James Martin

Hi there, Welcome to the forum. Anamorphic lenses are designed for 4x3 shaped image sensors (ie. Silent frame 35mm/ Super35). If you put them on your camera they would wind up giving you an ultra-wide aspect ratio which would be very odd. They would also be a pain in the arse with regards to composition, focusing etc etc... not to mention the cost of decent anamorphics. The usual procedure with the Sony HD cameras is just to mask off the top and bottom of the frame, matte it to a 2.35:1. This isn't an elegant solution, I know, but I have seen theatrically projected films this way that look fine. However, they're from a higher end sony and I can't say what would happen to the eX3 footage. Are you planning on doing a film-out or transfer to festivals? If it is just low-end cinemas or television, matting should be fine and will save you money... which could be spent on other things to make the image even better. Hope this helps.

Did you use the EX-1 in that setup, or was it with its own lens? Also, as far as I understand it the Sony 2/3" adapter is not optical - meaning you won't get the added depth of field etc etc.... Is there a particular reason that you are using the adapter other than trying it out (which I applaud, BTW)? It is possible you could get a better result from a 1/2" lens, but there is only one way you can find out for sure!

As far as I understand it, the mounts for 16mm and 35mm lenses are often the same (eg. PL for 16mm and 35mm is identical). However, there could be problems with individual lenses. I haven't ever tried myself, but I've heard on some cameras there can be issues with the excess light from a 35mm lens bouncing around doing strange things to the exposure. It seems logical to me, but having never tried it I cannot speak from experience and I guess it might vary from camera to camera. Anyone got any ideas on that?

When you say anamorphic, do you simply mean cropping the image on the RED chip, or using an actual anamorphic lens? It's my understanding that for anamorphic to work correctly on the RED, you would need a so-called "soft-anamorph". I've not shot anything anamorphic before, so someone with more experience please correct me if I'm wrong!

This might sound like an extract from Hitchiker's Guide, but a good recommendation I got from a pro DP was a torch and a towel. Not that you might mean those sorts of things, but it's easy to forget. I also like my own pair of grip's gloves - if you don't have any decent grip shops near you try a pair of cheap (bargain bin) motorcycle gloves. They do a remarkably good job and are also great for keeping movement (not winter gloves though!). Also, I saw a video recently in which a very well known DP (can't remember which but I can find out if you like) lamented colorimeters - saying he once shot a film using them and when he got the dailies back realised he'd only succeeded in making everything lifeless. But, of course, your preference!

Sorry to hear about your production experience, as a fellow student I know of these messes of gargantuan proportion. My primary comment is although it looked distinct, it sadly didn't seem like something that would require the RED - an EX1 would have given you very similar results. Did you plan anything else that required the RED over a regular camera?

Hi everyone, I am currently studying at the Met Film School on Ealing studios, aiming to be a Cinematographer (eventually). One of the things I would love to do, but haven't yet done, is see a proper, full-on camera crew working in a professional situation (feature film/Television). Is anyone on this forum working on any such projects in London soon who wouldn't mind me watching them work? I am a competent stills photographer and would be happy to render services as that or a tea boy as payment. Thanks, James.

Well, with a title like "Pull focus with this!" I expected this to be an announcement regarding the RED EPIC 617 camera. Is it me being stupid or is that going to be hard focusing on anything that moves? Or trying to get enough light indoors for it?

The RED should, theoretically, have the exact same depth of field as 3-perf Super35.... The ARRI D-21 has (someone correct me if I'm wrong) a 4-perf Super35 (aka Silent) frame. So, it will have "regular" Super35 DoF, or anamorphic DoF if you're using anamorphic lenses with it. It's also my understanding that the camera was designed to be easy to use and "film-like" in its operation. Though I've not used it myself yet, so I could be wrong.

Dancer in the Dark, along with at least another Von Trier Movie (the Idiots) was shot with basically run-of-the-mill DV kit. Nothing fancy. Hardly lit in some cases - hence, crap. They even masked Dancer in the Dark from 16:9 to 2.35:1 with a hard matte, no anamorphics there. Red Giant Software do a program to up-res SD video, called Instant HD. I've never tried it myself, but they probably have a demo on their site. However, as should be obvious, don't expect any better results than what you see from these so-called "up-rezzing DVD players", the detail just isn't there to begin with. DVD players get away with it because the source is often very high quality (35mm film) and has been down-sampled a great deal.

And only seven months late, your answer, Leong! 1/50 sec is preferable (1/60 for NTSC regions). Shutter speed has a massive impact on the look of motion in video. Re: Your tilting problem, the camera's auto-exposure is trying to keep exposure for the sky. Your subjects are under-exposed because of this and noisy (not grainy- that's a film problem) because the camera has very little detail in the shadows - just digital noise.

That's good advice from Sampsa, I would also recommend turning down the default sharpening setting. I also recommend using the CineFrame25 mode unless you're very well versed in the de-interlacing procedure. I'm sure you know this already, but shoot at 1/50 sec shutter, 0db Gain (unless necessary) and use the NDs and iris for exposure. Where possible, avoid areas of over-exposure in your image. I just shot a documentary in Montenegro on a Z1, so I know how hard this can be but believe me exposure makes all the difference with those cameras. If you're interested in seeing the doc, I'd be happy to give you my settings too. Just mail me or PM me on here.

I believe this was touched upon by the above poster, but anamorphic lenses are designed for the "big boys". I know there was a few lenses for the PD150/170 which converted them to 16:9, but you're talking about DV. I would second the crop it down recommendation. Unless you're going to film out, I doubt you'd notice a difference. If you are going film out, what have you got an EX3 for? :D Best.

Hello therre, Welcome to the forum. As a fellow film student, here are my thoughts: Overall, VERY GOOD for a first effort, believe me! I'm two-thirds of the way through my degree and that's still better than some work I've seen from people I know! So, good start. My main points of criticism would be in the first video, you have a slight bit of over-exposure on the woman's shirt. It is only slight, but I believe it is there. It's well exposed otherwise, though. There are also a couple of shots where the lighting is unmotivated (where is it coming from?). In the second video, I love the black-and-white segment (even though the editing is not noir, but that's not what we're commenting on!) but I'm not so keen on the outdoor segment. It just looks a little too cold to me, though this of course could be what you were going for. If so, congrats again - did you do that in camera or in post? Regards, James Martin.

I just tried to take a look at your video, it wanted me to log in? Is it just me, or is that a problem other people are having?

I use a Manfrotto 503 head (recently updated to the 503 HDV model) and found it to be great. For legs I use a 755B, but they're a little flimsy for studio work (I need light weight for running around doing interviews). But definitely take these guys advice and try what you can!

A bit of a late response to your question, but the FX1 is locked to the region it is in. The European PAL FX1 is known as the FX1E. The Z1 can switch between NTSC or PAL frame rates. Best, James.

Principles of Cinematography (Leslie J. Wheeler) is an interesting read, though a bit punishing for total beginners and very, very technical. His son, Paul Wheeler BSC, has written three books on Cinematography which IMHO are a bit more user-friendly - Practical Cinematography (great starting point and mainly about 16mm or 35mm film), Digital Cinematography (mostly Digibeta) and High Definition Cinematography (take a guess). That said, to paraphrase someone famous - if you're looking for rules in art, there's the laws of physics and that's about it. Really, get a camera and some lights and see what works. However, reading definitely helps to give you an idea of what to aim for and I'll also vote for Blain Brown's "Cinematography" as an encyclopedia of sorts. Something I don't think anyone has mentioned in this thread is the American Cinematographer magazine - published monthly and available from the ASC site, it details the work of cinematographers past and present. A lot of it is big films, but it is a very interesting read nonetheless.