Jump to content

Stephen Williams

Premium Member
  • Posts

    4,651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stephen Williams

  1. Hi I have a local guy who is trying to sell 5 400ft rolls of ektachrome 7250 for real cheap.Lets say ...less than $100. They said it was tested for fog and there was none.

    Its probably not in the best condition since its an old film ,but I thought for that price it would be cool to experiment with.Espicially since I have been wanting to shoot some stuff with a "70s" look.

     

    Think its worth it?

     

    Hi,

     

    First find out if your local labs will process the film and how much it will cost!

     

    Stephen Williams DP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  2. with a wide lens , wide open you will be soft!

     

    Uh oh! I just shot a scene with the HS mag tonight with a 9.5 lens open to a 2. I hope it won't be too noticable... :/

     

    Hi,

     

    If you were shooting a close up it should be OK its further away the problem shows up.

     

    Stephen

  3. BUT I did have one job where something happened and focus was off, and when I brought my camera to Arri in Blauvelt to check things out, they recommended not interchanging mags. So do it at your own risk.

     

    Tim

     

    Hi,

     

    ASAIK the flange depth is different by about 10 microns, so with a wide lens , wide open you will be soft!

     

    Stephen Williams DP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  4. I was looking at the Kodak website.  I just wanted to see if I was understanding everything correctly. 

     

    From what I understand incident light meter readings are based on a 13% grey instead of the 18% that a reflective light meter is calibrated to.

     

    Hi there,

     

    A spot meter pointed at a grey scale may well give you a different reading to an incident meter for that reason. Hovever I use a spot meter to measure the contrast in the scene and then decide where to place the exposure based on how I want the image to look.

     

    Stephen Williams DP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  5. also, just to be clear, a 1 light transfer means that they will transfer it exactly how i shot it right?

     

    thanks.

     

    Unfortunately not! It means they set up the first scene to look O.K. to their eyes and roll the machine. If you wanted a moody scene they would probably lift it to 'normal'. Its not the same as print 25-25-25 and don't help me!

    Ideally you need to put a grey chart, grey scale or color chart on the front of the roll and ask to grade to the chart!

     

    Stephen Williams DP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  6. Question: IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO DO AN ANAMORPHIC TRANSFER (as opposed to full aperture/ letterboxed) ON S16 FOOTAGE? 

     

    I have read a few discussions about this, but am still a little confused. This is for a short film so I'd probably send DVD screeners and present it in festivals from a digibeta or beta sp tape.

    My thought was to telecine the footage anamorpic and crop it a little more in FCP to 1:1.85. By squeezing to anamorphic like this on the digibeta tape I'd preserve more resolution and quality than a letterboxed version.

    The colorist at the lab promised me that anamorphic transfers do not crop any part of the image. It just squeezes it in and I can unsqueeze it later in post. So, I should have the same options as far as repositioning framing when I crop to 1:1.85.

    I haven't done it, but I understand I could then make widescreen DVDs that would come close to filling a 16x9 screen (only a tiny bit of letterboxing as I'd be 1:1.85) and which would also automatically add letterboxing on 4x3 screens. Also, if I ever needed a letterboxed version for Digibeta or Beta SP I could just render out a letterboxed version from FCP.

     

    So, am I wrong about something here, or is there really no reason not to transfer S16 footage anamorphic? If understand things correctly, the only problem would be I couldn't do a timecode burn in on the anamorphic tapes. But, I am new to this and could be missing something here. The tranfer is tomorrow, so PLEASE help me out if anyone out there can. I'll probably spend around $10k of my own money on this project and I really don't want to make a costly mistake so soon.

    Thanks ahead of time for any help!

     

    Hi,

     

    I always try to transfer 16x9 Anormorphic for 2 reasons:-

     

    1) I don't wan't the editor to correct my framing.

    2) I wan't to use the maximium resoloution available from the tape. This also helps if one want's to take stills from the tape.

     

     

    Stephen Williams DoP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  7. Thanks for the replies.  I can't believe I underexposed it, but it could be possible.  I didn't think high speed should have anything to do with that, sounds ridiculous, but thought I would ask.  I was rating at 400ASA already.  Anyway, I'll check the neg.  Thanks.

     

    Travis

    Hi,

     

    What telecine did you use?

    What noise reducer if any did they use?

    Could you post any frames?

     

    Stephen Williams DoP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  8. 3perf saves film because it only uses 3 perfs per picture, instead of 4. Meaning that you save something like 30% or so on film stock, Telecine, processing, ect.

     

     

    good luck.

     

    Hi there,

     

    You won't make any savings on telecine at all! The running time will be longer! The only place you save is film + processing. Camera rental may be more expensive as only a few companies have 3 perf cameras.

     

    Stephen Williams DoP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  9. Hi,

     

    but as is so tiresomely common with film equipment it seems that the only way to get to a professionally usable system is to spend very, very large amounts of money. Low end video cameras have competent viewfinders; a PD-150 has a better viewfinder than that SR.

     

    Phil

     

    Phil,

     

    Most of the 35mm I shoot is with Mitchell's designed in the 1920's. They are totally usable and professional. The latest video assist or eyepiece doesen't have any effect on the film! I can see how the scene is lit with my own eyes, I don't need a monitor for that!

     

    Stephen

  10. Yeah, sure it wasn't perfect, we're still working a lot on the mini35, practice more cinematography,... but it was a hell lot of fun and a great human experience. Like we did for "Marla." (Just Facts: another guide to digital filmmaking), we're going to publish a new PDF guide based around the new mini35 and HDV workflow (from capturing to final output). It will be available on our website in the soon-to-be-online blog.

     

    www.theblacksheep.be

    info@theblacksheep.be

     

    Hi,

     

    The video looks Fantastic!

     

    Hope your pdf includes info on building the mini 35! Did you spin or shake the ground glass ?

     

    Stephen Williams DoP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  11. Hi,

     

    Riiight, I get it, you have to spend £1200/day on the camera package to get a usable viewfinder! Wonderful. Can I have £500,000, please?

     

    Phil

     

     

    Phil,

     

    As with Panavision modified HD cameras, the best cost more. You don't need expensive viewing systems but as a cameraman if you want one its available! A 1920's unmodified Mitchell has quite a bright "Viewfinder" arrangement. However if you want to look through the lens, use high speed stock, video tap and T8 on a 20+ year old camera it may look dark!

     

    Why 500,000 gbp? A 435 costs less than 1/5 of that !

     

    Stephen

  12. Hi,

     

    > With a video camera, you're looking at a crappy

     

    Not as crappy as most film cameras I've used!

     

    > (usually B&W)

     

    Unfortunate, but you do have the option of looking at a colour monitor externally, which you don't with film. I consider the exposure information much more valuable.

     

    > teeny tiny

     

    Most film groundglasses are not 1.5" across.

     

    > substandard quality

     

    No, really good quality; what on earth do you mean by this?

     

    > monitor after the image has been electronically interpreted.

     

    I'd rather see it after it's been "electronically interpreted" if that's what I'm going to get on tape; that's the whole point! Film cameras "interpret" the image photochemically and don't even tell you about it, which of course is the problem!

     

    Phil

     

    Phil,

     

    Go to a rental company and check out the viewfinder of an Arri 435 with Cooke S4 lenses. The built in video assist is fantastic too! (I know its 35mm and off topic!)

     

    Stephen

  13. I'm looking for a full set of Super Baltar Super Speed lenses with a PL mount. I will also consider purchasing these lenses individually.

     

    Please email me at: markth@mac.com

     

    Mark Thomas

     

    Hi,

     

    I think you wil be very lucky to find any with a PL mount! I have only ever heard of 1 set. The cost of rebuilding the lenses would be very high.! If you wanted BNCR or R8 no problem!

     

    Good luck,

     

    Stephen Williams DoP

     

    www.stephenw.com

  14. Hi,

     

    Yeah, but they don't own the Eastman Kodak company, Technicolor Labs and Thompson/Phillips, which is the other half of the equation, yes?

     

    A film camera is half a device - less - without the film, lab and transfer equipment.

     

    Phil

     

     

    Phil,

     

    Keep a low shooting ratio, 8:1 and you can shoot a 30 second commercial on 1 400' roll of 35mm! I often have to work like this and then I can shoot 35mm for a tiny premium to DigiBeta!

     

    Stephen

  15. Hi,

     

    I have no idea how people insure it - the possibility of a moment's carelessness destroying the whole thing at a stroke is more than I can put up with, certainly.

     

    The viewfinding arrangements are ridiculously primitive. Apart from the tiny issue that you've no guarantee that it'll see what you see, even down to little things like focus and framing, it doesn't tell you anything.

     

    My camera doesn't go "Skrink.... skrink.... skrink.... " and "trrrr" when it's running, causing consternation to the sound department.

     

    The handholding arrangements are user-hostile. It's hopelessly unbalanced, and the handle on the one I had wasn't even long enough to wrap your whole hand around. After a three-minute take I was in serious pain. How is it possible to advocate a system where it's uncomfortable just to grasp the thing?

     

    Phil

     

    Phil,

     

    Before shooting, an insurance company will insist that the camera, all magazines, and lenses are film tested. The film is printed and projected. After testing the insurance co. is sure that the ground glass, focus marks , registration etc. are correct and the film does not get scratched.

     

    If we find a hair in the gate, the loader or focus puller makes a mistake, we can shoot again very quickly, at minimal cost. The crew has to admit their mistakes!

     

    I own a 25 year old Ultracam 35, recently the soundman said " Its much quieter than the Digibeta DVW 700 you used yesterday!"

     

    Some cameras are designed to hand hold, the Aaton XTR is far better than the Arri SR2 you used. Choose the camera best suited to the job your shooting.

     

     

    Cheers,

     

    Stephen Williams DP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  16. After a bit of crying and stomping my feet on the ground Optex have offered me 10%. (Which is quite a bit considering the total amount, although I don't think they could give a damn about my situation, that's just what they offer to everyone)

     

    I'm looking to put a maximum of £1500 into this project.

     

    So far, the amounts tally as this:

    Wide Lens Canon HJ9 X 5.5 (5.5-50MM) £195.00 Per Day

    Standard Lens Canon HJ 21X7.8 (7.8-164MM) £225.00 Per Day

     

     

     

     

    Daniel,

     

    I would just take 1 Zoom Lens!

     

    Stephen Williams DoP

    Zurich

     

    www.stephenw.com

  17. Is there a name for the device used in film and television whereby the camera withdraws from the subject whilst simultaneously zooming in (or vice versa), thereby keeping the subject the same size in relation to the screen, but altering the amount of background in the shot? It's usually used to denote a sudden realisation or shock on the part of the subject, and looks great.

     

    The easy way to do this is now is with motion control. In the past the camera was on a dolly with a zoom lens. The opposing moves were done by hand. This effect was first done in `Vertigo' and copied in 'Jaws' and many others.

     

    Stephen Williams DP & MOCO

     

    www.stephenw.com

×
×
  • Create New...