Alex Birrell

Interesting article. I don't get where this idea that 1.33:1 has anything to do with human vision though. It was chosen because it matched the size of the newly invented 35mm strip of celluloid. If anything I believe true anamorphic 2.39 with anamorphic lenses imitates human vision. With a 50mm for example you'll get the vertical field of view and lack of distortion a person is used to but with the horizontal field of view of a 25mm helping to imitate human peripheral vision. For me the sad thing is when 2.39 gets used just like spherical and the camera is constantly right up in everyone's face, almost eliminating the point of using it.

Hi everyone, I was just wondering if anyone had any experience of the differences in image characteristics of Panavision C and E series anamorphics. Not the tech specs which I know but the bokeh, barrel distortion and flares. Also, I have just rewatched John Carpenter's Christine on blu ray (shot by Donald Morgan) and was struck by how different it looked from Carpenter's earlier Dean Cundey shot films despite the angles, focal length choice and camera movement being very much Carpenter's signature style. I have seen that the film was shot with 5293 whereas the earlier films were all 5247 so that can account for some of the different look. I was wondering though if it was shot with E-series rather than C-series anamorphics - it seems to me that in this film there is much more pronounced barrel distortion throughout the entire film. There is also visible vignetting in various shots and the flares seem much bluer in tone (they almost look like Primo anamorphic flares but I know they weren't out in 1983). Just asking for information for the future really so any information would be appreciated. It'll sound strange but I am a huge fan of barrel distortion on wide anamorphic lenses - particularly in movement and it's an anamorphic artefact that not many people seem to talk about in comparison to bokeh and flares.

Anyone have any idea whether this "Super Cinemascope" name that is being used with be the 65mm frame cropped down to 2.39 or some kind of modern Technirama equivalent with anamorphics?

Thanks!

Hi everyone, I've been trying to find information online about the effective focal length of anamorphic lenses on cameras that crop their sensors to allow 2x anamorphic. For example, the selling point of the Alexa 4:3 is that a 40mm anamorphic lens will give the same field of view as it would on 35mm with an anamorphic gate. If this lens were used on a Sony F55 or Red Epic (which window box the Super 35 sensor) what would be the "effective" focal length? I know the 40mm remains a 40mm but would it become more of the equivalent of a 50mm anamorphic on 4 perf 35 etc. Many thanks!

I'd really like to hear about the 1988 remake of THE BLOB too, it was always a favourite of mine when I was a little kid. One of the main things I remember are the really distinctive uncorrected HMI blue night exteriors.

No one (or at least me) would argue with you about the vital importance of American cinema to the world but maybe a little less vitriol...after all the beauty of cinema is that it is international, not to mention that in this free market economy everyone is banging on about America needs the whole world to go and see it's films just to break even now.

As a current filmmaking student at film school in London I have to say that the reality of film school is that we operate very much to the whims and tastes of our tutors. We work under restrictions of time, budget, delivery method and tend to have all are projects vetted and vetoed due to individual tastes or school ideology more than by practicality or artistic merit. It is very much how I imagine a major studio project would run with the tutors acting almost like the cliche of studio executives. It seems a very Hollywood system which is quite ironic considering we are in Europe and most films are made as multi nation co-productions sponsored by government bodies. I can't imagine that they try to exert too much control over the content of the films made.

Internships without pay are definitely not illegal in the UK. I did one at Panavision London in April and have been offered on at StudioCanal in August. They are all official with full paperwork so no problems there. As someone still studying and trying to make an eventual career in the industry I think internships without pay are a fantastic opportunity and think that those American students who have just created the legal issue in the States might have just ruined the chances of many future interns there. Let's be honest, when you want to work in film there are many occasions when you would pay someone to let you be an intern if given the chance!

I know, I wasn't meaning to imply that there was a less artistic side to RAW shooting, it's just that it adds so much expense to a budget to do it properly and I would feel more in my comfort zone spending that money on lenses, camera filters, lights and gels etc to get a physical on set look rather than spending it on a grading session. The reason I am thinking that a DSLR with a Super 35 sized sensor might be better is because I really like wide angle lenses and find using them appropriate for my idea.

Thanks David and Adrian for the replies but here is my dilemma. I am soon to start work on my graduation film from film school. I have been spoiled shooting 16mm, 35mm and the Alexa during my time at school. I love shooting film and I always believed I would shoot my graduation film on film. However, I will have a very limited budget, no less than £4000 but maybe not much more. My plan is to buy a camera with my own money to shoot with so I don't have to spend any of the budget hiring a camera body. I want to have all the money possible to hire good lenses, the right lights, the right grip equipment, get good locations etc. As I have become accustomed to film shooting I plan to light to get what I want on the set and not rely on shooting RAW and fixing up everything after. As a poor student at the moment I could afford the upcoming Blackmagic Pocket camera or something like a 7D. My big query is, am I better going with the BMPCC for the ProRes codec and less compression or will I get more mileage out of a 7D because I will have access to any and all 35mm format cine lenses that I might want to rent. (By the way, I would be getting a PL mount adapter for both cameras to use either super16 format or 35 format cine lenses). To complicate it more I know I will definitely be composing and cropping for 2.40 scope ratio. I'm looking for as many opinions as I can get. I'm much less worried about colour space and figures that no-one can see than in how to get the most options creatively for the best images. Thanks in advance.

To be 100% honest, the price is the most attractive thing but I am really attracted to the flexibility of the body being so tiny even with a large lens on it. I have just finished working on a shoot with the Alexa and was amazed at how bulky and annoying it can be with all the cables hanging of it for the viewfinder, monitor etc. It made me long to be working with a super 16 Aaton again!

Hey guys, like many people I am considering using buying the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera when it comes out. In everyone's professional opinion, will it be better than cameras such as the 7d and 5d mark 2 in terms of perceived resolution, noise, image smoothness in motion, dynamic range etc. I know these will all only be opinions until the camera comes out but I'm hoping someone here will have more information. As for the famous/infamous super 16mm sensor, I would love to use the Hawk 1.3x anamorphics on this. I am right in thinking that a 9.5mm super 16 lens will still give me the exact same field of view on the pocket as on a super 16mm film camera aren't I? There is so much misinformation online at the moment about what this super 16 sensor will mean for crop factor. Thanks!

Hey everyone, Has anyone ever used a scissor arc to create lightning strikes. Panalux rents one out and I was wondering just how it works and what the power requirements are as well as what the general effect would be in terms of duration and colour temperature of the flashes. Thanks in advance.

Many thanks for the replies!

Hey everyone, I will be shooting a short film shortly with a 2 perf configuration Panaflex for scope aspect ratio. We will doing an HD telecine for our post work and delivery. I have never shot 2 perf before and was wondering if anyone here had any experience of shooting 500T film in the format. I am a little concerned that the image could be excessively grainy and was planning to shoot a low ASA stock. Thing is, it is a horror short and all the scenes are night exteriors and night interiors. We are going for a late 70s/early 80s vibe and I want to keep the image as dark and mood as possible (think Dean Cundey's work on John Carpenter's early films). For budgetary reasons we are going to shoot Fuji stock (yes, there is some still available in the UK) and for aesthetic reasons I want to use the Fuji Vivid stocks. I was thinking of using the 160T but am concerned about the amount of light I will need. The Fuji Vivid 500T is still available which is why I am wondering if anyone has any experience of its grain structure when shot in the 2 perf format. Many thanks in advance, Alex.

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. I'm going to check out that post now.

Hello, Today I saw the results of a 35mm test shoot for a short film I will be photographing in a couple of weeks. We shot on Kodak 5213 which was then both telecined in hd to black and white as a best light and also scanned at 2k with a flat technical grade. I shot the test in a studio set with a fixed stop of T4. The short is to have a noir-ish style using existing practicals in an impressionistic way - not complete naturalism by any means. On set I lit to what I wanted and was then advised by my tutor to add fill light to bring the shadows up to an exposure of T1.4. I did so, much to the distress of my eye which saw the lighting I had been working on flatten out immediately. When I saw the test rushes today I was shocked to see that Technicolor had brought up the gamma on the best light, resulting in my T1.4 shadows being almost fully visible and an image that was almost as flat as it had appeared to my eye (despite my lighting to a 4:1 contrast ratio). The tutor however was relatively pleased with the results feeling that by my not going more than 3 stops under key with the shadows I would have plenty of latitude to play with in the grade to make the blacks fully black. Thing is - I am not sure if I want this latitude. Part of me thinks that if I want it black why don't I let it just be black, 4 or even 5 stops under. I'm not sure why I should preserve this flatter imagery and latitude in cases when I don't want it. As it is a school project we will only have an hour and a half in the grade and I would really like to have the style and tone burnt onto the film. What would you advise? Should I let my blacks be black or would you play it safe?

I am also going to be shooting on colour 35mm in January and then finishing in black and white. I was wondering if there would be any noticeable change in the image by lighting on set with light through coloured gels. For example, lighting an actor with a red gel to make them stand out against blue by eventually seemed a lot darker etc. Does anyone have any experience of this?

I am currently doing a two year masters in film school at the moment at the London Film School. It's a great place and a pretty amazing experience. During the course we shoot 16mm, 35mm and the Alexa and we work on at least 12 films during our two years and are guaranteed to direct 2 and DP 1 while the rest is up to you. I have come to the course later than a lot of people because after my film BA in a standard University I thought I was ready to work. I worked freelance for a while and built up a lot of experiences but made no money and no real contacts - just did a lot of work for free! I decided to try for the film school to build up experience with high end equipment and make contact, connections and friends with likeminded people and it definitely gives you that opportunity. If you can afford it or get financial assistance I would say film school all the way. Especially nowadays that the whole world thinks they are ready to make films because they own a dsrl :wacko:

Thanks! Feeling more confident now :)

Hi all, I will be DPing a short film next year which I am currently prepping. It is being made through my film school and we are shooting super35 with a Moviecam Superamerica. We have to shoot Kodak 5213 no matter what and the footage, once transferred, will be converted to B&W. The script I am working from has a night exterior climax which has to be shot in a relatively deserted location (hopefully which a bit of London cityscape twinkling in the far background). The style we are going for is high contrast with some neo-noir influences so isolated pools of light in inky blackness is more or less what we want for the scene. The thing is, we are taught at the film school to illuminate our shadow areas to at least a T1.4 (the maximum aperture of our lenses) to eliminate grain. I know that in these scenes with 200 asa I won't even be able to get a reading in the shadows. I'm looking for advice and opinions as to how the 5213 will hold up in terms of grain in the blacks in the areas with little or no exposure. I have no way of lighting those areas because our location lighting package is so small and I really don't want an overly grainy image. Many thanks in advance for your help.

As a film student in the UK I have to say that the situation here is ridiculous. The prices are so excessive and when it comes to film, most companies only offer the latest equipment at the highest prices. In the US for example if you want to shoot 35mm you can rent Arri BL3s or 4s all over the place at a fraction of the cost of the latest Arricam or Panaflex, here in Britain you can't even find such a camera. Prices in the rest of Europe are also much more favourable, have a look at the rental costs at Panavision Alga in Paris or Panavision Belgium and you'll see what I mean. I used to think it was a UK conspiracy to force people to shoot digital but now it just seems like a conspiracy to stop everyone except the largest companies from shooting at all!

I also saw it in London on the only screen in the UK showing the 70mm print! I sat near the front and what can I say - the definition was amazing. I have never seen 70mm in the cinema before and it was almost like going for the first time. I left the cinema cursing the fact that someone somewhere who is only interested in the price of silver is deliberately killing off film stock before I will fully get the chance to use it. I also thought it look more like 1.66:1 and I have to say that the 35mm segments really stuck out in graininess i.e. the steadicam chase across the field near the beginning. Sad thing is, at my film school, I spoke to a colleague who also saw it and when I started to talk about the quality their only comment was: did you see the two scratches down the print near the beginning! :angry:

Fantastic movie! Saw it here in London and it was only spoiled by the cinema I saw it in having a scope screen that was recessed into the 1.85 screen!!! I have to say it wasn't quite as good as Casino Royale but not much beneath it. As for the photography, my only comment is why does London (or England in general) always have to be washed out and overexposed with the sky left to bow out and the colour balance heavily shifted towards blue. I was surprised at how much this cliche was followed considering how the film beautified the capital. It'd just be nice to see it one time with a blue sky and some saturated colours!