Frank DiBugnara

Can anyone at NAB ask about price point for this? Has anyone asked?

I hear this is at NAB this year. Anyone know anything about it? Or seen it? What is the recording device? www.red.com

It looks like a small BL-4. I read the description on the Fletcher site and can't seem to figure out what is going to set it apart from an SR3 Advanced. The description says that it includes more of the features that are found with Arri's new 35mm cameras, but I'm not quite sure what those might be. The SR3 Advanced already comes with a tap like that found on a 435. The viewing system is very bright on the SR3A and the tap seems to be getting all the light it needs. 416 only goes to 75 fps. And the SR3A does speed ramps and hooks up to an RCU, etc....Perhaps there will be a lens data system? Slate on film? With the 416 you still have to change the shutter angle manually. Perhaps it is smaller and lighter than the SR3? It looks like it is more quiet. Any difference in the film gate or movement for a steadier image? I wonder if this is meant to be a replacement for the SR3? Is the SR3 still in production?

Does anyone see any potential problems arising from shooting with an SR2 (body and mags) that has not been run in about a year? Scratch tests came out fine. I assume all the internal lubrication will "re-disperse" itself as the moving parts move again. Any other signs of malfunction to be aware of? Thanks. Frank Di Bugnara

Please help settle a question that has come up. Does anyone know if on the SR3 Advanced, even when shooting off speed (75fps), does the camera ALWAYS stop rolling when there is a roll-out? My other question is: If the camera does roll out and stop the motor and later on you try to roll again, will the camera roll with no film in it? I know these are specific questions...I'm trying to help out a friend with troubleshooting a problem. Thanks.

There's another nice option here in Arizona. A local equipment house here custom built a 12K generator--it is very very quiet and fits in the back of a pick up truck ir IN a grip truck. Very nice option--has worked out well for me on a few jobs. Please email me directly if you would like more information. frank@veritaspictures.com

I just noticed on Kodak's website that Vision 1 stocks like '77 and '79 are now gone? I must have missed this change. When did this happen? I'm curious as to the reasoning behind this. Did the Vision 1 orders plummet with the release of the newer stocks? Has it become too costly to manufacture so many 500T stocks, for example? As much as I enjoy the grain structure and flesh reproduction of '18, there was something so snappy and nice about '79. As a matter of fact, a lot of times in telecine, I end up enjoying the new benefits of Vision 2 while "forcing" back some of the characteristics of the Vision 1 stocks.

I'm shooting a commercial featuring a 70's game show spoof. The client is looking for an authentic 70's TV look. I'd like to propose we consider shooting with an actual tube video camera. Any idea where I can get a hold of one to rent? In high school I used what was then an old tube camera which was probably manufactured in the early 80's. Something from that era or earlier would be perfect. Please respond here or send me an email at frank@veritaspictures.com Thanks for your help.

Thanks for the info. Has anyone seen the trailer for Elizabethtown? Was there some quick DI work done on it? Why the strange noise, high contrast, and little dynamic range? Also, any special lab processes on Oliver?

Saw it on Sunday....I agree it was a great film. If you liked Oliver Twist, be sure to catch the 2002 Nicholas Nickleby--Amazing writing.

Please help us settle a lively discussion: Was Elizabethtown shot in HD? Was Oliver Twist shot on Fuji stock? Which ones? Thanks.

I've had perfect results with countless film shipments through FedEx. For good measure, I put "Film, Do Not EXRAY" on the box, but I've never had a problem. FedEx is nice because if there is a problem, they have a phone number handy to get a hold of the shipper. I have heard of problems with overnight services like FedEx when you request a non-standard shippment that forces them to use a plane other than one from their own fleet. For example, a same-day shippment or a Saturday shippment for a Sunday delivery. This forces FedEx to use other carriers where they can't guarantee exactly what happens to your package.

Thanks.... I think Skip Bleach is a good option--maybe reversal too. Also, if I just underexpose and push, wouldn't it be better to us an EXR stock rather than one of the Vision stocks? I'm afraid the Vision stocks are so good that the effect will be too subtle.

I'm shooting a spot on Monday and the client has started pushing for a "gritty look" late in the game. I don't really have time to shoot test. I was thinking of shooting EXR 500 ASA and underexpose one stop and push it one. I think I'd be fine with the higher contrast and somewhat less shadow detail. Any thoughts? Or other techniques that have been successful at achieving this look? I'm shooting Super16.

I saw the film this weekend as I did the trailer for King Kong. Each film provided a few "wow, I really am in love with film" moments when I experienced that sort of intangible magic of some shots where something about the image just blows you away. I was also reminded of HOW MUCH Spielberg loves to move the camera. Although I loved the look of the film overall, I too was distracted by the change in look throughout the film. I guess I was so used to the visual consistency in Minority Report and Saving Private Ryan. The differences in looks between scenes really caught my attention that I found myself trying to figure out "what direction is he going visually?" and "what does the change in look mean to the story?" The huge halo around the lights in the ferry scene again made my eye snap off the actors and right to them to wonder why they looked the way they did.

A great use of the technique is when the audience can't really identify the shot as being tilted, but yet experiences the psychological impact of a slight Dutch.

I, too, really liked the film. I was wondering, what stocks were used? Special processes? (I need to renew my subscription to AC!) Also, I kept wondering why I kept loosing my sense of geography during the fights. Was it that he kept crossing the axis or remained so neutral (straight on) that the angles did not help us identify who we were looking at. Both fighters had dark hair. One fighter would throw a punch in a medium shot and then just after the punch, he'd cut to a reverse medium and then off to a wider shot. There were times when I was not able to identify the subjects of the two mediums to see who punched who.

Tenolian, I think you are confusing the Look Manager System which allows you to preview the look of your film in pre-production with the 7299 HD system which is completely different. The big difference between the Look Manager System and Photoshop, of course, is that while Photoshop can technically achieve all of the looks that are output from the Look Manager System, Photoshop has no "understanding" of all the Kodak stocks and optical and digital post processes. Also, I would hope that the DP would not be asked to pay for the Look Manager System. That is a cost that should be absorbed by the production--or whoever is paying for the stock, processing, etc. A one-time cost of $1000 amortized over even just a few years worth of production ends up being something like $100 per production? I think my passion for this topic has less to do with the Look Manager System itself and more to do with the mistaken notion that MP film is quickly dying and that Kodak needs to apologetically beg us to help keep them going. Didn't David Mullen just post that "motion picture film manufacturing business is growing, not shrinking, at something like 10% a year" ? I just got done watching most of the online documentaries on the production of SW Episode III. I had to listen to one of the crew members talk about how, when shooting HD, you can watch the takes on big HD monitors on the set and not from a video tap which "tends to be black and white and on very small screens. The entire crew would have to be cuddled around one small black and white monitor if we were shooting film". Then Tattersall tells us that with HD you can take a lot more chances than when shooting film. He said that with film you have to be safe, and not play with the over-exposure latitude, for example, because you don't know what you are going to get. With HD you can be more risky because you see what you get." I could just picture a first-year film student watching that and saying, "gosh, I'd never want to shoot with that old film." Don't get me wrong, I shoot a lot of HD and love it for some projects...but let's be honest about the respective formats and the industry implications of new developing technologies.

I think the cost of the Look Manager System is all a matter of perspective. Those who think, mistakenly I believe, that film is going away quickly see Kodak as a company that needs to fight to keep film around. Then there are the countless others who see Kodak as a company that is providing an invaluable image that can't be achieved any other way. There have been dozens of projects where I would have been in a world of hurt if I did not have film available to take less-than-optimal circumstances and get an amazing image out them because of film's range and versatility. There is no way under those time and budget constraints that the most sophisticated HD technology of the time would have satisfied my clients. So from that perspective, I don't see anything inappropriate with a $1000 price tag for well-thought-out proprietary software that costs exactly as much as Final Cut for example. Final Cut is sold by the hundreds of thousands yearly. Film shooters are much more specialized and less numerous than people who want to edit. Kodak does not need to be apologetic; it is just making its imaging tool even more easy to use. 7299 is going after the portion of the new HD market, only part of which was taken from film--the rest being upgraded SD video projects. (Now, all that being said.... I was still trying beat up the Kodak Rep for a reduced rate on the software.... :)

I remember in the early 90's when smaller Hi-8 Cameras were replacing full-size VHS cameras, I actually preferred the full-size cameras to the smaller ones because bracing the camera on your shoulder can actually help with hand-held. That's why so many after-market hand-held adapters for DV cameras actually make the camera bigger and heavier. On the SRs, I've always like the right hand grip at 90 degrees to the camera's body--looks strange but feels right. Also, a small folded towel or other type of pad on your shoulder will make it feel a whole lot more comfortable.

I just got home from a one-day trip to Vegas. A few things interesting things: > Kodak not only announced a new film stock, it announced a new production philosophy. With the introduction of 52/7299, Kodak is going after a completely different kind of filmmaker. It is what they call a "no-look" 500 ASA stock. They don't even say if it is tungsten or daylight. The idea is that you shoot it under any and all lighting conditions, expose it normally, and then "apply" the look of other film stocks through the use of a proprietary digital box made by Kodak that your telecine house integrates into their system-- at no cost to them or you. This digital box allows you digitally simulate the look of any other Kodak emulsion as a starting point for a specific look. It is like shooting HD flat and then finding a look during tape-to-tape. The Kodak reps admit the obvious: they're going after the "on the fence" HD/Film shooter by reducing the knowledge or experience you need to have to get successful results shooting film. I wonder if it is going to work and I wonder what the reaction is going to be by the established transfer houses and colorists. I think it is going to really turn off the seasoned filmmaker, yet that is probably not a concern to Kodak since that is not who they are going after. My only fear is that people will now look at the output of this process and judge it as "the best that film has to offer". > I did not know that Kodak's Look Manager System is something you can actually buy and not just rent. The software lists for $1000. The Kodak rep mentioned that you can load it onto a Apple laptop and calibrate the display to meet Kodak's specs for a "true image". All you need then is a Kodak approved digital SLR (Cannon is one of 2 approved--I can't remember the other) and you have a complete look manager system! If you are using a CRT, you need to use Kodak's proprietary screen calibration system which involves both hardware and software. I got to use the Look Manager Software. The interface was more sophisticated than I expected. You can apply just about any spec to any part of the optical process from exposure to lab processes to the camera neg, IN, IP, Release print, and even a DI. > Arri announced the release of a new set of primes for 16mm. They are going to be housed in the Ultra Prime housing. (They'll look huge on a 16mm camera--and will probably only fit on cameras that were designed for PL mount from the beginning---excluding anything older than an SR3 in the Arri world. The housing will most certainly hit the viewfinder on an SR2). The Zeiss rep said this housing was used to reduce the cost by producing more types of lenses in the 35mm housing. The sizes do not match those of the MK2 set. I do not remember all the sizes but the longest is something like a 24 and the widest an 8 I think. They are set to be released in December and there is no list price yet. > The Arri-D-20 got a lot of attention at the Arri booth. Arri seems very sluggish in its development of the camera. They said there are only a few in existence--none in the US. They will not make the camera available for purchase--- only sales to rental houses. The final release of the camera will not look like the current prototype. They do not want to let anyone use it "until we feel it is ready". One of the techs did talk about an interesting technique to increase the dynamic range of the camera: Capture two successive frames with different exposure times. The first being "normal" and the second being taken at a faster shutter speed. The second exposure, which has the potential of providing increased detail in the highlights, can then be selectively luminance-keyed into the normal image so that any value over a given brightness in the normal image is then replaced with underexposed image to achieve greater latitude. He said the only time this is can cause problems is when there is very fast motion and the difference in the two shutter speeds is very obvious. A good use of this, he said, is wide shots of the sky where clouds traditionally loose detail in HD. > Band Pro had a demo of a super slow-mo HD camera that captured 1000 fps. The motion looked pretty amazing. I don't think I've ever seen anything captured that slowly. I did not get to ask what the color-flutter was caused by.

I have my SRII super 16 package on sale at Isaia and Company. The website is www.isaia.com and mine is item #915 under 16mm cameras. Prior to my purchase, the camera was owned by only one other owner: Panavision Canada. (It still has the Panavision logo over the viewfinder). The package is in excellent shape--I kept it on a good maintenance schedule. A very valuable feature I fell in love with is that along with the super16 conversion Panavision did, they added the SR3 viewing system which is significantly brighter than an SR2 converted to super16 with the original viewing system. Feel free to email me with any questions at frank@veritaspictures.com Good luck with your purchase.

Thanks for the info. It seems like the construction issues could be significant. Have these been resolved with the latest model?

Several people recommended Optar Primes as being equal or even superior to Zeiss. I've spoken to a few vendors and am seriously considering them. I think the optics are so critical especially in the 16mm format where you don't have all the added resolution of 35mm to pick up the slack of lens imperfections. Can anyone share any knowledge, experiences, websites or other information on Optar? Thanks...

On the 4th day of 4 all-night shoots, for various reasons all hell broke loose. The analogy of having a pistol to your head is a perfect one. I felt as though all the pressure to remain precise under the panic led me to be discourteous to the crew. I did not even get to say "good-bye" to the gaffer as the AC and I were grabbing one last available light shot at as the sun was coming up and he was leaving to get off the clock. I spent the next few days calling the crew to apologize for my terse nature on the set that last day. It's nice when an experienced crew understands what you are being put through. It was a comfort to hear the Key say "we felt sorry for you....did you know that you did 46 set-ups in 8 hours?"