Manu Anand

Just saw a Demo of the Alexa Studio here at Abelcine in New York and had the honour of finally meeting Mr Mitch Gross who gave a hands on demo of the Camera! Here are the Highlights! An optical Viewfinder! A Mirror Shutter that eliminates all rolling shutter artifacts since the sensor read out happens during the dark Phase An inbuilt 1.3 ND filter that moves over the sensor with i think if i remember correctly an IR filter as well. A quick interchangeable EVF for situations where one cant see clearly through the optical viewfinder. And a full 4:3 sensor that allows for those wonderful anamorphic lenses to shine in the digital world. My impressions of the camera was that basically its the same Camera same body but Arri now allows one to use the full sensor in 4:3 as opposed to just 16:9 with the 4:3 crop happening in the 16:9 sensor area. 80% more sensor area is now used in the full frame 4:3 mode. And the optical viewfinder was wonderful to look through it really eliminated the horrible rolling shutter we can experience while panning too fast although Arrris sensor read out is quite fast as it is and the rolling shutter artifacts on the Alexa are not that bad. The innards of the camera are the same as compared to previous models. Same image processor same sensor. The optical viewfinder and the mirror shutter are the add ons along with the full sensor 4:3 mode. I also asked the Arri Technical Sales Representative Mr Guenter Noesner if Arri would at some point allow Look Settings to be made on the camera and i think he said that it might be possible with the wireless remote that is coming out soon. I might be mistaken and Mitch can confirm that aspect. Currently looks can be made on the computer through a Pomfort software called i think Silverstack Set and can be then loaded on to the camera. There was also an interesting Demo of Pomforts Livegrade Beta which allows you to set the Look through the HD link and see the result Live on the monitor. http://pomfort.com/news/2011/12/livegrade-the-tool-for-interactive-camera-look-creation/ The sense i got was that although Arri isn't Upping its game in the Resolution Sweepstakes it really is listening to feedback from our Field and has addressed some of the issues that we have faced. Naturally all of this comes at a price and since Abelcine is now going to be an authorised Reseller they will probably be best to reveal the cost of all this innovation. Manu Anand Dop Director Mumbai

Hi , Attempts to resuscitate the thread. I'm visiting New York from Mumbai and if anyone wants to meet up over the next couple of weeks give me a holler! Cheers Manu Anand DoP Director Mumbai

Its not in the day. Its shot in Moonlight. Cheers Manu

Please take a look at a film I just shot in Tibet on the 5d. It was a tough shoot with constant traveling, rain, high altitude sickness and Tibetan drivers who travel in convoys and just wouldn't stop between destinations. Nevertheless it was a great experience the journey and then the process of editing and making this film. I hope you enjoy it. Cheers Manu DoP Mumbai India

Hi Ram, Congratulations The commercial looks very crisp and smooth. I shot a short film with the 7D recently and was quite perturbed by the amount of noise within a frame in areas of low light. The blacks were fantastic but anything that wasn't black enough just seemed to get this fuzzy noise. Did you tweak the camera in any way to get rid of these artifacts during the shoot or the footage in post? Thank you Cheers Manu Anand Cinematographer

Ive always envied Iranian Directors and how they are so good with their child actors. A lot of Iranian Directors have shot some gorgeous films with child actors in the lead..... Abbas Kiarostami: Wheres my friends home -(the earthquake trilogy) Majid Majidi- Children of heaven . And - Colours of paradise And a few other directors whose names i cant recall now... aaah yes Jafar P..... something He made i think "the white balloon" All of them have some gorgeous films with child actors.... They probably have the most memorable child performances ive ever seen. I dont think they were shot 1: 1.85 though Another great film made with street kids from Bombay and about them was "salaam bombay" by Mira Nair. Shes the lady who made "monsoon wedding". Manu Anand Bombay

For some reason i was unable to edit my last message but heres a link that explains this better 12.3 % Manu Anand

Hello Dee Dont Forget to check the calibration of your spot meter.. Reflected meters contrary to popular beleif are not calibrated for 18 % gray. Sekonics i think are calibrated for 12.5 %.... Spectras i think are the only ones calibrated at 18% but i may be wrong. While shooting slides this half a stop difference matters a lot ..but not so much while shooting negatives.. But since you said "Exact tonality" check your meter calibration and make the appropriate adjustment. Manu Anand Bombay

OK i think the link should work now. White Cyc and Limbo Manu Anand Bombay

Hello Jamie Here is an archived discussion www.cinematography.net/ Pages%20GB/cyc%20limbo%20effect.htm has anyone seen the film ... "the perfect human " by jorgen leth shot in white limbo... gorgeous film I like having some back light though especially when my characters are wearing darker colours .... i try and keep my back light at as low an angle as i can without getting any camera glare...that gives me a very beautiful silver lining(especially when they are wearing darker colours) kind of an effect on the characters head and shoulders. this low back light can be restrictive sometimes as cutting the glare becomes a problem the lower you take your camera. I like having a large soft source as the back light as well in a white limbo setup ....normally i use an 8*8 gateway frame sometimes two with 5ks behind them so i have an even backlight that throws a very soft character shadow on the foreground. For the faces i then normally light with kinos through diffusion. In a white limbo i normally avoid a kicker as i like the feel of the character having some gradation on his face inspite of being in a white limbo..and i find the kicker thats opposite to the key slightly unnatural. For a soft even light on the floor i then light from the top through 12*12 muslin or silk for a soft diffused even light. Depending on the size of the floor i hang more 12*12/ 8*8 frames as needed and light through them. For a soft limbo effect diffusion is the key. Manu Anand Bombay

Landon here are the production notes on "The Devil's Rejects" www.lionsgatepublicity.com/ epk/devilsrejects/docs/pro_notes.doc Here is an excerpt "Despite a bigger budget and more technical resources, Zombie was careful to avoid the glossy, refined look that characterizes most contemporary horror movies. ?One problem I have now in movies, compared to the 70's, is they just look too good,? he says. ?Real life is messy. As soon as it becomes too clean, then you know you?re watching a movie. It's not scary.? Wanting a slightly more rough-hewn look for the film, Zombie chose to shoot THE DEVIL?S REJECTS on Super 16, a grainier film stock that runs on lighter, smaller cameras. This enabled him to shoot the movie almost entirely with a hand-held camera. ?There's a little steadicam and only one dolly shot in the whole movie,? says Zombie. ?Even when we put the camera on a tripod, we always put it on a bag so that it was a little shaky.? THE DEVIL?S REJECTS, consequently, recalls the bleaker, more desolate palette of George Romero?s early films or the original THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. ?When something bad was happening, I wanted it to be horrible to watch,? says the director. ?The motel scene is a good example. When we filmed it, everyone watching it on the monitors seemed upset. And the actors all seemed upset. That told me we were on the right track.? Zombie is the sole architect of his musical image and was responsible for developing and designing all of the band?s products and stage shows. It comes as no surprise, then, that he is equally involved in every facet of his films, from production design to wardrobe and hair. ?I drive everyone nuts,? admits Zombie. ?I did drawings of every character before we even had a costume person. I knew what I wanted everything to look like. Everything matters to me. If one person's sideburns or belt buckle are wrong, it drives me nuts. It's all in the details. Especially with a movie like this, where you're trying to create a specific world. I?m always trying to find that tone where it?s interesting enough that you'd want to look at it, but it?s never over the top.? THE DEVIL?S REJECTS was shot entirely on location in the desert communities of Lancaster and Palmdale, California, during some of the hottest months of the summer. If the locations weren?t always conducive to film production, they contributed an air of authenticity to the rural, backwater look of the film. ?The motel set was tight, cramped, hot, and miserable to be in,? remembers Zombie. ?And after a while you could really see that the actors looked miserable. It was really uncomfortable to be there. Same with the desert. But it added an element of realism that wouldn't be there if it was a cushy, fake set. I think it also helped keep people in character.? ?Every scene feels much more real when it?s so hot and you?re physically in pain,? admits Haig. Despite the discomforts the cast and crew may have experienced, Zombie fostered a collaborative atmosphere on set. ?It?s always a pleasure working with Rob,? says Haig. ?He?s relaxed. He?s clear about what he?s looking for. And he gets out of the way and lets you do your work. He instinctively knows your level of insanity and isn?t afraid to let you explore it, either.?" Manu Anand Bombay

lol it fell of the tripod....:) have heard that a few times. yup " you break it, you buy it" But the "riding the a$$" is a bit extreme sometimes. Manu Anand Bombay P.S. but on the bright side our film school was subsidized as well.

Hi Dave, Im not sure what using two polarizers will achieve since..... two polarizers will cancel each other out at an angle of 90 degrees to each other letting very little light pass through. So lets see ...the polarizer in front of the lens lets polarized light through but the one behind it then basically as you rotate it away from 90 degrees allows some light to pass through....Its acting more like a variable ND filter cutting light(allowing less or more light to pas through as you rotate it). So im not sure what you intend to achieve..with two polarizers for day for night?? Here are some interesting links on polarized light and polarization http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys...ght/u12l1e.html with examples :To cut glare off the road buy polarised sun glasses with their polarization axis perpendicular to the road. This one is fascinating reading about Polarization Compasses.... how auroras are polarized.....bees and polarization...the vikings and polarization.....Display sytems and polarization ( like LCD screens have a polarisation filter) So lots of interesting stuff on Polarized Light ......... http://www.polarization.com/index-net/index.html Manu Anand Bombay

Hi Stephen Those are two instances im talking about 1) is when the subject distance tends to equal the hyperfocal distance and i said "as well as" which is 2 2) when the subject distance tends to come close to the the focal length. which is what i referred to as macro. Sorry for being grammatically a bit ambiguous there Manu Anand Bombay

As David has already stated . The Dof is dependant on 1 Focal length 2 Aperture 3 Subject Distance 4 Circle of confusion It also depends on viewing distance of the image but lets assume that the viewing distance is a constant. In a particular format the circle of confusion is the same so for a particual format DOF is only dependant on the other three and the viewing distance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field Here you will find the relevant formulas as im unable to type them clearly not having an equation editor software. With the formulas you will clearly see what depth of field is a function of; and the variables involved; and how changing the variables changes depth of field. One common myth is that depth of field changes with focal length. Yes it does but not if the image size is kept the same. Dof field doesnt change if the Image size is kept the same in the frame. That means that if I change my lens from a wide angle to a telephoto but i keep my object size the same my DOF doesnt change because the subject distance also changes which is another variable in the Dof equation. There are exceptions to the this when the subject distance tends to equal the Hyperfocal distance as well as the Focal length of the lens ( macro basically) As David has pointed out that Dof has to many parameters that have to be kept constant while changing formats and comparing but a general rule of thumb is "All things being equal depth of field is inversely proportional to film format size" This because the circle of confusion is a variable in the Dof equation and as other other variables are kept constant the Dof changes in relation to CoC The key phrase is "All things being equal." So if you compared equal sizes of projected 16 mm and 35 mm images same subject to camera distance same field of view(not same focal length)..viewed from the same distance etc then 16 would have more Depth of field as compared to 35mm (when the subject distance is less than the hyperfocal distance.) Here are some sites explaing the above but with comparisons from still photography formats http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field Manu Anand Bombay

Whoaaaaa!!!!!! Not everyone keeps a credit card!!! Ive never needed a credit card in my life and really dont intend to get one... so the credit card would make a lot of people ineligible. I dont really know if debit cards would work. Im not sure but i dont think they are acceptable in most online transactions. A lot of people arent even comfortable with sharing their credit card info online. And a lot of students in India would not have credit cards. Manu Anand Bombay

Heres some information from The CML archives http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/AERIAL.HTM one of my favourite aerial shots ever is in the film "Happy Together" The DP is Chris Doyle. Hand held.....over iguazu falls in argentina. But that was from an helicopter Take a look. Manu Anand Bombay

My worst experiences have been with my film school. As Nao said the authorities in my school were psychotic as well. I remember once a monitor fell of its stand in the studio and all the three students inside were made to pay for it. The fact that the monitor was standing on a table with three legs and the fourth leg was a pebble was irrelevant. minimum distance of each student to the monitor was 8 feet. The pebble slowly slipped from under the table and we watched in horror and slow motion as the monitor fell to the ground. They threatened to not give us our degree...not let us film our final film project etc and the three of us had to pay for the monitor. Old NP1B batteries got lost once by our crew and we offered to change them with old batteries as well with the similar life the schools batteries had. But nope...the crew had to replace the old batteries with new ones. We got so paranoid about camera faults etc we would check the cameras like maniacs... every lil screw ...everything. test test test before taking it out ..coz we knew if something happened on location we would have to fork out money no matter what the cause might have been. Prayers would be recited before taking out the film camera ....just kidding. A few years ago a friend of mine had rented a camera and on return was told he had scratched the lens. There was no way of proving who had scratched it. He claimed he never took off the UV filter but the scratch issue went on for a few months the rental house gave the cameraman a bad reputation in the market , in other rental houses..... a lot or rumours etc. I just make it a point to check so thoroughly and get all faults noted on the rental form before taking the camera out..be it the minutest of scratches on the lens. Manu Anand Bombay

Sorry Karl All my googling skills have resulted in zero technical information about this film. But i sure am looking forward to it Manu Anand Bombay

Davids post reminds me something Chris Doyle said on a talk i was lucky enough to attend in New Delhi. When someone asked him this question he said"it didnt matter" The problem he has was if i rememeber correctly " the video guys have got it all wrong..they are trying to make their medium look like film ... maybe if they just thought of video as a different medium and forgot about film they would come up with something better. something totally new.. a different aesthetic..but here all they are trying to achieve is the "FILM LOOK" Manu Anand Bombay

Thank you Laurent for your patience.....and for explaining various aspects of my question. The article I referred to ...even I had problems with but I was trying to do my research to see what i can find before i post my question ...and that was the only article i came up with after various permutations and combinations in google. Next time I get my hands on the camera to test... I'll test this and let you guys know. Sometimes while lighting with a meter i just find ISO 800 is way of the mark for an f11 2000 lux sensitivity camera..and i get closer results with an ISO 320..but maybe im doing something wrong. Will test this... and let you know. Manu"Its just rained a 1000mm in a day" Anand Bombay

Namaste Jeremy, This link should answer all your questions. I havent personally checked if the link works . I hope it works. http://www.spanix.com/download/lighting/sekonic/L-398M.pdf Manu Anand New Delhi ( currently in Bombay)

Namaste David If you'd made that offer anywhere close to Bombay you would have a million interns in waiting by now including me. :) Your inbox would be full your phone would not stop ringing. I think its great what your doing and maybe the "intern paid vs non paid" debate should be moved to a new thread if people wanna talk about it. I think i do see what Matt's getting atl ....but im not going to continue the debate in here. Manu Anand New Delhi(currently in Bombay)

Namaste( standard indian greeting), >This is not for "minimum sensitivity". This is for default/standard sensitivity. (25 or 30 fps, filter 1 (3200 K), gain = 0 etc.) ok my fault there for taking it as minimum senstivity.its standard sensitivity The ISO standard DOES NOT APPLY to video cameras, as well as it DOES NOT APPLY to motion feature film stock. yup i agree with you ..the reason i brought this up was recently reading a thread in here where the ISO equivalent for a f11 2000 lux was given as ISO 800. and people do talk in terms of ISO equivalents for Video Cameras. >You can guess that the sensitivity obtained on a low cost camera shouldn't seriously be that bigger than a professional one, can't you ? Ok of course i can guess that...my question is what is the standard default sensitivity???? what are the parameters for calculating that. >Sensitivity is not seeingable by the IRE, just like an amount of light is seeingable by a light meter. im not saying its seeable but they sure are measuring it all im asking for is how? question is what is the parameter in the test that helps them reach this standard sensitivity reading? In an experiment to measure senstivity they arrive at a certain value ...my question is how...? fstop and illumination arent enough to define it. >Keep thinking in terms of (as manufacturers tell you...) "this is the required illumination for setting this iris aperture". The more sensitive the camera is, the closer the aperture should be, as to get a proper setting". I am argueing against this way of thinking not for it . >The amount of required light at a specific iris opening is the sensitivity... it remains the same... Again my question.......To expose it how???? Your missing the point of my argument. what is the amount if light you speak of....and does it expose something perfectly....that determines senstivity information they provide us with. are you saying at standard sensitivity settings a white object will reproduce at 100IRE >"On a professional camera, "minimum illumination" indicates the minimum amount of light falling on a white surface that will produce .5 volts (70 IRE) of picture information with maximum lens opening and maximum gain boost. " >Where do they get that from ? A white surface, correctly exposed will look white, and produce 0.7 V (100 IRE). Hes not saying it will be correctly exposed hes talking about minimum illumination. at which they give the senstivity data and for minimum illumination they measure at 70 IRE for a white surface. >Usually, one is supposed to work at 3200 Kelvin - Kelvin are not a degree scale... kelvin was a degree scale till 1968 after which it became "the kelvin" "Eventually, the trace that represented the white bar only reaches 50 IRE, the cutoff point. Put another way, when white things look 50% white (50 IRE), experts consider the picture to have minimum acceptable brightness. The technician, fumbling in the dark, locates his light meter and takes another lux reading. *Test 2 Black Level The darkest bar on the chart is 2% white and appears as a black bar on the TV monitor. On the waveform monitor the signal makes a trace at approximately 7 IRE on the scale. Cameras measuring below 4 or above 10 on the scale for black level do not qualify for further testing (these cameras, since they are not making correct black, cannot have whites that are trustworthy). " >The bars are generated by a specific electronic circuitry and have nothing to do with the sensor parts of the camera... Test 1 : Here even i get confused above he said 70 IRE now he says 50 IRE. He is talking about shooting a gray chart .. so the black on that is 2%white .. not about the colour bars in the camera...im well aware that colour bars are produced by the electronic circuitry. Ok i think your missing the point of my argument...or query all i wanna know is what are the parameters of the sensitivity of a camera. Acc to you its simple... >This is not for "minimum sensitivity". This is for default/standard sensitivity. (25 or 30 fps, filter 1 (3200 K), gain = 0 etc.) OK but in this default sensitivity what are the parameters...what does it mean? Does it mean a white surface will reproduce 100 IRE @ f11 2000 lux? f11 2000 lux @ 1/60 would be about an ISO equivalent of 800 (keyword being equivalent) but in my experience the 570 whose standard sensitivity is given as that is closer to an equivalence of ISO 320 and no need to apologise it wasnt my article. but you did get worked up a bit even though i think im on your side. Just been hearing about the video camera ISO equivalents a bit too much. Laurent im argueing against manufactureres giving out information like say for the "XL2 minimum illumination is 2 lux" which they did. And the XL2 is a so called bridge between the consumer and professional world. Manu Anand New Delhi (currently in Bombay) DP

Namaste (most common greeting in India) Morgan, here's a link to the entire development history of the arri 16 SR cameras. http://www.cinematechnic.com/resources/arri_16SR.html Manu Anand New Delhi (currently in Bombay) DP