Jump to content

Stephen Williams

Premium Member
  • Posts

    4,651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stephen Williams

  1. The choice is a very personal one. The Aaton XTR was designed for super 16mm. The SRI & SRII are just converted. A great deal depends who converted the camera and how much money they saved at that time! Both cameras will need regular servicing, allow USD2000 every 4 years, even with low usage. The Arri will stand rough handeling which is why its the first choice for rental companies. A well maintained XTR is probably quieter and steadier, than an SRII or SRI. Stephen Williams DoP Zurich www.stephenw.com
  2. ManyDP's don't operate the camera! They have an operator for that. They used to be called Lighting Cameraman in the U.K. The DP designs the lighting/look and directs the electricians and camera crew. Stephen Williams DoP Zurich www.stephenw.com
  3. David, 3 perf will save 25% on film and developing costs. The camera will make less noise and need less reloading. Only drawback is there are not so many to rent in Europe. Stephen Williams DoP Zurich www.stephenw.com
  4. I remember saying video is the future 25 years ago, but now I'm not so sure. I can still view films I made on 16mm, but the 2 inch video stuff is lost! Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman www.stephenw.com
  5. There is a Super 8 gate available for the Spirit Telecine, I have seen the results and was very impressed. Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman www.stephenw.com
  6. Daniel, There is a big difference between Vistavision 8 perf (35mm still camera) and Standard 35 Acadamy DOF wise. I have looked on Panavision's webiste as they have some very good comparison tools but not for vistavision. The best site IMHO for DOF related information is www.dofmaster.com The photo you show shows a very clever use of DOF. I think you would not be able to get such a creative effect with a small chip miniDV camera. Stephen Williams DP www.stephenw.com
  7. Douglas Slocombe never used a light meter, He won an Oscar for Raiders of the Lost Ark! I did a motion control shoot for him once. I did not dare take a reading! The labs phoned me and said "we cant print this film its so overexposed" well they did at 49-47-49 and it looked fantastic! I think he did not calculate we were shooting at 8 FPS.
  8. Daniel Was that a 35mm Stills camera? If so the format is about twice the size of Super 35mm motion picture image, so DOF will be less. You don't say how close? do you mean macro? Stephen
  9. Daniel, Often the DP does not want a descent amount of DOF! That is a reason to shoot wide open on 35mm or even on a bigger format. Playing safe is not what being a good DP (IMHO) is all about. AFAIK you have not shot with 35mm. I would not expect shooting at T1.3 to be in your comfort zone, as DP's get more experianced they take more calculated risks. Stephen
  10. Daniel, It depends on the object size you are filming, the exact 35mm format your using and the circle of confusion. (For cinema projection or for television) A head, full screen it will be under 20mm. On a person standing full height in screen over 1 meter. If shooting a wide shot in a studio, with a painted background it can be almost impossible to get the background soft. Being able to completly isolate the area of focus can be very useful tool to a DP when telling a story. Stephen
  11. Daniel, Not for Stanley Kubrick he wanted 4 stops faster! so he could film with just candlelight. Not Overlit. That was over 30 years ago. If T2.8 was enough why have Zeiss just brought out Master Primes at T1.3 the Ultra Primes were T1.9. Cooke S4 are a T2. If lenses just had to go to T2.8 they would be lighter and cheaper but there are many occasions when DP's shoot wide open on 35mm Stephen Williams Cameraman www.stephenw.com
  12. Phil, Remember John Alcott used O.7 lenses for Barry Lyndon some 4 stops faster than 2.8. Don't get me wrong, I have shot over 1500 days on Video, starting with tube cameras in 1986. I've earned more money shooting video than film, but I prefer the look of film, and when possible I get my clients to shoot film. Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman www.stephenw.com
  13. Do you really want to sharpen the image? The rose on her jacket looks quite sharp. Sharpening will bring out the lines on the girls face. Maybe next time you shoot you might want to soften the background. By wotking at f8 you have similar sharpness everywhere. I think the resoloution of an older Rank telecine is not comparable with a Spirit, but just adding detail will make the pictures more video like. Try turning off the detail on a mini DV camera, the pictures will look very soft. If you have some out-takes you could look at the negative with a magnifying glass and see how sharp the image really is, you might be pleasantly suprised! Stephen Williams DoP Zurich Switzerland www.stephenw.com
  14. Daniel, I own a set of Zeiss super speeds on an Ultracam 35. They open to T1.3. There is no possibility to match the depth of field at T1.3 on any 2/3 inch chip camera or smaller. Using Digiprimes wide open on a F900 is approximately equal to T2.8 on 35mm film. Stephen
  15. The CP 35mm camera was a rehoused Mitchell BNCR .Panavision also rehoused the BNCR as the Panavision PSR . Stephen Williams DoP Zurich www.stephenw.com
  16. Kevin, Not totallv correct. The difference between 35 and S35 it that in S35 the soundtrack area is used for filming, yeilding a larger negative giving less grain and less depth of field. You can crop either image as required. 3 perf also super 35 Stephen Williams DoP Zurich www.stephenw.com
  17. IMHO I must agree with David! I often shoot at T2 with Cooke S4's. They are fantastic wide open. The most I have ever stopped them down to is 2.8 ! I like limited DOF, thats one big reason to shoot film for now until big sensors are common. Stephen
  18. Phil, Try shooting reversal! Kodak still makes Kodachrome 7270, Ektachrome 7285 and 4 B+W films 7265,7266,7276,7278. A big advantage of film is a choice of film stock, this helps depending on what 'look' you want. Stephen
  19. Phil, I know DI is getting cheaper . But when film for projection is needed, a film cut and A/B printing is the cheapest option. Stephen
  20. I find I light film and video in a very similar way. I think its much easier and quicker to get a good result with film. The way I judge exposure is with a light meter and using experiance to interpret the reading, to get the look I want. I know just by looking through the viewfinder of a film camera how the film will look. Stephen
  21. You can shoot titles very easily for film:- a) put the titles on glass and shoot through the glass. Then you get the titles and live action in 1 Pass. b) wind the film back and double expose the titles If you have ever seen a Spirit telecine of 35mm film onto DigiBeta you would know that the benefits of film are seen on television. Thats why most commercials are made on film! If you really do want to shoot film why not get a Bolex and learn how to use it. If you just want to practice lighting the film look then buy an old manuel SLR, if thats too expensive then a Kodak throw away camera will work! It does not have to be expensive to work with film. Stephen
  22. I agree totally, it's a toy compared to 16mm. Stephen Williams DoP www.stephenw.com
  23. If quality is important NO. If you want to make a good home movie YES . Stephen Williams DoP www.stephenw.com
  24. You can edit film with a splicer and tape! I can't think of a cheaper way to edit! Stephen Williams DoP Zurich Switzerland www.stephenw.com
  25. Phil , The film can handle very high highlights and by using soft clips in the telecine much of the range can be transfered to tape. The sun highlights on the walls measured with a spot meter could well be 4 + stops over and if you can get some shadow area 4 under you will have a contrasty look. The white walls and ceiling in a small room will fill like hell. Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman www.stephenw.com
×
×
  • Create New...