Rik Andino

Johnny Depp loved it... he was talking about it in the Once Upon...Mexico junkettes Neve Campell said she like working in HD too Jamie Foxx also said something about the comfort of HD But I'm serious many actors love the fact that you can do more takes (I dunno if that's a good thing but...) I'm just stating that many actors liked it (not just the famous ones) Am I wrong? Do actors hate HD? I dunno, I dunno I'm just a little man--if is the middle word in life :)

If The DVX-100a is the only camera you can afford Then I don't think you'll be able to afford to transfer to film It's just realistically speaking... :huh: You don't have to be pessimistic but just be realistic (something many new filmmakers lack)

Wow dems alotta questions One You do need a sliding bridge-plate for the follow-focus rig And for certain matte-boxes. If you have a clamp-on matte-box you won't need rods Last I heard the Arri MB16 isn't a clamp-on matte-box. However I recommend using the sliding base-plate Because it'll help you balance the camera easier It tends to get very heavy with the M35-adapter and all the other accessories Two You can put a zoom on the adapter But I'd get extra support for the lens--support rods will help Because the adapter isn't the sturdiest thing around And I wouldn't recommend hand-held with the zoom on. Three Get a good production monitor that can be calibrated and adjusted As for calibrating it, leave the WHITES ALONE! You adjust the brightness using the three black bars at the bottom right of the color bars... There are tips on this forum on how to do it properly Also check this link out http://www.videouniversity.com/tvbars2.htm Four I recommend using a steadicam The XL2 with the Mini35 rig tends to get bulky And handholding is uncomfortable... You can do it but it'll start to bother you soon enough. Second the adapter (last I used it a year ago) isn't sturdy enough It loses calibration quickly especially during handholding. I dunno what others feel about it But personally I find the whole P+S technik Mini35 adapter To be very cumbersome and not production ready And worth too much money and hassel for what it accomplishes. But with that said Good luck

You can shoot a film with Natural lighting But it's gotta be EXT. Day You can also shoot with available light But it'll usually not look too great These questions (tips on lighting) have been asked before And have been answered numerous times by most of us Answered to death...! :o DO A SEARCH You'll find something. If you need answers to a more specific question Then ask it and someone will tackle it. Seek and you shall find. GOOD LUCK

Well many big Hollywood Directors are fans of HD George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez, Steve Buscemi, Michael Mann (to name a few) They don't care about price so they might rent it. Many Actors and Producers are also falling in love with HD So it might be used more on big studio sets The Director could justify that HD will bring out better performances Than shooting on Film and the studion would do it to appease the stars. Also Television is perhaps the biggest HD market out there... Panavision could easily dominate the Television market That seem like a very lucrative idea to Panavision. I don't think Panavision is that interested in the Indie Market Who's best option still is Super16 (which can look better than HD) Not many people are that interested in the Indie Market. HD is as expensive a format as 35mm, I still don't see it that affordable. And Panavision is poise to make a killing and maybe revolutionize the industry.

You can also just place the camera somewhere And allow the actors performance to shine (or explode whatever they're doing). Of course this doesn't work if you're actors are mediocre. Mood is usually best conveyed by composition (and editing of course) Than by adding to the lighting-->most DP opt for a natural style of lighting Rather than a stylistic (or expressionistic style of lighting) Go over the Actors blocking with your director And dicuss with the Director (and the editor can help too) The best way to capture the action. (People often forget how important rehearsing, planning, and preproduction Are to the final image of the film.) Good Luck PS What is IMO?

I know dude They're like a Mitchell type coaxial mag (probably the predecessor of the 35BL mags) They're 1200' not 1000' they only make 'em divisible by 400 They're for the 16M But they do fit and work on the 16BL but they f**K up the drive gears Something about the torque or some other technical variable (At least that's what I've been told...never had the guts to try them Actually never really use them seen them up on a shelf though) They sell 'em at visual products for $600 http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProduct...&Cat2=38#bigPic They did make a strange magazine for the 16BL http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProduct...&Cat2=38#bigPic Looks like a early model of the SR magazine... PS Nathan I've been trying to contact you, seems you're awfully busy I'll call you one of these see you around, take care

It's hard to find any manuals for the 16BL Since it's been over 30 years since they've stopped making them And the 16MB is even older, so you might need to search long and wide Try to check ebay regularly some folks sell reprinted manuals for like 10-20 bucks An auction comes and goes here and there from time to time I did a search in google (it's not that hard if you just try...) And these sites came up they're very good http://www.cinematechnic.com/resources/arri_16bl.html http://emrl.com/resources/film/technical.html http://emrl.com/resources/film/camera/arri_16bl.pdf About the Blimp housing for a Zoom... Well most new Zooms won't fit on a 16BL So you might have to purchases an older Zoom Or have a specially made Blimp for it-->will be expensive I know the Ang. 12-120 is very popular with the BL Although not very popular with filmmakers And it'll fit the standard 16BL zoom blimp You can check this site here: www.visualproducts.com They have a couple of products for the 16BL They sell a blimp for prime lens for a few hundred bucks. If you search long enough you'll find something-->Good luck

My filmschool professor had (probably still has) a great answer For most of those if I do this and I do that will it work question... SHOOT A TEST I recommend you test out the Nikon lens with the Zeiss And test out the Schneider with the Zeiss and see which one you like. The Zeiss 10-100 T3 does breath a bit but so does the Ang. 12-120 So you're options aren't that great, but do the best you can If you light it well and you compose your shot you'll be able to get good images It'll look better than Mini-DV regardless of the lens As for using SLR lens on a Movie Camera it depends on the camera I know that the Aaton cameras are able to handle Nikon lens I dunno about the Arri's or Eclair Anyways good luck

Is this a serious question? :blink: It's the championship game for the NFL (National Football League). I do have another question to tack on to this thread Does NFL Films hire it's own people from it's headquaters in the East Coast And then send them all around the US to shoot the games, Or do they hire local cameramen (& women) to shoot the games? Is it a permanent job like working in a television studio, Or is it a contractual per game job? Do the cameramen have to have their own equipment or is it provided? I'm just interested in knowing what it takes. Combining film and football might be something I might want to do Except for the days when it's really F**king cold Anyways that's about it. Superbowl gonna suck this year there's no team to root for-->GO JETS, next year

The X-4000! WOW where can I get one? Can I shoot a $5000.00 no budget feature? :rolleyes: After squinting for so long (the goddamn picture is so dark) I conclude (what every-freaking-body else concluded) It's an Arri 16BL with a 1200 mag Funny thing is the 1200ft. mag weren't made for the 16BL They were made for the Arri 16M And although they fit the BL since both have the same mag drive Folks are warned not to use the 1200ft. mags on the 16BL Because it'll ruin the magazine drive gears...but it seems these folks didn't listen B)

I understand & agree with that statement, I believe that a good cinematographer Can make great images with a crummy Super 8 camera or a cheesy VHS cam Cinematography isn't about the format it's a skill It's about composition and lighting and using the visuals to stress an emotion So all these heated debates over which format is better Seem like just another argument over which end to crack your egg Film has great aesthetics, but so can digital They're both different But some folks like blondes and some like brunettes (and some like 'em both) It doesn't matter if ultimately you're just trying to tell a story. Choose the best way you want to tell your story... Some folks will like it and some folks won't (like Collateral) It doesn't mean its bad--just that some folks ain't like it. Ultimately we're all storytellers and we should keep that in mind

I guess the nose grease thing might just be another of those wives tales... Being part of Quebec does seem a tad frightening But isn't as bad as being lead by Dubya... You know after hear the State of the Union address tonight... F**K IT, I don't mind if you annex--> PLEASE ANNEX US!

Just pulling yer leg about the whole 15 thing You Canadians need to be a little more loose About the Nose grease (or nose oil or whatever the oily substance that builds up on yer nose) I was taught by my professor way back in filmschool To dab a bit of nose oil on the pressure plate for a smoother movement Anyways I didn't and don't usually do it And I've not worked on a K3 since like 5 years But when I did and when I didn't I noticed no problems either ways So a good question to ask is this a good principle? Or some old wives tale my professor believed in (I've seen some AC's doing it and some who don't...I dunno) Anyways that's just basically it...I should learn not to ramble

The Zeiss lens is by far superior to the Ang. 12-120 In fact most people believe the 12-120 to be the worse Ang. zoom lens around If you got some money I'd recommend the Canon 8-64

The first & last person to blame is always going to be the director The writer can be bad at writing scenes But the director ultimately chooses how to do the scene And the end result (which is what most of us see) Is determined more by the director (and the editor) than the writer. So don't blame the writer. Secondly Actors can be to blame here too I've seen good actors make bad scripts somewhat believable And I've seen bad actors destroy good scripts (although rarely do you see bad actors destroy great scripts) The Actor is responsible for giving a good performance no matter the words Good actors can do that bad actors can't But ultimately the Director is responsible for the Actors and everything else So a bad movie is the Director's fault. (Or sometimes the producers...but that's a whole nother thread

I would recommend getting a wide-angle lens for the INT. CAR scenes Something between 8mm-10mm It'll give you a wider angle of view and make everything less shaky I dunno why you need to use 800T film I wouldn't even recommend using 500T film I'd personally recommend using 250D for most of the shoot It'll cover the EXT. shots well enough For the INT. CAR I'd get some ND9 for the car windows for the interior shots And maybe renting a Mini KINOFLO kit to light the INT. CAR I dunno what kinda car rig you're doing but there are many ways to do one I used a sticky-pod (stickypod.com) and some rachet straps for my LTR once It worked okay was sturdy enough (but I was scared to let the car go fast) Some guy showed the car rig he did recently on the forum He used gobo arms & heads with suction cups and rachet straps Anyways there are many ways to go just look around Shooting inside a Car is simple just find innovative ways of doing the coverage And figure out what to do about the drastic difference in light levels Inside the car and outside the car

You should try getting a subscription to American Cinematographer Check out their website they might also have back-copies on archives That they sell to folks interested in certain movies. www.theasc.com/magazine/

Your best bet is to read the books But I'll give you the quick overview Motion Picture Film unlike Video won't show you immediately what you're shooting (one of its disadvantages) So you gotta develop it (just like photos) to see it So you gotta decide how to expose it From the knowledge of the lens, the film ASA, and the amount of light available (If you've ever done any photography this would be easier to explain) The Film ASA is already rated on it (it's can be anything from 250D to 800T) Now what you need to know about lens is the amount of light to let in For your case I'll make it simple--> Just look at the T-Stops/F-Stops Adjust the F-stops accordingly to get the right exposure A light meter measures the amount of light falling on a subject/area Or sometimes the amount of light reflected from the subject/area It either reads it out in foot candles or more practically in F-stops So you place your Film's ASA on the light meter and then measure the light You get the f-stop you need Adjust the lens to that F-stop and there's your exposure It gets more complicated down the line when you learn to control exposure But for your level this'll do. I usually recommend for people in your level to try to go to film school Just getting advice from an internet forum and reading a book isn't enough Sometimes you need a couple of classes from experienced professors And you need to collaborate with students in your level to get better. Few things are worth more than a good education.

Well you can always write the script and make it sometime down the line Or you can sell the script and have someone else make it Everyone has ideas but we don't always get it made I got into film making when I was a little older than you (Jesus I sound so old) To make my ideas into movies And all I've been doing is making other people's ideas And that happens to lots of us Jesus maybe that should change

You forgot to put a little bit of nose grease on the pressure plate :) PS I'm not a mathematician but dunno if 15 is a round number

So you're saying story is more important than image? So that means that all these argument about the better format are overshadow by the argument: Is the cinematography more important than the story?

Well DI can be simpler if you're doing alot of Digital FX in post And these days most movies are

Many of the shoots I've worked in the DP usually doesn't do steadicam work Instead they pay sh*tloads of money to have someone else do it. Sometime a Steadicam operator is hired to DP as well but this is rare And the situaions are usually in special low budget shoots trying to save cash. As for spending your own money I second the advice of not doing it. DON'T SPEND YOUR OWN CASH It doesn't ever help you to do free work and then laid hard earn money into a project If you're afraid that the producer will see you as inexperienced Then you have to ask yourself are you capable of doing this job. If you know you're capable then don't worry about it Just be confident and if anybody gives you lip inform them you know what you're doing And then prove it with you work. Besides how much hell can they give you You're working for free for them (And take it from experience deferred payment is usually for free)

Yeah (if I remember correctly) the light lost is a small problem. I haven't shot with a Bolex since filmschool (like 3 years ago) But If I remember the way to compensate for the light loss Is to open up a 1/3 of a stop (which is already a good thing to do on film). Yeah the bolex beam splitter viewer system was always a problem You should also always remember to close the viewfinder when not viewing thru it Because light can hit the film through the viewfinder. And you should get a reflex model 1) They are newer than paralax models (which are over 40 years old) 2) You can see exactly what you are shooting 3) You can shoot CU (Close-ups) correctly 4) You can focus by eye 5) It only cost a little bit more I really recommend the reflex model And I think most people would also Paralax is an antiquated method not suitables for todays fast moving productions