Sean Emer

Do they even make non-4k professional cameras anymore? The bmpcc is all I can think of, but that's pretty old by now.

It's been a few months but last time I did anamorphic on helium I believe you still had to set it down to 6k or so. Using the full height of the helium sensor for a 4:3 record would exceed most anamorphic image circles and waste data.

That's about as far as I've gotten as well haha. I gaff'd a feature earlier this year that was running these zooms on a helium @ 7k with no noticeable vignetting, and it looked fantastic. The posted numbers just make me very skiddish despite my anecdotal experience. Thank you for the reply and the link to the other test!

Has anyone tried the Sigma Cine zoom lenses (not the primes) on the Alexa Mini when shooting open gate? Would like to know if it vignettes, and if so how badly. Haven't been able to find anything definitive online, and I won't be able to test in a rental shop for a week or two.

What macro lenses are available that would match well with an optimo zoom? I'm looking around the rental houses and pretty much only finding the canon 100mm, which I don't think would work well with the angenieux.

I figured it was just my perception re-attuning after watching the crazy stuttering blur effect during the seizure sequence. After that, just about anything would look butter smooth and video-like.

Thanks for the hasty replies guys. I generally stay away from diopters as I've lots of aberration issues with them in the past. I've not used the Master Diopters so will have to look into that, thanks for the tip. The shots will be product shots, but we're also looking to do docu-esque b-roll of the environment. That's why I thought extensions might be best, so I could just pop them off and go back to using my nice lenses. It seems like this will come down to the ratio of shooting and my lens budget...

I'm in a toss up right now deciding whether macro lenses or extension tubes are the better bet. I don't plan on doing any racks from macro distance to non-macro distance, so I'm not sure renting macro lenses is worth the cost vs using an extension tube. I haven't shot in this scenario though for close to a couple years. Anyone have any ideas or tips for getting sharp, crisp macro work? How much does an extension tube limit your focal range? I vaguely remember getting a couple feet of room when I last put one on a prime lens, but I'd rather defer to you guys. Camera will be Dragon, probably shooting either Angenieux zooms at best or a small prime set (no idea which yet).

Can somebody explain to me exactly what the difference is between a regular Tiffen filter and a "WTR/WHT" Tiffen filter? They are more expensive, but I can't find any documentation or explanation on what that designation actually means. I feel like this is obvious and I should know the answer, but I can't figure it out.

To Doug: Hello, sir! It's been a while... I'm glad to see you on this site as well. I'll have to talk to George more... he was the first person I went to. To John: It is an incredibly old camera, don't worry :) It does have a videotap attached to the front of the viewfinder, not on the opposite side, so both of them use the same optics as far as I know. Again, I have trouble visualizing how the tap could project an image onto the film if it only receives one when the film is covered. The director is, as I am now realizing, on vacation... so that explains why he never answered my messages. Once he is back we will get this whole thing sorted out. The film is on Long Island, and I am in New Jersey. Hopefully I'll be in LA within a year or two. Maybe then I'll have to buy you a drink to thank you for all the help!

Thanks for sticking with me on this one John, I believe the problem persisted whether we had the mattebox on or off. I would have to check the camera reports that are, of course, with the ocn, but I think it may have been specific to one or two lenses, the 50mm and maybe a slightly wider one. What I have trouble understanding is how it could have been a problem in front of the shutter if I didn't see it in the viewfinder. I think your telecine idea may still be valid, as I recall that during the transfer he zoomed and panned our negative area to fit framing references i had marked at the head of the first roll. So, its possible that the offscreen objects were recorded on the film, but not directly seen in the telecine. Of course, if it was the telecine I would have expected to see the error more often. The mystery continues... still waiting for the director check the ocn. Thanks for the support so far, I like this site more and more every day!

The example is only one instance of the problem. It happened in other shots as well, some of which weren't transferred. It was definitely caused by offscreen objects. In one instance, a bright red minivan was just off screen to the top right and a mirror image of it fogged the top right corner. Every other reflective problem occurred in the lower right, but was caused by the same offscreen bright object.

Excellent idea! I was there for the supervised transfer on a DaVinci in the city, so I assumed that whatever problems we saw were our fault... it never occured to me that they could have messed something up. I'm not in the same state as the OCN right now, but I'll ask the director to take a look. I'll report back soon(ish)

Tom, it was an Arri IIB, Zeiss Superspeeds, and with no filters.

Thanks for the reply, John. We shot on an old Arri IIB with a rented set of Zeiss superspeeds. The camera we still have access to, and we checked the baffles around the gate, all of which were intact. The lenses came from a rental company that we can contact if needed. Did you mean the shutter, or are you saying that the actual groundglass is reflecting light onto the film? I don't understand how that is possible since when the film is being exposed the groundglass won't receive any light because the shutter is open. We did notice during the shoot that when the lens was pointed at very bright objects I could see a small amount of ambient light inside the gate when the shutter was open (and the groundglass was staring past it into the gate itself), but it was a diffused light, probably from the highlights bouncing around 30 year old not-so-matte material. I can see how this might cause a fog, but not an image. Any ideas?

Got footage back from my first 35mm shoot. Exposure, focus, framing, etc. were all spot on, but we did run into an odd problem. For some shots, bright offscreen objects were mirror reflected as a mild fog in the lower right part of the frame. Has anyone seen something like this before? It was not apparent in the viewfinder while shooting, which initially led us to think something might have been wrong with the gate... but we can't shake the feeling that this must be a lens issue of some kind. Below are links to a still frame and a short clip of one of the shots. Thanks for any help! Still Frame Video Clip

Place the ski mask guys in front of your brightest trees. You don't need to light their faces extra IMO because there's no need to 'see' the mask. Overlighting their faces risks your continuity with the unmasked person. I could be wrong, but if we can see their eyes and mouths all you need to do is separate their outlines from the background. A 1K or maybe a tweenie with some CTO and straw splashed against the trees would probably be all you need, depending on the size of your fire

Thanks for your post David. The problem I have with DPs here is that they overexpose by .5-1.5 stops but they DON'T print it down. Most of them don't give any notes at all for the lab/colorist, and only one film I know of has ever had a supervised transfer. The film I'm starting work on is a hardcore film noir, but the director insists on using color negative stocks. He says he doesn't want B&W or any type of reversal (color or b&w), but wants it to be noirish. So far I've planned for steep, 6 stop lighting ratios, lots of hard light, and consistently underexposing by a stop with instructions to the lab to push it back up. If my readings here and from CML are correct, this will bring the colors down, boost contrast slightly, and increase graininess, right? You can see why I'm so worried about this having seen all of these stocks come out so flat in the past. It doesn't help that the directors here transfer to COMPOSITE DVCPRO25 for editing and finishing. Would it be more effective to grade before transferring, or to do it in post? Sorry for all the questions, but I am very curious and I want to make sure I learn some good things on this shoot.

I'm still in college, finishing up my third year. I've worked on about 20 16mm shorts while I've been here, mostly gaffing, with a dabbling in the cinematographer's seat. There is so much latitude in film (the stocks I work with are 7205/17/18/19 for the most part) and yet every director wants to have a rich contrast in their film. I also notice that they rarely if ever color correct in post, let alone grade the actual film at the lab. Most of my reel is still in HD, but I love the potential and aesthetic of film, and that is where I want to be. The biggest question I have after constantly lighting for it and then seeing the results is as follows: How can I shoot on a high-latitude medium and come out with deep contrasts? I've been told by the better cinematographers who have now graduated that in order to achieve good shadows I would need a 4-6 stop contrast in my lighting, depending on vision2/3, respectively. However, on nearly all of my gaffing jobs I found the DPs to only ever venture as high as a 3 stop ratio between key/fill, front/back, or whatever the contrast areas in the frame were. Better yet, most of the stuff that comes back looks, well, FLAT. What little contrast there is tends toward overexposure more than underexposure. The solution seems obvious: higher ratios in the lighting. And yet, on nearly all of my locations I find that it's very difficult to achieve those ratios. There's so much spill from lights just bouncing around inside even dark-walled rooms that it is a never ending battle to get anything more than 3 stops without blasting the subject(s) with an ugly hard fresnel. Is negative fill from blackcards, duvy, solids, etc. the answer? How do you guys get these ratios? Does color grading really make the difference between these student works and the professional stuff shot on the same, albeit better resolution, stocks? Many DPs here also overexpose consistently by 1 stop. They say it is for better contrast and color, but I think they do it just because the old DPs told them to. I really am confused. I know I could sort this out with test shoots but come on lets face it, I'm in college and I can barely afford the film and processing for my own work, let alone tests. Any info related to latitude, contrast, and aesthetic differences from overexposure, underexposure, pulling, pushing, etc. would be extremely helpful to me and the students I work with!