Michael Nash

Let's see -- long focal length, light weight, and fast. Hmmm... not asking for much, are you? ;) For that speed and focal length range I'd suggest the Angenieux Optimo 24-290mm. But think twice about doing handheld with it. At least twice. Are you really going to be doing 200mm handheld, or will you have time to switch to a shorter/lighter zoom for the handheld stuff? Not too many zoom choices that cover the 200mm range. In addition to weight and speed, pay attention to minimum focus on your candidates also. For primes look into the Nikkor 200mm.

http://www.mldvideo.com/News+Resources/Rat...'s+ASA.html It's also been discussed many many times here on the forums.

To avoid flicker with 50Hz. lighting you need to shoot 24fps at with a 172.8 degree shutter angle, or shoot 25 fps with a 180 degree shutterangle. If it's 60 Hz. lighting you should be safe at 24fps and 180 degrees.

Yes. Maybe a better definition would have been: Latitude: margin of error for exposure. Usually expressed in + and - values. Dynamic range: total range of light values the system can capture. Usually expressed in total values.

Latitude is the amount an image can be over- or under-exposed and still yield an acceptably "normal" looking image after color correction (and/or processing, in the case of film). Dynamic range is the range of brightness a system can capture, between solid black and solid white. People often use the term latitude when they're talking about dynamic range, which leads to all kinds of confusion. A camera that claims to have "11 stops of dynamic range" can capture some detail in a gray card between roughly 5+ stops under- and 5+ stops over-exposed (give or take, since the over- and under-range rarely match). That doesn't mean that the camera has 11 stops of latitude though, because you can't recover any highlight detail in an image that's 5 stops over, or shadow detail in an image that's 5 stops under. In that hypothetical system it's more likely that you've got about + or - 2 stops of latitude.

Are we talking latitude or dynamic range? They're two completely different things.

Bullet time (aka time-slice), not slow motion bullets.

I don't see anything too out-of-the-ordinary going on with the lighting. The pic you posted does have sharp shadows, which can be achieved with the units you mentioned or even a fresnel far enough away. Other shots on his portfolio have soft shadows, so I don't think it's all about the unit. What is unique here is the contrast. The face is a little overexposed yet the chin/neck is completely black. You'd expect to see a little return on her jaw from the hotspot on her left shoulder, yet there is none. I suspect they've done something with the film or post.

You're talking about two different things. A 25mm lens from a 16 set will have the same field of view as a 25mm lens from a 35 set (more or less; there are some manufacturing differences noted in those other threads). But A 25mm lens on a 35mm camera will have a field of view twice as wide as a 25mm lens on a 16mm camera. The focal length is the same, and projecting an image onto the film at the same distance. But since 16mm film is only half as wide as 35mm film, it can only "see" half as wide as the 35mm film. Cover up half of the 35mm frame and you've got the size of the 16mm frame. If you cover half the frame, the field of view is half as wide.

People have tried all kinds of thing for one reason or another. It's been my experience that for 16mm 24fps usually won out, because the whole point of shooting 16mm instead of 35mm was to save money on film stock. 30 fps uses 25% more film.

Well 24p is still a huge improvement toward the "film look" compared to 60i, even when viewed on a 60i monitor. Since every TV show, movie, commmercial and music video you've seen that was shot on film is displayed this way, it only makes sense to start there (shoot true 24P and apply 3-2 pulldown) if you want the same motion rendering. It's just that 30p can offer some other advantages when the project doesn't have to go to film or PAL conversion, and doesn't look significantly different as a result. Long before 24P video came along I was involved (as were others here, I'm sure) in shooting commercials on 16mm at 30fps instead of 24, specifically for the percieved increase in sharpness and reduction of grain. Now in a real world sense we know that the image isn't actually any sharper, but the result was a silky-smooth and glossy look that made the film look a little less like 16mm and more like 35mm, if only because the grain went by faster!

It sounds like you're equating 30P to 60i, which isn't really accurate. I think 30P is much closer in look to 24P than 60i. When viewed on a 60i monitor I think the difference between 24p and 30p is extremely subtle. You may notice a tiny bit of difference with fast moving action or fast pans, but for more "normal" motion you'd probably barely notice any difference, if at all. It's a very subtle qualitative thing. The advantage of 30P in a 60i environment is that it can allow a 1:1 frame ratio for compositing with no possibility of mis-matching pulldowns between elements. The drawback is that it doesn't convert well to 24P if you ever need to output or display at that frame rate. If you shoot 24P and are doing a lot of compositing you would want to either do everything at 24P and output the final composite if you need 60i, or else live with the subtle artifacts of mismatching pulldowns between elements. There's one way to know for sure -- shoot some tests. You may be surprised how subtle the difference really is. In the end, you get to judge.

For the first part I'd say the visible difference is the distance and complexity of the light sources (including ambient light bounced off surfaces). In short, it the real outdoors you've got a big mash of light from all directions and all distances. On a stage you don't have those distances, and lose some of that complexity in the ambient light. But that's not to say you can't create convincing outdoor sets on a stage; it just depends what variables you've got to work with. Nighttime scenes should even be easier to fake on a stage unless you're lighting by moonlight, because you can justify the sources being closer and the natural ambience is much darker if even visible at all. As for the barometric pressure thing, I'm no expert there but I would think the density of the atmosphere and the particulate matter has a lot to do with it, especially as seen over a long distance. It's not your eyes, but the medium the light's passing through. Just a guess.

Are you sure RSG wasn't shot on video with studio cameras? To create a vintage video look you'd probably be better off shooting on video, where you have more precise control over the contrast and gamma curve. I think overexposing AND pushing double-x is going to blow out your highlights, and the clip you showed simply didn't look that uncontrolled. The contrast was actually quite mild. I was camera operator on a Sum 41 music video where we needed to recreate the look of the "Solid Gold" tv show from the 80's. The DP initially wanted to shoot on vintage tube cameras, but I talked him into shooting with more reliable (and matching) modern cameras (Sony D-30's & Beta SP). We gave up the "comet-tailing" artifacts in favor of more control, and went with nets and start filters instead. Matching the set design, coverage and camera movement goes a long way to create the illusion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMUcy7wjtvQ

Any groundglass adapter will cost you a little sharpness. Some are better than others.

I can't speak to its "truth" one way or the other, but here's an exploration: http://www.adamwilt.com/HDV/cineframe.html

No, you don't. The 16mm frame is half the width of the 35mm frame, so the same lens will give you a field of view that's half as wide. You need a 25mm lens in the 16mm format to give you the same field of view as a 50mm lens in the 35mm format.

It's a cinematography reel, not a movie trailer! Story has nothing to do with it. In fact, there shouldn't even be a story to distract the viewer from what you want them to notice, which is the unique qualities of your photography. To that end, there are some cool shots and interesting looks, but the whole thing needs to be tightened up. Many shots are on the screen far too long. Put it up there long enough for the viewer to see it, and move on. Also, don't repeat similar shots. If we've seen one closeup of a guy with a moustache against a blow-out sky, we don't need to see it a second and third time. Focus on the shots that show something visually interesting like composition, lighting, or camera movement, and don't get caught up with the content. Some shots need to go -- the traveling MCU of the guy picking up the gun off the table didn't do anything for me visually, but the CU of putting the gun back on the table did. There's some nice-looking stuff. Cut it down into a more stimulating montage by focusing on the most graphically strong images.

I thought SD DVD's could be either 24P or 60i. 24P on DVD may be stored as 24PsF and re-interleaved on playback for all I know, but isn't it still 24 complete frames without pulldown, not 60i NTSC? The DVD player inserts the proper 3:2 pulldown for display on a 60i display, or de-interlaces 60i material for progressive display (if selected), right? I've created 24P timelines and had to encode it as such with Compressor for the DVD to play properly on both a computer and a standard NTSC player & TV. Otherwise, you turn your 24P into 60i with pulldown and output it that way. Similarly, DVD's of feature films usually play back with a 1:1 frame ratio and no interlace artifacts on my computer, while other DVD's of film material stored as 60i clearly exhibit pulldown and interlace artifacts.

Dax, I'm sorry you had such a tough time of it, but the one thing I noticed was missing from your story is what skill or service you brought to the game. You get hired because of what you can do for someone. No one's going to give you a job just being a "body" in the office or on set -- you have to have something to offer if your want gainful employment in return. Maybe you just omitted it from your post, but I think it's a detail worth pointing out to people in Niki's position. Offering to do "anything" just tells your employer that you have you have nothing special to offer. Even if you are willing to do anything, take any job, you still have to convince your prospect that you have what they need. A "survivor" with a head full of gray hair isn't going to be given a job unless he has a skill to offer. The more skills you have the more points of entry you'll have. The better your skill, the farther you'll go in any endeavor by beating out the competition. Niki; Brush up on your skills. Take some classes. Go out there and create some demo or reference material for whatever it is that you want to do. It's not about what you get, it's about what you give that defines success. Give first, and you'll "get" in return.

Not just that it looks "unnatural," but that it makes it look like video. I'm all for doing new things with new technology for expressive purposes, but in this case the "video look" of a slow shutter distracts from whatever effect they were trying to create. Just my opinion.

You're selling yourself, and sales is a numbers game. It takes a certain number of "no" answers to get one "yes." And it's a BIG number at first. With time you learn how to better qualify your prospects to increase your percentages. Keep at it.

You really have to test it yourself to determine how much is "enough" and how much is "too much." What's right for someone else here may be totally wrong for you. Fortunately desaturation is one of the few things that leaves the least amount of artifacts when done in post. If you go too far with your in-camera techniques you'll have a bear of a time putting color back into the image in post.

It doesn't have to be fisheye to exhibit barrel distortion. It's a matter of "degree" (no pun intended) :P I was thinking of the Century 6mm which does distort, but just a little.

If you're showing 60i material on a progressive scan monitor, won't you always have interlace artifacts? Can you even burn a DVD as 29.97 "P"?