Frank DiBugnara

I caught "Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont" tonight (long story as to how we came to see it-- my friend and I were the youngest in the crowd by about 40 years it seemed). I actually enjoyed it....anyone have technical specs: camera, lenses, stock? And "Hollywoodland" was one of the trailers. I'd love tech specs on that one too...some of it looked very stylized very diffused.

Hey Jayson...great to hear from you. Thanks for the advice. We're shooting near 6th street and Alameda. It's a Super16 job... (I don't think I have your current email address...are you going to be around next week? Going to CineGear?)

I had posted a while back asking who was going to CineGear this weekend. I'll be there on Friday until mid afternoon. Does anyone still want to meet up? Lunch maybe?

Next week I'm shooting a night exterior talking-head scene on a roof top overlooking the buildings of Downtown Los Angeles. The directors really want to keep moving the camera and actors to keep all the dialogue fresh. My strategy is to keep a nice mix of moonlight and motivated tungsten sources from the rooftop itself. Because of all the camera/actor movement, the role of the moon and tungsten lights is going to be constantly changing...an edge or backlight sometimes, a key at other times, etc. Can anyone suggest a film to watch where this type scene has been photographed particularly well? I hope to not mimic but get "inspired" by other people's work.

I'm looking to make some purchases soon: Zeiss MKII Super 16 Prime Set Century 6mm Prime Satchler 9+9 or 7+7 Head (Mitchell or Ball) Ronford-type Standards and Babys High Hat Niner Box for SR3 Advanced 24V Please contact me with any leads. frank@veritaspictures.com (please put "Film Equipment" in the subject as I get a lot of Spam) Thanks,

Cool. I've often described the SDX to people as having the ability to look like down-converted HD.

Well, I was referring strictly to the look of the show, not the content. I think a lot of it actually looked great. It seems like there is a lot of reality and multi-camera TV that is shot on HD but they do not go through the trouble to color correct as it appears they did on a lot of LCS. The bumpers looked especially good. So did the small and large venue. Perhaps the camera pre-sets were better thought-out. Psychologically, it is going to take some getting used to seeing a show like that in 24P. (That is where the 30i American Idol looks a lot more customary and natural). I still remember the conversations years ago after MTV was one of the first to broadcast the music awards in 24P. (Only to switch back to 30i in later years, I believe.)

As I was watching Last Comic Standing tonight (and the little voice inside kept asking: "Why does this look like a commercial or a movie and not like American Idol like it is supposed to?") ... I was wondering what HD system they use ...anyone know? The color correction on a lot of it looks great--much more elaborate than a lot of HD on TV.

Gino, You might want to keep your eyes out for the Zeiss lens that has been used on that camera. When I was a student I shot with both the Angenieux and the Zeiss and there is a world of difference between the two. I know someone in Arizona who has the Zeiss and might be willing to sell it...not sure for how much.

Andrew, You would want to do a registration test with the camera to test how steady the image. Most of what you are planning on tests the lens and not the movement of the camera. One of the real AC's on here can give you a good step by step on that but it involves running the film through the camera twice (if you can--does that camera take rolls of film or cartridge? Do they still make cartridges?)

Yes, most of what I've done so far (unfortunately) has been for telecine-- But good to know about consistency for print work. As a rule, I try to develop a general "over-exposure philosophy" for a scene, keeping in mind all the set-ups of that scene, and stick with it (if not, the producers would get upset about OT in the transfer suite.)--it is just that that philosophy changes sometimes from scene to scene.

Jumping in late on this conversation---One technique that seems to have worked well for me when deciding how much to overexpose for a dense negative is to keep in mind how much of the negative's latitude my shot is actually using. For example, if the scene is very flat (foreground and background in complete exterior shade with lots of mid-tones and no real bright highlights) then I might be more inclined to overexpose a full stop or so to get a nice tight negative. On the other hand, if I've got a spicy backlight at +2 stops and the background is looking out a window in daylight, etc, then I find myself more conservative in the overexposure, for fear of loosing detail in the highlights as I try for a denser negative.

I'm trying to convince producers to move a project to Los Angeles to take advantage of a great LA location (and a few other practical reasons.) What would be ideal: > A least a 30'x30' area > Roof-top itself provides some sort of character--perhaps old raised elements that are visually interesting > View off of the roof top is more than a black hole (night shoot) The director mentioned "lots of city lights" in the background > Does not cost a fortune (of course) > Would let us shoot all night--set up as sun is setting and wrap as sun rises. The project shoots on a weekday in mid-June. Does anyone have experience with such locations or have more ideas on where to keep looking? Thanks,

Well, I'd love to meet up with some of the people behind the posts. It looks like I'll be there on Friday only until about 3pm or so. How about lunch on Friday? I guess anyone interested can post here or email me directly: frank@veritaspictures.com

It look like I will be in LA for something else that weekend and will finally get to attend. Is anyone from the fourm going to try to meet up? Or will there be some kind of organized forum meeting or event?

That must be a tube camera. A year ago I shot a commercial where I was looking for a tube camera to give me a specific '70's look. I did a lot of research and with the help of some people on this fourm, found a way to rent cameras like that, but they are rare. I spoke to a few people: one was Chuck Pharis. His email is chuck@pharis-video.com I spoke to him on the phone and he is really a one-of-a-kind---full of knowledge. I'm sure he'd be able to tell you whatever you wanted to know about the camera and its value. Look at his website www.pharis-video.com Also, check out www.labguysworld.com

Miguel, I've been in Phoenix production for 10 years now...feel free to ask questions here or shoot me an email. I'll send you one as well. frank@veritaspictures.com

I have a converted SR2 and an SR3 Advanced. The SR2 has a wide angle eyepiece and an extension. The image looks exactly the same whether you have the extension on or not. When you first look through it, it is a bit troubling because you feel as though you can't see the entire image in one field of view. Your eye wants to move left to right to see all the edges. At first it really bothered me, but you actually do get used to it and don't notice it after a while. The SR3A has a much nicer viewing system...but the SR2 is plenty good. Viewing system is one of the big things the new 416 improves.

I'll be honest enough to admit I did that once: 7 years ago. We were shooting a music video the day before. I was directing and shooting and an actor crashed a $45K BMW on the set (it was borrowed from a friend of the producer). I was close to the end of my rope emotionally so in all the confusion the mags did not get labeled correctly. I was in a room with florescent lighting on overhead and I think the stock was a 200T single perf 16mm. I opened the door and saw 400 feet of film when I was expecting to see none. I screamed as if I'd seen a ghost and closed the door. As it turns out all that footage was usable. There was a little bit of red on one side of the frame. We did a little repo in transfer and it was fine. I had predicted that the results would have been much worse. On the Arri SR, if I remember correctly, on the take-up side the perfs face up. If that is the case (I don't have a mag in front of me) then the fact that the perf area took most of the damage really helped us out.

Just be honest and say that it is not important to talk about which is better because they are different. Everyone uses the painting analogy. You can paint a portrait with oils and water paints--both paintings, yet both different. What's important is to match the right tool with the right project...not only practically (budget, workflow, etc) but artistically (the look of the photography). Given all that, you can say that you really like the way film looks (and that Kodak and Fuji keep coming out with new stocks and that Aaton and Arri keep coming out with new film cameras). Nobody can fault you for saying that you prefer blonds to brunettes.

I shot a project a few years ago that finished to video (no film prints needed) on an SR2. I decided the best way to do the speed ramps given the circumstances was to shoot the entire shot overcranked-- (I think I ran it at 60fps) and then did the ramps in post. It was easy--used more film, but gave me total control over the ramps in post. I did not have to worry about exposure changes... or more important did not have to worry about the exact moment to begin and end the ramp relative to camera movement and action on the set.

Those are really good questions....but I think we really have to ask ourselves: how many people today demand an ArriCam over a 535? Think of all the work the 535 still gets, and how much they are still worth for that matter. I'm very impressed with what they did with the 416, and I think S16mm lovers can be particularly encouraged by money and R&D that Arri spent on it. That being said, it seems that in the past the improvements that Arri made from the SR2 to the SR3 and then to the SR3 Advanced (a redesigned gate/steadier image, variable shutter angle, speed ramps, etc) all served to directly impact the output of the camera -- while the 416 more indirectly impacts the output with things like more ergonomic design, brighter viewfinder, multiple Arri-glow colors, etc. It is more quiet (yet the SR3A is a very quiet camera). I do hope to get to get a test drive with the 416 when it comes out....

Talked to Arri today and they said the 416 won't ship unitl '07 and they are not saying how much it will cost yet. They also said that there is the possibility of a high-speed version in the future. I guess what they are showing in Vegas was described as a "proto-type".

Can anyone speak specifically to the differences between capturing from a DVCpro50 deck into Final Cut when comparing FireWire and SDI? I've heard different things from different people. Is there a difference at all? Are you throwing away information during a FireWire capture?

I thought I saw somewhere that the price point was around 17K. But I still don't know what the recording device is. It says that it is a camcorder which implies that the 4K resolution is being captured onboard. But how? The website also seems to imply that they are developing their own lenses? Gosh, what would this mean for the f-950? and every other high end HD out there?