Kevin Zanit

I to have lost work for not owning gear. I lost a job on a low budget feature because I couldn't (more like wouldn't) get them a Panavised F900 package for free (I guess the un-godly low price I did secure wasn't good enough for them). I said if they want a free package their producer better start producing. The filter ownership angle is an interesting idea. I have never really needed to carry more than 25 - 30 filters so that was within enough reason for the rental house to just give them to us for free. But this is long form work, on music videos and commercials I can see the nitch . . . maybe something I'll look into. Kevin Zanit

Search the archives. This topic has been answered many, many times. Kevin Zanit

Depends what I need to do. My general camera of choice is a Panaflex GII. It is simple, and reliable. If one needs more specialized functions/ lighter weight I would choose the Millennium XL. I have also worked with, and like the Moviecam compacts. This is for 35mm projects. For HD my preference is a Panavised F900. For MiniDV I like the SDX900 and the DVX100. Kevin Zanit

There are several methods of flashing. It can be done in the lab (at a price, and most are reluctant to do this). Or you can use a flasher on the camera. Arri makes one that shines controllable amounts of light into the lens, and Panavision makes one known as the "Panaflasher". It works but mounting on the lower mag port. In this path it flashes the film before it gets to the lens. The amount of light is controllable by the unit, and so is the color of the light. When using the Panaflasher, remember that if you change camera speeds, the amount of flash must be compensated as well. Flashing lowers the contrast of the image by adding light into the shadows, and leaving the highlights unaffected. A very good example of the flashing is "Northfork" shot by David Mullen. I am sure he will shed much more light on the subject. Kevin Zanit

I just did a b&w shoot last night. I used HMIs and tungsten units. I just rated the film at 200, and let any tungsten units go slightly under. It mixed fine. Kevin Zanit

I was just talking to Wally Pfister about a smiler question. He pretty much said what John said: A loss of shadow detail, an increase in grain, and possibly some odd color shifting. Kevin Zanit

That is why I said he had to add a film scanning add on to the scanner. It magnifies the image slightly, and back lights it. This lets the scanner work with the film much easier. I feel pretty confident that this would look better than re-photographing it with a digital still camera. Also, if time is of the essence then I really dont think anything you home make is a good idea. That said, I have seen demos of people that made the thing based on a scanner it it looked fantastic. Kevin Zanit

You would be better off using a flatbed scanner with a photo adapter. It just so happens that most flatbeds are 24 frames (of 16mm) wide. I read somewhere about a guy who did this and used an old Dot matrix printer for the film advancement. Talking to the printer port as a lot easier than talking to USB. The same goes for working with TWAIN. Then simply write an Algorithm to detect the frame lines and cut up each frame to a single image (this guy had the software on line, cant find it though). Registration will still be a problem, so a stabilizing program would need to be run. Kevin Zanit

Moviecam Compact. I liked the camera on the last show I was on. Kevin Zanit

Well you want a higher contrast film for starters. To light the cards, I like two soft sources at 45 degree angles to the card. I find two 4x4 Kinoflos work well. Kevin Zanit

"Is that Alfie on the far left? I haven't seen him in a couple years... " Yes that certainly is. He did great work! Kevin Zanit

Just break off the 200' of exposed film, and short end the take up side. Your not really wasting much film (5 to 10'), and there is less to be concerned about as far as your latent image. Kevin Zanit

I have never tested latitude with paper work. I test it with camera work. The best thing would be for you to test your latitude all the way through to print (or wherever your project will live). In other words, test it with YOUR metering style, YOUR lab's chemistry, and any other variables that could come into play. Also, there is a difference between dynamic range (latitude) and texture range (zone II through VIII). In other words; you should look at practical latitude (what I consider to be the above, your film still holds detail) versus actual latitude (zone I - IX). The moral of the story: Test it yourself for the most accurate results. Kevin Zanit

I was looking at the late great Conrad L. Hall's IMDB entry and, as best as I can tell some of his final work can be found here (on line): http://www.independenceroadtrip.org/trailer.html I don't know if anyone is interested in the above, but I know I sure was. It really moved me to see these fresh images. I never thought I would see new work from him, so it just felt bitter sweet seeing this footage (despite it's horrific encoding). Seeing this made me miss his work more, so maybe some of you will appreciate it also. Kevin Zanit

I cant speak for David, but I can speak for myself (and many DPs I have spoken with). Generally speaking lighting by eye comes with experience. More than anything it is actually the confidence to not meter every source that causes one to not find it necessary to meter every source and still sleep at night until seeing the dailies from the previous day ;) If I don't need a specific stop for a particular reason, I will choose a key source that will place my stop in the range I like to work in (close to wide open). I can then rough in the rest of the sources (if any) by eye. So mainly balancing out the sources can be done by eye fairly easily, but I take a reading for my key. I may spot meter certain objects that concern me, but not to heavily. I tend to set my stop based on incident readings and then work from there with a spot meter. Things I have always found important to spot meter are hair lights, because the reflectiveness of the hair could throw my eye. Also, as the day goes on my eyes can get tired, so I start metering more. I also will sometimes use a contrast viewing glass to give me a quick idea where I am at as I get more tired. The best thing is to do what works for you. Someone once said to me "I always judge a good DP by if he uses a spot meter" I said "Funny, I judge one by what he puts on screen". In other words: no one gives a poop how you get that picture up there, they care what the picture looks like. There is no right or wrong way, just your way. Kevin Zanit

It depends. For the most part I try to avoid multiple shadows. I find most of my tendencies lean towards naturalism (at the moment), but I tend to still avoid multiple shadows. For instance, on a day INT. that is sunlit through the windows, I would only want one shadow. My lighting methods tend to be conducive of this effect. I like one large source through the windows. A night INT, I still tend to only want one shadow. I find myself lighting with softer sources that wrap around faces in these situations. Thus, one soft shadow. On night EXT. work I tend to accept multiple shadows, because these are extremely normal, and generally unavoidable. It also depends on the settings. In the city one would find multiple shadows everywhere, as opposed to the country. One thing I dislike is when one uses several sources to key a large walking area, and the actor walks in and out of multiple shadows. I find that extremely un-natural. It comes down to taste. Kevin Zanit

Well, I started in shipping and receiving at Panavision. I probably learned more about the equipment there that when I was working in service, and as a prep tech. Don't like driving a truck? Tough poop, if driving a truck from Panavision to a movie set shooting Panavision gear is the worst part of your career I would say your lucky. I think if you talk to most people that earn a living doing this here, you will find the vast majority spent plenty of time cleaning cases. The sheer fact that you would be spending time in Panavision is great . . . as long as you go out of your way to learn. The guys over at Woodland Hills are some of the nicest people I know, so if you could get the job there I would jump at it in a moment. Kevin Zanit

I second the above. The GII is a good solid camera. Not unmanageable to hand hold, reliable, and simple to use. The "Z" in "Z series" does indeed stand for Zeiss (stating the obvious here). Kevin Zanit

You could try the shiny boards bounced into the rain. Or wait for the sun to be in a better position to backlight the rain. Also be sure to wet down as much on screen area as possible, it helps sell it. Kevin Zanit

David, a question came to mind after watching the Northfork DVD: A lot of the scenes where you have those lovely shafts of hard light coming in through the windows, yet you can still see some detail out the windows, did you just place your unit outside the house (obviously) and above the frame line (that we see through the window)? That seems like a fairly logical way to do this, yet some of the beam angles seems like the unit was much lower (at window level). Did you just place a large unit at window height, and just let it burn out? Kevin Zanit

The lost loop is due to user error. It means you did not thread the camera properly. A few things can cause this: - The rollers that cover the main sprocket are not properly engaged. - The claw is not set properly - Or you forgot to put the pressure plate back Just keep practicing threading the camera. Run it with the cover off so you can watch it. I like to set the loop just slightly (like 1 or 2 perfs) smaller than the loop formers. Kevin Zanit

It depends on what your plans are to counter the overexposure. If you plan to overexpose by 1 stop and then print down, you don't tell the lab anything other than process normal (you may want to shoot a gray card and tell the lab to print for the gray card). But if you want the lab to pull process the stock by 1 stop then make sure that is noted on the camera reports. There is a section usually with 3 check boxes. Check pull process, and then there is a line to write by how much. Write 1 stop. Kevin Zanit

The AC manual may be slightly more advanced then what you need at this point. Check out "The Filmmaker's Handbook". It really breaks down film stock properties nicely. Also "Cinematography" by Malwiewicz is a tried and true book. As far as b&w stocks go: I did some tests with 7266 (the new 200 speed reversal film). I really liked it. It was fairly fine grained. It is a fairly contrasty stock, but I found over exposing it by 1/2 a stop really looked nice as far as smoothing out the contrast. It has about 3 stops over and 4 to 5 under. It actually held pretty good shadow detail. Also, good call on the k3. Its a really great camera to start with. I like you attitude, its a great way to learn. Kevin Zanit

Yale is about the only place in town that will process reversal normal. Pretty good company to deal with. They have by far the best candy dish while you wait ;) . Oh and their work is pretty good to. Kevin Zanit

Out of practice I would not run a 1.2k HMI on a 2k geni. As you said, the intial striking of the globe will be very taxing on the geni. You will need to run quite a distance of cable that will also build up a lot of resistance. In practice you can use normal extension cords (orange) for your purposes. These are cheap, and avaible. You are in NY, its noisy at it is, if you can run the geni a few hundred feet away, around a corner there is no way you would ever hear the geni. If you can afford HMIs I dont see why you would not want to spring for the right power source for the job. We all have to jugle budget limits, not just students. So we all can relate to your plight, trust me. Everyone here is advising you to not bull poop around with the wrong power, just spring for a crystal 5k Honda. There are so many other things that can go wrong, why risk it? Kevin Zanit