Ari Davidson

For over function. Yes, they are. That's why there's film school. Then when they get out and make their festival underdog sensations, they can choose whichever medium suites the story and budget. Or suppose they're realistic and want to shoot a short but would rather put that hard earned cash towards a location or real actors. You know, the stuff that everyone else notices. It mimics the look of a 16mm camera because it also mimics the function of a compact 16mm camera, or Bolex. A low budget camera that allows the filmmaker to capture their image with little to know influence from the camera. Or more simply put, a taste of the big leagues. Does anyone actually do photochemical finish and edit on a Steinbeck. No. If you do, "viva la resitance". The reality is that even film ends up being captured in a raw format for DI. Usually some flavor of 4:4:4 DPX or Cineon. So really, if we're going to split hairs about it, this fun little camera is still introducing new filmmakers to the workflow of film. The craft has nothing to do with being a medium snob. So can we all just cut it out? I LOVE FILM, but I don't dictate the studios or the economy so I'm embracing the future, rather than pretend it isn't already on our doorstep. Exactly If it's anything like the Ikonoskop, it should be great. I just did a doc with the DII and the images are very pleasing. Stu's thoughts after speaking to the inventors of the Digital Bolex: http://prolost.com/b...-the-bolex.html There is more to the A-Cam DII and the Scarlet. The D16 is engineered so only the bare minimum processing is occurring within the camera. That's how they made it for cheap. Just because the original scarlet had a fixed lens and a 2/3" chip, doesn't mean it's for little Beckham's tournaments. It's called TV, and it would have been lovely and welcomed by an ENTIRELY different crowd of users. As far as the LCD goes, ask them. They're very nice and open to discussion. As soon as my clients want it, I'll be first in line You mean like the film emulsion company? Hm... I too love the whole form over function. Though the usefulness of the LCD is arguable, I'm glad there isn't some painfully useless inline-viewfinder (F3 ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clearly I put my money up for one of these cameras, and why shouldn't any of us. I am thrilled to back people who want to throw a wrench or two in the big boy's gear. Hell, consider it retribution for what they did to my favorite film manufacturer (I shot still before this 24p hoopla, and fell in love with the Kodak 1600 Ektapress and bought every roll I could find. Alas two remain and they're fading away in my fridge ). It's so easy to pick on the little guy, I truly hate seeing it happen here. No one is forcing you to shoot on the D16 (yet), so stop naysaying hand over fist, sit back, and enjoy the ride. -Ari "a bit grumpy about all the unfounded hate" Davidson

Great little camera. Chroziel made (makes?) one that clips on like Sony one, and takes 4x4 filters. As for the diffusion, try 1/4 BPM. It's always made me happy. I'd throw a polarizer in the kit too if you don't already have one. The thing with picture profiles is no one really knows what you're going for and "dark and dramatic" is a bit relative. Take a little more time, point it at a properly exposed chip chart and dial in the look that works for YOU, save it and have it for the rest of your life. In case you have it seen it yet, check out "Another Earth". Great film shot on this cam with a "dark and dramatic" look

I work with this setup professionally and regularly for TV content. If you're starting out the primes will work quite well for you. My only qualm with the primes is they're too close in focal length. I did hear that there's a wide zoom (11-16) on the way too. The zoom is like a blown up version of the EX3 lens. It's an ENG lens. It breathes, telescopes, and is slooooooooow. All that aside it's absolutely beautiful when you take into consideration it's intention as a broadcast lens. I found one a crippling bug in the firmware last week. While the F3 is set to output from the dual link SDI, the camera has lots of problems communicating with the lens. i.e. slow zoom response, no control of focus, etc... This may be resolved in the S-log upgrade (which my package does not have). Hope this helps.

If you have access to a video projector, you could create the desired effect in After Effects and project it on or behind the set.

This topic really should be stickied no? First of all that image has perfect results because it was dodged digitally. I have used many flavors of hazers/foggers, and the DF-50 is the best. Unfortunately this is one of those "get what you pay for" effects. A colleague told me once that oil based haze solutions tend to disperse better, so if you get pigeon-holed into using something cheap at least try to get a good solution. All and all it's a hard trick to master, and no forum can be in the room with you. My advice is get what you can afford before you shoot, and do some tests (and let us know how it turns In most cases, smoke detectors operate with a photoelectric sensor. It trips when the beam is refracted by smoke or dense vapor, and then activates a switch to power on the alarm. Easy fix. Tape a cup over the smoke detector, and notify your fire department that you're going to be using smoke FX. Fun fact about smoke in film: In Dune (1984) they burned tires to create giant plumes of black smoke, and had actor run through the dreck. Cheers.

^ What Adrian said. An entry level light meter is worth it's weight in gold. Seriously. I used a Sekonic L-398 throughout school, and almost a year after I got out. Plus, any camera just gives you reflected readings, to some degree. Separate yourself from the crowded DSLR pack, and get a light meter

If the light doesn't have to be white. You could try chemiluminesence (i.e. glow sticks). The cheap way to achieve this is fill an object with water and drop the guts of a new highlighter in it. Hit it with some UV light and it'll emit a sufficient glow. 100w untethered is a bit of a tall order... Alternatively, a couple of strategically placed 3" Rosco Light Panels could illuminate a frosted acrylic orb of sorts.

Wilderness sounds like some sketchy terrain to stabilize your rig. First of all, you'd need to level out your supports. A combo of c-stands with rocky mt. legs, apple boxes and shot bags should do it, but that's not compact or resourceful. I was in Maine for a while shooting on an igus based slider. NOT STABLE AT ALL. What we discovered to work very well was a popup crafty table (crafty wasn't too thrilled to have a table hijacked). Maybe try something along those lines of supporting it with a continuous platform as opposed to single points which will cause bowing from variable tension in the track. Plywood and saw horses maybe? Also, something like the emotimo pt could help you add another dynamic to your shots and frame out the rig throughout.

Please use your real name, as it is a term of the site's usage. I own the Nikon D7000 and have shot journalism, music video, and timelapse with it quite a bit. As a timelapse camera, I haven't found anything more reliable or convenient. The low light functionality is great compared to all the others you listed, but doesn't hold a candle (no pun) to something like the 5DmkII. I owned a hacked T2i for about a week and got rid of it. Though you get great functions from the Magic Lantern hack, it is a pain in the ass to use. I had a two camera shoot with it and my D7000. It took longer to setup and gave out on take three of the interview. Let's talk bang for buck or, "buy cheap, pay twice". The Nikon D7000 and D5100 are basically the same camera and have a superior processor to all the others you listed, but you don't have the advantage of firmware hacks or the capability to adapt a vast world of glass to the bodies, BUT you do get five decades of Nikkor glass to choose from. As for Canon, I wouldn't rely on any of their DSLR's with the exception of the 5DmkII or 1DmkIV. Their APS-C chips just plain don't do it for me. However, you can adapt ANY lens to the EOS mount, as you should seeing as EOS lenses don't have an aperture ring, but that's just a preference... A hacked GH2 is great for the bit rate, but do you really need 170mb? If I were you, I'd get the Sony 5N. Hands down. You get an EXMOR sensor! The same technology used in the FS100 and F3! Just scaled down to APS-C. You get full 1080p60 which none of those cameras can offer, HDR, focus peaking, and you can adapt any lens to sony's mount. I mean, it's good enough for BBC. If it doesn't work out for you, you're not even out $1k. And all that fuss over low-light? for what? To put it lightly (ha!), you'll make a prett half-ass DP, if you're not as meticulous with lighting as you are with camera.

Any RSS app should do just fine.

In my experience, Old Richardson's are usually beat to s*** while the Arri's are babied. That being said, if their treated right they'll perform the same (usually). Although at my studio we compared a Mole 10k to an Arri 5k, and the Arri just about doubled the output. The Mole is also about 70 years older

The only thing that immediately comes to mind is to add a delrin gear to the zoom ring, use a Haden (or equivalent) motor via rods, and a microforce (or similar controller). I own this camera too, and out of curiosity I was wondering what lens you're using.

That sounds an interesting documentary idea you could work on to stay busy, and meet cinematographers. Don't give up!

That goes without saying! My point is if you're going to burn some cash to "make" yourself official, gear is cheaper than a degree, alas it will not make you good at your job...

If by natural you also mean practical lighting, check out Michel Gondry's material. He has "if I can see, then there is light" mindset. There are superb articles about The Science of Sleep and Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind, in back issues of American Cinematographer. If I'm not mistaken, Gasper Noè's Enter the Void heavily implemented practical lighting. Oddly enough all of these were shot pre 800 ISO CMOS sensors...

If you're really serious about becoming a colorist, don't waste money on school. If it were me, I'd take that money and invest it in: Books (any school will make you do this anyways), and Magazines: The Art & Technique of Color Correcting, Color Correction Handbook, Post Magazine, and ICG A workstation: Mac Pro & Wave Panel, or B&H Photo Mac Pro Workstation Blackmagic Design DaVinci Resolve/Mac Pro RAID Turnkey System Additional Hardware: HD Link, Additional Monitor, Storage Once you've learned a thing or two, put yourself out there! Start small with some student and indie shorts. Whilst doing that, maybe intern or apprentice at a post house/color correction facility. To me the key is not to wait for some seal of approval from an institution that certifies you as a qualified component of our workforce. In this business it's a lot about who you know, and there's a lot more people to meet outside of school :) With a new flavor of digital cinema being released every other month, this is an exciting time to get into your area of interest! I hope this helps, even though it wasn't quite the answer you asked for.

Aside from the manufactures, Film Emporium is good for that sort of thing. http://www.tapesuperstore.com/16mm35mm.html Happy hunting.

I haven't used this yet, but seems like a solution you could get behind. http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/10/20/f3-solutions-abelcine-provfm-viewfinder-mount-kit/

This seems up your alley, bud. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Arri-16BL-Camera-complete-package-5-lenses-4-mags-/300532085955?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45f91bb4c3#ht_1030wt_1297

As far as video examples go, you're better off trolling about vimeo.com than youtube. It's members tend to be more artistic and tech savvy.

If you're really broke like I was in film school, the bottom of a beer bottle works well too ;)

you could try something like this with a teleconverter: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-sigma Panavision has some nice zooms that could do the job as well (probably better).

Pick your favorite visual film, your favorite scene, and favorite shot. Press pause and look for a while. I'm sure all those aspects are present.

You and me both bud. But seriously, sounds like Borowski's got it nailed. HD signals are totally diluted and F'd, and the displays are more so. If you want to see some deliberately interesting framing in a TV series, check out John Adams. Nearly every shot is on a dutch.

Brilliant! Though it's not the intended end result, I just picked up a T2i to use with my old Yashica primes for fun from a fellow DP and will weigh this against Technicolor's Cinestyle in a small (hardly) scientific test soon. Thank you!