Frank DiBugnara

Please send any leads on a good S16 prime set to: frank@veritaspictures.com thanks...

My pride and joy of five years is on consignment. I kept it very well maintained and it is in excellent shape. See pictures and specs at: www.isaia.com It is item # 915 under 16mm cameras. The last job she worked on was an Amreica West Airlines commercial. If any of you end up with her, please let me know.

Another thing that is easy to overlook when doing the split screen lock offs is lighting. You can be completely happy with the lighting when shooting the first half of the shot only to find that when you shoot the other half of the shot that the "second" actor interacts unfavorably with the lighting. Maybe he casts a shadow that you had not anticipated (one that crosses the area of the frame that will serve as the split) or bounces light in a strange way. There can also be some unfavorable compositional dynamics that occur when you put the second person in. So it is important to use similar stand-ins to very carefully look at both sides of the shot before you shoot the first to avoid shooting yourself into a corner. It can be tempting to want to change the lighting for the second set-up when you get to it, yet doing so can ruin the potential for a cean split screen. If you have the luxury, having a lap top with something like Final Cut or After Effects on it (with a dedicated operator) can be an easy way to give you the assurance that you have what you're looking for before you leave the set.

I think it comes down to one question: Do you want a 16x9 aspect ratio. I think the difference in resolution and therefore overall look is quite significant. The added resolution of super 16 when letterboxed onto video is very impressive. On many projects, I have opted for widescreen letterbox because I knew the budget only allowed for 16mm and I wanted the extra horesepower of Super.

I wanted to start a discussion about Million Dollar Baby. I saw it last night and was very moved by it on a number of levels. Some issues on my mind in regards to cinematography: Tom Stern in not in the ASC... It looks like he is coming out of the shadows of Conrad Hall, having worked by his side for years. Will this film do it? I found a lot of the lighting very inventive. It seems like Stern decided that he would almost never use a traditonal key light. The characters seemed to rarely have an unobstructed key. Faces were constantly dancing in and out of shadows, obstructions, and various types of light. There were a few scenes that were so dark, that you could not see large parts of the actors faces at all--especially the eyes. While those shots were interesting, I was under the impression that studios freaked out about things like that. Does Eastwood have a lot of pull?

I did see that shadow...it was as part of a circular move. Mathieson really pushed the "dark" envelope in some scenes. I think Moulin Rouge was shot more like a music video during the songs (short shots, many camera moves) while some of the non-stage musical sequences in Phantom were shot more like dialogue with little difference except the actors were singing to eachother instead of talking. With the number of music videos we see, I think we are conditioned to think there is something wrong with a shot of a singer that is too long in duration. After a few seconds of a close-up in Phantom, I found myself getting restless, waiting for a quick cut instead of just enjoying the shot. (After a while I got over it.)

This last year I've let some of my cinematography subscriptions run out. Can anyone fill me on how they achieved the old B&W look? What stock? A DI? Old cameras/lenses? What stock/lenses was the rest shot with? Frank

I remember once I spent weeks editing some of my super16 footage digitized for an offline from BetaSP. After becoming very familiar with the look of the film, I then had to make a DVCAM dub (DVCAM being superior in specs to MiniDV) and was incredibly disappointed with what the DVCAM did to the footage. The compression did some horrible things to the film. Mini-DV is a HIGHLY compressed format. Also, be aware that Digital Betacam is a 2:1 format, while SP is analog, therefore not compressed. 9 times out of 10, however, the much greater resolution of Digital Betacam makes it preferred to Analog. I have found Beta SP to be very stable, extremely reliable, with very little loss from a component dub. Telecined film footage looks GREAT on SP.

Sandy, I've spent quite a bit of time recently buying and selling super16 camera packages. Here's just a few thoughts for you or anyone else who might be considering a similar purchase: 1) Aspect ratio is a huge decision. There are many SR2's that have been converted to Super16. Aspect ratio can greatly change the marketability of the camera in rental and of you as a DP with the camera. Also, if future resale is an issue, standard 16 cameras are becoming a lot harder to sell while converted super16 packages are much more current due to HD. Super 16 has substantially more resolution. I think the lowest you could hope to get a good super16 SR2 package for is about 20K. (Mine is on consignment for 28K without a lens) 2) The optics might be the single most influential element that determines the performance of the camera--more than some people think. I've seen some people go with a more expensive camera and poor optics. I would prefer a clean SRI with a German motor (the French one is the one to look out for) and good glass than a much newer SR2 with poor glass. 3) Be careful....there are a lot of shady people out there selling cameras (and they are real good talkers). For a few hundred dollars, an Arri certified tech can check out a camera package. If you make that a condition of the sale, you will have piece of mind that you made the right choice. There are a lot of good places to go through...here's a few I've had good luck with: Visual Products www.visualproducts.com www.isaia.com

I ran into someone once who said they owend a converted Super16 16BL. He mentioned that there were seven converted by the same person....so it can be done, but probably not cost effective. Also, I echo the idea of upgrading the lens...perhaps the most important thing you can do to improve the basic camera package. Even the old Zeiss is MUCH better than the old Angenieux.

I did a series of spots using MOCO. Here's a few thoughts: 1) I would allow no less than double the amount of time for motion control shots. It is amazing how much time you eat up. 2) Know exactly what you want. There has never been a time when I felt so happy that I was completely prepared with no room for improv on the set. Also be prepared to communicate everything in "number of frames" and not "seconds". Most of the MOCO software requires you to enter that you want the length of the move to be "72 frames" and not "3 seconds". And, of course, that changes when you overcrank the camera. So there's a few conversions to do on the set. 3) Maybe have some kind of laptop on the set with a way to import video from the tap (film, I'm assuming). I ran several shots at 75 fps. The MOCO unit ended up moving very quickly. It was great to turn to the vidassist and see a slow motion render that simulated the overcranking and showed us exactly how the camera motion, film speed, and action of the actors all played together. I had a great experience with the guys from spydercam (www.spydercam.com) They did the MOCO effects for the Spiderman movies. They were very easy to work with and had reliable and versatile gear. Good Luck

Does anyone have interesting examples of shooting off-speed with, let's say, a 45 degree shutter? Any unique techniques with a modified shutter angle?

I just bought an SR3 Advanced package. The order, as it stands now, has a combined ground glass they call HDTV 1.78 and TV 1.33 There is still time to ask for a different glass. Any thoughts? I figure this is the most practical ground glass I could get. Is there more image area beyond the 1.78 on the negative? There have been times when I've transferred to SD 4x3 and have used every bit of the negative area (when shooting effect shots, for example) and my current ground glass accommodated that well. But does the true super16 image area, which I understand is slightly different than 1.78, have a practical use?

Actually, I think it is the 800' mag that I was referring to. That is the only larger mag I can find on the Arri site. I'm just curious if it would be an attractive option for people to rent. I should look up if you save money on film on the larger spools. Yes, I'm thinking of selling the SRII and going with an SRIII Advanced. I hear they are pretty busy in LA? Frank

Contact Frank at: frank@veritaspictures.com Arriflex SRII Super 16 with Denz conversion/PL Mount Blank and White Sony Video Assist Cinematography Electronics Speed Control 4:3 and 16:9 Ground Glass Arri-Glow 2- 400? Super 16 Magazines 2-Stage 4x4 Matte Box, Hard Mattes Chrosziel Follow-Focus with Left and Right Knobs Extension/Wide-angle Eyepiece 2 On-board Batteries with Charger Right Hand Grip

Any leads or suggestions on purchasing a used SR3 Advanced ASAP? Please contact me at frank@veritaspictures.com Thanks!

Has anyone had any experiences with the Arri 1000' Magazine for the SR3? Is it quiet? Were there any problems? I seem to remember reading something negative about them but can't remember specifically. It would seem to me that they are very practical.....If you are spending the day on a Fisher for example, it might be nice to have that much film without needing to reload. Any thoughts?

Thanks Jayson and everyone for the thoughts.....I'm not gonna have enough light for the '12 but I'm incredibly excited about what these stocks are going to offer to the 16mm world. Frank

I have a spot coming up (super 16) and after talking to the director about his desired look (very tight grain, high contrast, and saturated colors) I would normally go with the '74 stock. I know the 7217 woud have significantly tighter grain than the '74---but could I still get the color saturation and contrast out of the '17? This project is of course just finishing on video...but there is a lot of effects/compositing work on it....making the '17 that much more appealing on a grain structure level. Or if I decided that I had enough light for the 7212---would that be more suited for the look I'm going for? (besides the even tighter grain) Any thoughts or experiences with the stocks?

Shooting a short film almost exclusively exterior really forced me to examine the exact quality of light in various circumstances. We ended up shooting two days under very cloudy skies and finished the second day without having completed a few last steadi-cam shots. So we got up early the next day (which was perfectly cloudless) and picked up those shots during the very brief time when the sun was coming up and giving enough output for exposure and still not crested over the horizon so as to illuminate the subjects directly. The shots ended up matching very well.

Forgive me if someone else suggested or discussed this option to Phil and David's union issue...but....what if the producer had two options: 1) Pay for an operator for every camera (as is required now) or 2) If for any reason, it is decided that the DP is going to operate any camera, then the producer is required to add the operator's day rate to the DP's day rate. Either way, the producer's bottom line is the same and has no financial incentive to pressure the DP to operate.....and nobody is getting paid for NOT doing work (making Phil happy).