dan kessler

I know the guys at Xrez Studios have a rig like this, but the payload is a Sony 36 megapixel still camera. They stitch frames together to make giant panoramas. You might contact them for first-hand feedback.

Don't laugh, but something as simple as an empty toilet paper roll can get you started. Edmund Scientific has been one good source for optics experimenters for years, both with parts and information on how to build. Another good place I've used is Surplus Shed. There are others. Obviously, if you have some machining skill, you can get a little more ambitious.

No, of course, I was talking about some of the useful configurations that are fairly simple to obtain with off-the-shelf or surplus components. If you've got a bench lathe, so much the better. But computer modeling, CNC manufacturing and precision clean room assembly by skilled technicians? I wish.

I have an older anamorphic adapter with a 2x squeeze designed for film use, but the principle is the same. You are correct, these are not clip-on lens attachments. They need a robust mount, usually affixed to the rods, that will keep it in place in front of the spherical lens. You must leave a small gap between the lenses for focusing. They also focus independently of the spherical lens, so, yes, you must focus two lenses. Opinion? Well, this was the way cinemascope worked in the beginning. A lot of movies got made this way. It didn't take long, though, for Bausch and Lomb to come out with anamorphic lenses that integrated everything into one barrel with one focusing mechanism, which became the preferred design from that point onward. Nevertheless, if cost is a factor and you can live with the inconvenience, adapters still get the job done.

Absolutely. Not that difficult, really, but take some time to study up on photographic optics, too, so you understand what's going on. Don't forget that the earliest photo lenses were pretty simple, but people took lots of pictures with them.

I remember discussing this very thing here a couple of years ago. There's no such thing as just plugging cg weapons (or any other cg objects) into a shot. Even with very high end software, there is still considerable labor involved in modeling, shading and animating the objects, and that's when it's done by experienced artists. All suggestions to use real props should be taken seriously. CG can more easily be used to add muzzle blasts, but even that is not a trivial procedure. You either need to take the time to practice and learn or get someone who already knows how.

The ratings stamped on fixtures are there for a reason. You exceed them at your own risk.

Dom said the magic words - lens aberrations. Historically, these have been the chief obstacle to speed. Visualize the cone of light passing through a lens with spherical surfaces. (most lenses) It is an optical fact of life that the rays at the outer edges of the cone do not focus at the same point as the rays nearer the center. This gives rise to a number of image defects that lens designers have had to battle for more than a century. The larger the light cone, the harder it is to get all the rays of all the colors to come to nice sharp points in a flat image plane. This is why photographers know, or should know, that stopping down improves the performance of any lens. We are narrowing the cone of light, eliminating the rays that contribute the most to aberrations.

Just to hopefully clarify a little more... you're absolutely right in thinking that there is a critical relationship between lens elements, back focal length and flange focal distance. Those who build and/or service lenses make sure that the lens mounts are correctly attached to lens barrels so that those critical relationships are maintained. When that is properly done, the only distance a user needs to check is flange focal distance.

I think the term that describes the distance from the rear element to the film plane is 'back focal length.' You are correct in observing that back focal length varies from one lens to another, but your expectation that the distance from the mount to the rear element should somehow be consistent for all lenses just means you need to do more research into the whole, vast subject of optics and lens design. Practically speaking, the standards only apply to flange focal distance. Focus calibration is based upon that. As to shutter clearances, you are right again. Some lens designs will NOT clear rotating mirror shutters, and it is therefore important to always check it.

Don't forget places like Western Costume. They have a huge rental inventory, besides the ability to make stuff from scratch.

Explain how the VPF works, because I keep reading that VPF's are due to expire soon. They were supposedly an incentive to exhibitors to make the switch, but not an ongoing thing. Plus, I always thought that distributors were the big beneficiary of going digital, since they were the ones who paid for prints. How do VPF's line up with that?

I kind of thought that's what you meant. Well, green screen had nothing to do with those protests. If you really want to know, you need to hear the story of the visual effects industry in the United States. If you don't want to know, stop now, because I'm about to get long-winded. Rewind to Star Wars. That hugely successful movie was a watershed, marking the birth of the legendary effects studio, ILM. They used a lot of the old school methods, like model-making, matte painting, rotoscoping and optical printing, but they added something new to the mix -- computer technology. They made more movies and built a reputation, but computers themselves were about to take center stage. The 80's saw the rise of CGI -- computer generated imagery. Silicon Graphics workstations became standard equipment, along with a few high-end software packages, like Wavefront, Alias, TDI and Prisms. Wavefront, Alias and TDI eventually merged to become Maya, while Prisms became Houdini. It was all new and dazzling. By the 90's, some of the Star Wars alumni had opened studios of their own and CGI played a starring role in every movie Hollywood made. They couldn't get enough and it drove the effects industry to new heights. The demand for CG artists was huge. The decade belonged to them, but in the midst of the euphoria, new economic trends were emerging. It was first evident in traditional animation. Anything that could be done more cheaply offshore got shipped offshore. Traditional artists began to lose their jobs. A demarcation arose between traditional and digital artists, and the implication was clear -- adapt or die. Digital artists felt secure, but the new trend was just beginning. By the 2000's, $2000 PC's were outperforming $20,000 workstations and high-end software prices were plummeting. As a result, new studios sprang up all over the world, and hordes of eager, young artists vied for the chance to work in them. Also, many people didn't realize how tenuous the effects business really was. Movie studios awarded work through competitive bidding, so there was always pressure to come in low. Companies could be high profile and command legions of artists, but still barely make any money. One fabled movie exec said that if he wasn't putting effects companies out of business, he wasn't doing his job. So, sure enough, they started closing their doors. One here, one there, at first, but it gained momentum. The ones that didn't close migrated to offshore locations in a futile effort to stay competitive. Within a few more years, the globalization of animation and visual effects was in high gear. LA was fast losing its dominance. Artists who once made a good living found it harder to survive. When Rhythm and Hues declared bankruptcy in early 2013 and got bought out by an Indian company, it was a climax. They were one of the oldest, one of the biggest and best. If you hadn't known it before, you knew it then; the good old days were over. I often marvel at how rapidly the industry evolved. From the research by a handful of pioneers at a few universities in the 60's, to its conquest of Hollywood to where it is now, it all happened in a single generation. Once upon a time, you could go to Siggraph, the annual computer graphics convention, and get lost in a bustling crowd.There were always new milestones, new breakthroughs, lots of excitement. You brought your demo reel along because it was also the largest recruiting event in the industry. Every studio, large and small, sent their reps to headhunt right on the convention floor. That's all gone now. So, no, it wasn't green screen they were protesting, all those R and H employees who were about to lose their jobs. They would tell you it was about the unfair business practices of movie studios. Maybe... but I remember conversations with my coworkers over lunches a long, long time ago, where we asked the question even then: "You know what's coming, don't you?"

Before the widespread use of videotape, 35mm and 16mm films were broadcast on television via a system known as a film chain. Basically, it was a film projector feeding directly into a video camera. If you google, 'film chain,' you can get all the history on it.

Protests? Rhythm and Hues? What exactly are you asking here?

No books on lighting technique? Painting With Light, by John Alton.

Dare I say it? If you want to assure future film quality, shoot on 35mm film. Outputs to ANY format past, present or future, the benchmark in quality, best archivability.

Yeah, okay, lights are usually called out by their wattage, not their color temp.

Not necessarily recent, but every cinemascope film from 1953-1997 found here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/cslist.htm

Starting with the last question first, visual effects are mainly post-production techniques, which today is almost entirely CGI, whereas special effects are production techniques carried out in front of the camera (pyrotechnics, props, mechanical rigs, etc.) People enter the field in a variety of ways, none of which is easy. Self-study, like you are doing now, is a given. At some point, though, you have to put the knowledge you gain into practice so you have something to show on a demo reel. On the visual effects side, people learn CGI through self-study, or through formal training, many have computer science degrees, etc. There's a lot to learn. Your intelligence, skill and talent will determine how fast you progress, but it all takes time. After you make that sizable investment of time and energy, you will then face the even greater challenge of finding a job. You will need a strong reel, or perhaps an advanced degree, and it always helps to know somebody. You must set yourself apart from the crowd of wannabes all clamoring for the same thing, because today, the talent (labor) pool is global. In the present economy, there are no visual effects companies remaining in the U.S. who have not migrated to offshore facilities or have simply closed their doors altogether. Also, be aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction today because of grueling hours, wage abuses, frequent layoffs, etc. Not trying to be discouraging, but if a vfx career is your goal, you need to go in with your eyes open.

Well, David, I'm not sure I follow you. You do a 4k scan off a 35mm original, it will record back onto 35mm exactly the same way. Record that same 4k onto 65mm and you're either going to have an image that doesn't fill the larger area or you're recording with bigger pixels that do fill the larger area. Don't we always laud bigger film for its higher resolution capability? If we keep our pixel size constant, then any alteration of image size entails adding or subtracting pixels. The pixels you add are computational products, not actual photographic detail, thus not original. The pixels you subtract, of course, would constitute lost detail from the original.

No generational loss, but certainly an effect on quality. There is always concern when digitally manipulating images, as certain operations alter the pixel arrangement, among them being scaling and rotation. Obviously, when blowing up, you're interpolating pixels in that weren't there before. Bigger image, yes, but not the same as the original. Conversely, when reducing, you're throwing pixels away.

A lot of interesting background, but I think the simple response is that the OP's original understanding was incorrect. Digital compositing was in wide use well before D.I.'s. It was standard for CGI elements through most if not all the '90's.

The square section slides over and clamps onto the frame, while the "ear" slides into the grip head flange on the stand. These things work better in pairs, as is the case when using them with butterflies.

There are a lot of unemployed CG artists these days. Maybe you can line up one or two with decent animation skills and their own software. I'm thinking Van de Graff discharges from the character, skeleton lighting up, maybe some Tex Avery-style character animation, sparks, flames, smoke, etc., etc., all perfectly matchmoved. (you did say over the top) Can you do that with practicals? Oh, and 4k is not necessary for this.