on there "leave in red colors on shot xyz" or whatever and then the operator will be helping you to get your look. Here's some extreme light/dark examples. These were metered off of the lights so as you can see the darks are completely black. (These are kodak 400 still film, btw, but same basic concept) good luck with your shoot!

i was actually checking all of those lenses for vignetting, i'm not sure if that was the right way to do it? I just got my camera converted so super-16 so i was trying out all of my lenses. Aside from the part where I was messing with the iris, they were all at f5.6

I just shot some lens tests on 50D and I really liked how easy it is to use in the sun. Here's the footage - http://www.vimeo.com/5039428 - boring test footage but you can see what 50D looks like anyway. I shot some more stuff in overcast and shady areas and it looks awesome. In some other shots I experimented with pumping up the brightness in FCP and it responded very nicely - the image seems loaded with detail. On the flip-side, I was stuck with only Vision3 500T on a super bright day for one exterior shot recently. I put all the ND filters I had and closed the the lens all the way - it still wasn't enough. The footage came out very grainy with a slight flicker due to obviously way too much light. It luckily was rescued in post, but I wasn't happy with it. It did also have a very raw, gritty look to it so I can imagine the a higher speed could work if you're going for an edgy vibe. I wouldn't personally go with Vision3 in the sun again though, maybe the 250. The 50D is very smooth and pretty by comparison.

I shot a kinda random sampling of lenses that I own to test for S-16 coverage. With the exception of the first 8mm lens they're all fairly cheap c-mount. notably cheap is the Cosmicar 12.5mm which I think I paid $35. each lens is slated & i had the lab scan the full frame. http://www.vimeo.com/5039428 the biggest problem with most of these lenses is the sense of inadequacy that i feel with them mounted on my camera as they are really tiny and cheap looking! i'm sure any 1st AC would love pulling focus on a quarter-sized lens as well. one interesting thing is that the 25mm and 50mm showed serious vignetting through the viewfinder, but here in the scan i don't see much. i probably could have gotten more scientific, but this seems like a decent real-world test.

forgive me if you already know this, but using color correction filters (blue, orange, etc) is for when your lights don't match the type of film you are using. the advice of always using a blue filter indoors probably assumes that you always use "D" (daylight) film. if so, this rule of thumb will generally get you acceptable results. the good news is that film is pretty forgiving and the lab can correct a lot of stuff for you - the rest you can usually fix on the computer. but if you want the best results, it's a good idea to read about color temperature. here's a decent article that shows you what type of filter to use under various types of lights: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Guide-to...emperature-4804 have fun with your nizo!

yea its the c-mount version. i originally planned get one of Les Bosher's PL mounts, I have one of his Nikon mounts & it's solid as a rock. But this one came up on eBay with the lens for a good price so I snagged it. it seems like it's made out of some lightweight aluminium or something, but it actually feels really solid. I don't know if I were to put a big honkin' telephoto on there, though. my wife says that the camera is my little doll that i like to play dress-up with. sadly the analogy is apt.

Thanks :) It's a PL adapter from Visual Products with an Optar Illumina 8mm lens. I actually just got it this week and I'm pretty psyched to try it out.

Does anybody know much about the ACL CP motor and how it compares to the ACL heavy duty motor? I know the CP only goes up to 48fps but supposedly pulls 400' mags. I was wondering if one of the other motor is preferable for shooting. Also how do they compare for repair and maintenance? I'm trying to fill in some info on the eclair16 site motor page, so if you don't mind i may summarize whatever info i can get. on a side note, does anybody have a pic of an old ACL "original" motor, the type that was not recommended for 400' mags? thanks!

I have one of the $359 cine city matte boxes w/ rod support: http://www.thecinecity.com/tcc/home.php?cat=270 it works fine, however the ACL lens must not be mounted in the "standard" position because every matte box i've tried is a bit off to the side and not high enough. i was able to make it work by flipping the rod support mount upside-down, but i still have to kinda pan the camera just a tiny bit to get the lens centered in the matte box. it works but i would not really say it's ideal. i also have an old matte box and rod support from a redrockmicro M2 (see pic). that one, again, i had to build a little riser to get the matte box up high enough and over to the right (i just fashioned the piece using the metal from a coffee can, and covered it with gaffers tape for a super-cool look :-) i haven't had the pleasure of working with one of the really high-end matte boxes so they may have better horizontal/vertical adjustment.

thank you! looks like i will have to figure out what to do with the hot-pink gaffers tape that just showed up from my ebay order, hehe. (was supposed to be orange)

i've seen on the set gaffers tape colors used to signify the type of film loaded into a mag (daylight, tungsten). i was wondering if there are official industry standards for colors of gaffers tape - or is this something you usually just work out based on what color tape is at hand?

i've made tons of loops for multimedia projections. if you have anything with design or actors in the frame, it is very tough to match the end points and make a seamless loop. there are tons of tricks, though. i would try to do something like: - start/end with a fast pan or camera move - start/end out of focus - start/end with a shot of a wall, the ground or any other solid-color surface. - start/end with somebody's back filling up the whole screen (ala hitchcock's "rope") also, if you're editing digitally, a slight dissolve will help make it totally seamless. hope that helps!

look in the paper or local trade magazine see what kind of jobs for producers are available in your country. also, go try to meet some people in the business. call some companies and introduce yourself and ask your questions. that is what producers do anyway - they call people, make arrangements, make deals, etc. financially, it is tough to get started in tv or film. it sounds like it may be even harder in your country. if you really want to be a producer, though, you can make it happen. if you love your work, then you will be happy even if you don't make much money. good luck to you!

Thanks for posting this Robert, I really appreciate it because I haven't shot on all these stocks so it's nice to get a look at them as well as the processing changes. I'm curious, do you work in a lab or have somewhere where you can experiment with different processing techniques?

To answer your question about film, in simple terms, you just send it to a lab where they develop it and transfer the footage to a digital format that you can use on your computer. Of course, that is simplifying a lot of technical details. If you reply with your price range and a little info about what you want to do, I'm sure that people here in the forum can recommend a suitable camera for you.

great looking shots! i think you could go anywhere with it in post because the colors look neutral. that lightswitch will be fairly easily fixed with a matte since it's square. i really didn't notice the lighting at all, which is obviously good - it looks natural.

Does anybody know anything about this manual? The only info I have about it is the cover. Do you know what cameras it applies to? I'd like to scan it for the eclair16.com site for all of us to have access to, but it's kinda over-priced on ebay. i want to make sure it's worth having first. any info would be helpful - thanks, j