Frank DiBugnara

Thanks...I appreciate the help.

I am in need of a company to ingest some HDCam SR footage and deliver it to me on a drive as 4:4:4 QuickTime files. I've had a few places in LA do this, but am looking for some better rates. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks......

That's interesting because I was saying to myself that I had not noticed any film weave at all for some reason last night. Even when text was present on the screen (when weave is most noticeable) I did not perceive any. The projector must have been very well-maintained, etc. I did notice light flutter once during the film when there was a large amount of white in the frame. I guess the thing I was most distracted by was how good anamorphic origination looks. I'd look at textures in the frame, dynamic range and it kept pulling me out of the film and I'd think to myself --"dang I've seen a lot of great images on the big screen lately, but I have not seen anything that pretty in a while". I guess I need to get to the theater more often.

I guess I don't get to the theater as often as I should. It has probably been a while since I've seen a film projection of anamorphic origination. Even though this went through a DI, I was reminded just how good anamorphic looks. This reminds me that there are a lot of films that look "good" and even look "great" but with I all the other formats out there now, it is easy for your eye to drift and forget just how amazing anamorphic looks. Looks like the DI was 2K. I'll need to somehow find a way to see an anamorphic film with a purely optical post path projected somewhere and remember what that looked like.

I just caught Adam last night. I noticed some variance in contrast in the print I saw. The whole thing seemed a little dark, like the final film-out pass was just a little too dark. Also, some scenes seemed very high-contrast with crushed blacks. (But I must say it was GREAT to see Cousin Larry again after so many years---even if for a short scene!) Just wondering what it was shot on and what the post path was if anyone knows. Thanks.

This has been mentioned in passing in past posts, but I'm looking for a definitive answer on the issue of blue filters. We know that the daylight-balanced RED sensor can get noisy when forced into a tungsten situation. If I am in a situation where I am stuck in a tungsten world and feel as though I have the stop to take things at least part way to 5500K, which filter would be best? Has anyone else opted to do this? Thanks.

I just wrapped a commercial last week and we have some left over film. The film was delivered to us last week (3/10/09) and has been kept climate controlled since we got it. Here's what we have: (1) Roll 1000 Feet 5205 250 Daylight FACTORY SEALED CAN Kodak Price: $611 Our Price: $440 (1) Roll 1000 Feet 5205 250 Daylight BRAND NEW RE-CAN Kodak Price: $611 Our Price: $300 (1) Roll 300 Feet 5205 250 Daylight SHORT END Our Price: FREE with purchase of above rolls We'd like to get these sold ASAP to get our client some of his money back. These prices are significantly less than the quoted prices from the Los Angeles-area used film re-sellers. Please respond to: frank@veritaspictures.com This is PERFECT stock and an opportunity to save hundreds of dollars.

I wanted to see if anyone can recommend any RED workshops. Specifically: 1) A workshop for an experienced film/HD shooter with a hand full of RED shoots under his belt who wants to have a more solid and formal foundation with RED and learn about the camera's nuance. 2) A post workshop for a post production team to attend, learning about work flow, etc. These would preferably be on the US west coast. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Actually, Matthew, since the 416 came out, the SR3 prices have come down. So the selling price would actually be quite a bit less than that. That really makes this camera a great value, especially since none of the improvements introduced by the 416 impact the image in any way---only functionality.

I have decided to sell my SR3 Advanced complete Super 16 package. I love the camera package, but I have decided to put the money into a film project I am developing. I purchased the camera from Arri in Munich in 2005. At that time I purchased a brand new IVS. I take excellent care of it, maintain it regularly, and it is in great shape. Here is a link to a web photo gallery: http://www.veritaspictures.com/clients/WO/...H006/Camera_Web Here is the package list: SR3 Advanced Camera Body Zeiss 12-120mm Zoom Lens T2.4 Integrated Video System (Color/Flicker Free) (3) 400' SR3 Time Code Magazines Eyepiece Extension with leveling rod Complete Arri MB-16 Matte Box System LMB-3 Light Weight Matte Box Complete Arri Follow Focus 3 System Microforce Zoom Control/Heden Motor Oppenheimer Handle/Hand-Held Option 25' Microforce Extension Cable Arri Sliding Base Plate Right Hand Grip 24V 18ah Block Battery with Charger (3) On-Board batteries with Dual Charger Lens Light If you are interested, please send me an email: frank@filmblu.com

Thanks, Will. Yes, shortly after I posted yesterday I thought to call Tyler and we spoke at length. We had a great conversation and I will definitely be following up with him.

Sorry, I thought it was in my signature. I'm on the US west coast.

I'm putting together a budget for a 20-page short. I'd like to include the option to shoot on 35 and do a DI. I've read about several people's experiences with various DI facilities. Can anyone confidently recommend a facility in which you were at least somewhat satisfied? Thanks.

Yes, I will ship to Canada. Please send me an email if you are interested. Thanks.

I have (5) Sony BCT-40SR HDCAM SR tapes. They left over from a project I just finished, brand new and in perfect condition. I am selling them for my client. We paid $80.00 each for the tapes. We are selling them for $50.00 each. Please send an email to: frank@filmblu.com if you are interested. Put "HD CAM" in the subject line. I am in Arizona...we will pay for domestic ground shipping. Thanks, Frank

I'd go with G Raid. I've used many over the years and they have never once let me down. They come highly recommended for video because they are built with the video applications in mind. The "pro" line has built-in redundancy. http://www.g-technology.com/Products/G-RAIDpro.cfm

My shoot is in Arizona, and to my knowledge, there is no true Pro-35mm adapter in the State. I'd like to avoid bringing one in from out of town. There is, however, a P+S Tecnik 35mm adapter here locally. Any opinions on or experiences with this adapter in comparison? I don't know how many speed settings it has in contrast to the Pro-35 infinitely variable GG speed control. I'd like to shoot with shallow DOF. I'm considering using the Angenieux HR 25-250mm T3.5. This lens is a bit soft for my taste when I shoot film, but it is fast (in comparison to Primes) and fits in the budget (there's an Optimo in town at double the price). Any thoughts on this lens used under these circumstances?

I have an upcoming commercial shoot on the HDX. Final output is standard definition for broadcast. I had a few questions: 1) Since the camera's chips are 720 and the 1080 is a result of an internal upconversion, is there any advantage to shooting in 1080? (I think I've heard people say that the situation is similar on the HVX where a side by side comparison yielded little difference between the 720 and 1080 setting.) 2) If I shoot in 1080, can I still digitize the footage via Firewire into FCP with FW 800 drives as I can with 720 DVC Pro 100 footage? 3) Does anyone have any thoughts on a Pro-35 adapter interacting with this camera? Thanks

A few days before my last shoot, I found out I was not able to smoke a few locations. So I decided to bring in a set of Smoque filters. There has been some talk of these lately so I thought I'd post some side by side comparisons from my shoot. I always shot one take without the filter. Stock was 5205 and stop was about a 4. I had no ability to test ahead of time, so I played it safe. I had intensities 1 though 4. Even on a wide lens, a #1 (lightest) looked pretty significant in the viewfinder--much more significant than on film. I shot this scene at two focal lengths: Wide Shot was UltraPrime 24mm. I used a #2 on this shot: 24mm Prime with Smoque #2 Quicktime For comparison, here's another take clean with no filter: 24mm Prime No Filter Quicktime For the close up I switched to the the Optimo 29-250 at about 110mm. I assumed that the Smoque filters would behave more like the ProMists in that the effect would be much more pronounced at longer focal lengths. Because of this, I shot the CU with a #1. The effect was pretty subtle: CU with Smoque #1 Quicktime CU with no Filter Quicktime

Could someone elaborate on this? Just curious. I looked for reference to this on CML and could not find it. I shot a somewhat extensive 35mm/Red comparison test a few weeks ago. I'm waiting for the post house to give me 4:4:4 scans of the 35mm footage (which might take a while since I've asked them to thorw it in for free).

There is more noticeable grain/noise in an HD transfer because the HD canvas is so much bigger than the SD canvas. You are really "blowing up" the S16 image quite a bit in order to transfer to HD. As I understand it, a Spirit has both SD and HD outputs that are then fed into the DaVinci and then to the tape deck. What I'd like to understand is why after I take the S16 to HD footage and downconvert it to SD in my NLE (or take an SD SDI signal out of an HD Cam deck into the NLE), that the sizzle I've talked about does not go away when in SD again (small canvas). Something about the HD step in the post chain introduces this noise---noise that would definitely not be there if I had gone to SD in the first place.

Yes, grainless is definitely not always the way to go, but it is good to know that you have a tight, grainless option if you want it. The bothersome part is that at times what I've seen in the HD transfers feels more "sizzle" than a traditional graininess. I have just discovered this and am still looking into it.....It might not be a fatal thing for S16, just something I want to learn more about. In 35mm, you have the option in just about any distribution format to be as grainless or grainy as you want. I just want the same to be true in 16mm as it was in standard definition finish.

I wanted to try and start a discussion about 16mm transferred to HD. For many years, I have often touted the incredible performance of evolving T-Grain technology in Super 16mm. For stuff that is finished to SD video, S16mm (letterboxed) has provided an outstanding image for very reasonable production costs. I must admit, sadly as the owner of extensive S16 gear, that my last few experiences with S16 to HDCam on a Spirit has been a bit less than impressive. The HD just makes the S16 look too noisy and seems to bring out noticeable "sizzle" that is just not there in SD. These issues go away in 35mm. (HD also makes much more noticeable the difference between Academy and Super35 framing when going to video.) Interesting also, is that if you take S16 to HD footage and down-res it to SD, the added HD sizzle does not completely go away to nearly the point it would if one would just transfer to HD in the first place (on the same Spirit). Now, I understand why this is happening in S16. I wanted to get other people's thoughts and experiences with this. What does this realistically mean for the future of S16 in an increasingly HD broadcast world? I know that the reality is that S16 continues to enjoy a resurgence in recent years. How does this resurgence reconcile with the noise problems? Here's some footage from a S16 shoot that went to HDCam and then down-res to SD: S16 to HD Here's another clip shot on 7212, 100T. When going to SD, this would be absolutely grainless! Green Screen: S16 to HD For comparison, here's an old link I posted a while back with S16 to SD (the interiors in this clip were shot with the same stock and lens as the above footage): S16 to SD The differences might not be completely visible on the Quicktimes.

You can definitely digitally correct the equivalent of an 85 filter in transfer or DI. The reason many people are against this is because by not shooting with the 85, you are loosing some of your color correction abilities. The more "normal" an image you start off with, the more information there is to believably manipulate. Also, by shooting tungsten stock with an 85, you are looking at an unnatural orange image through the viewfinder. (Not a big deal, happens all the time, just make sure to be aware when judging colors, etc.) Also, there is the school of thought that every piece of glass you put in front (or behind) the lens introduces degradation, hence the ND/85 combos are a better way to go than a stack of separate 85s and ND's. The stock question is more subjective. The Vision2 stocks intercut so well together, that if you achieve a consistent, well exposed dense negative with the most appropriate stocks throughout, then you can easily manipulate the saturation to show change over time as you wish through digital color correction. Shooting 500T in direct sunlight could work, but I think you'll be fighting your self the whole time, and looking through a very dark viewfinder. I'd check out 5201....since it has so much more latitude and lower contrast than the '45 used to, it's a great option even in shadow.

I will be picking up a few last shots for an ad campaign in Italy (Rome) and Ireland (Dublin, probably) the last week of October and the first week of November. I have a few strong production contacts in Italy but none yet in Ireland. I'm looking for someone who can facilitate and coordinate location scouting, talent, crew, and equipment. We'll be shooting 35mm for about three days in Ireland the last week of October. I'd greatly appreciate any referrals or suggestions. Please send me an email at frank@filmblu.com with "Ireland" in the subject line. Thanks.