Bruce Greene

This is one I particularly do not like on set. Very not respectful.

I've been asked to shoot a doc where they are looking for a lot of handheld, probably with a zoom lens. They also want "cinematic" quality, ha! I've been working the Alexa for many years, and it's clearly not the tool for this job. So, I'm welcoming your suggestions for something light enough to keep on my shoulder for long periods, and a viewfinder good enough for me to focus myself. Something like a Canon C300 with it's funky rear mounted viewfinder doesn't seem to fit the bill here ? Thanks! -bruce

Asbestos? Don't shoot there period.

And you might be surprised how 720P is not so different than 1080P with motion blur at 24 fps... And the 720P cameras, with their larger photo sites, were more sensitive to light and could be used at higher ISO as well. ?

I would think the KiPro isn't needed with this camera as it has quality digital (non tape) recording built in. I would use a color correction software such as Resolve to grade the images though ?

The most usual issue here is when shooting through the windshield. The sky reflections, depending on the car, can make it hard to see inside. What we often do is to shade the windshield with a large black cloth on a frame, to eliminate the reflections. And this also cuts the light from the actors in the car, so one needs also to light them from the platform, as shown in your photo.

These days it's easier to just make a custom curve in the grading software than use a fixed curve from Apple Color. But, if you love Apple Color, go for it! ? ? ?

FilmRec on the old Varicam is a "knee" adjustment with the knee point set to 10%. The result is that the gamma curve from zero to 10% is the same as "standard" REC709 gamma 2.2. Above 10% video level, depending on your "dynamic level" setting, the contrast is lowered with 200% dynamic level being a mild lowering of the contrast, while 500% or on your camera, maybe 600% being the maximum lowering of the contrast. Unlike a LOG gamma, which is a curve, this knee adjustment is a straight line reduction in contrast. So, to correct this, do not use a LOG/709 LUT. Simply increase the contrast by increasing the gain. To preserve highlights, you would need to create a curve that is mostly straight in the mid tones and round it off to protect the highlights. The color space is still REC709, just the contrast / gamma curve is different. Because the gamma compression here is a straight line, and not a LOG curve, this method is more prone to banding in gradients than a log recording. Therefore it is essential to use 10 bit recording to minimize banding when using FilmRec mode. When using FilmRec at maximum dynamic level effect, you should get around 12 or 13 stops of dynamic range in your Varicam recorded images. Lastly, because you are recording a low contrast image in REC709 color space, you may be able to grade in P3 color space and preserve detail in colors beyond the standard REC709 colorspace. This may require some adjustment of the saturation to correctly fit your image into P3 color space, should you choose to go this route.

Generally Blu-Ray gets the same treatment as the theatrical version, but sometimes with some minor adjustments. If you have a good TV that is correctly set up than it should look as good or better than your average multiplex.

There are also many cinemas that leave the polarizing filters on the projector (for 3D) even when screening 2D and this results in a quite dim image. I've asked the theater manager about this and they said that there was nothing that they could do about it. AMC Burbank, I'm talking about you!

Well, there is really no way to know if what you see anywhere is the Director's intent. I suppose the theatrical version, in a well calibrated venue would be the best bet. That said, I would not rely on "cinema mode" for any kind of an accurate portrayal of your Blu-Ray. And, the Blu-Ray might not be the same color grade as the theatrical version anyway. I think to be confident of your home display, you will need to calibrate the display to a brightness of 100 nits, D65 white point, Rec709 colors, and view in a darkened room. To do this, you can buy a calibration probe such as the i1 Display Pro ($250) and get some software such as HCFR, open source software and set up your TV properly through it's on screen menu. If you want dead on accurate calibration, you'll need to buy a LUT box to change the signal going into the TV for the best calibration. I don't think the LUT box approach is really needed for home viewing. I have a Panasonic plasma at home where I just set the white point with my probe, and then turned off all the picture "enhancements" in the menu, set the color space to REC709, gamma to 2.4 and the black point or "brightness" as it's sometimes called in TV's to zero. It's quite close to my calibrated display I use to master movies. I did find that "cinema" mode looked pretty awful on my TV. Also the "THX" mode as well. So, my properly set up TV is set to "standard" mode.

A couple of things, only since you've asked.... The color correction is a bit flat and low contrast. I guess that helps smooth the skin, but... it certainly doesn't catch the eye of the viewer. The sound quality is poor. Bad echo in the room. It would be worth rerecording the narration in a proper audio studio or just a better environment. The audio quality gives the entire spot the impression of "amateur" filmmaking. Lastly, the editing. Each shot seems to be on screen just a beat or two too long. Once we've gotten the idea, it's time to move on to the next shot. The spot is not "bad", but I think these suggestions could make it work a bit better.

Me too!!!! ? Secure grip. No wiggle. I use them for Steadicam.

What do channel masks have to do with CMYK? I admit I haven't had time to watch the videos carefully and I don't think I'll be subscribing to view them....

Tyler, can you explain the CMYK process you are writing about here? I've never heard this used before... Thanks!

My first student film used 3 rolls of film and the budget was $40. Not cheap in those days. The second one cost me $90 and I thought that this filmmaking thing is crazy expensive!!!!

David, at this point, 16mm film is an antique/alternative process for making films. I think you are on to something here, but I wouldn't spend too much money on it. In the olden days, when I was in university, we had only one filmmaking course. And, we used Bell and Howell 16mm eyemo cameras and had only a simple set of rewinds and a moviescope to view the hand cranked footage for editing. We shot and edited 16mm b&w reversal camera original , cement spliced, and projected the result, splices and all. I think you should consider this approach. Firstly, there was no sync sound, so it was "pure" cinema. All that dialog gets in the way of beginning filmmakers! And it was "affordable" by limiting the number of 100ft rolls shot. Maybe 5 rolls maximum! I wouldn't revive the laboratory, but there is Cine Lab in Fall River not so far away. It will be far easier to pay for "lab runs" than to build a lab ? http://www.cinelab.com/ I like the idea of the Eyemo cameras more than Bolex as they are more reliable. The viewfinders of the Bolex are so bad as to be almost worthless. And the spring wound motors that limit takes to 20 seconds are a feature, not a bug. You would need to teach some basic photography to get usable images from your students. Lightmeter, exposure, frame rates, focus, iris. Expect some disasters and some very creative focus! And, unless you have no other choice, I would avoid scanning the film and digital editing for this course. Kind of takes the "magic" out of it. I would also insist on B&W reversal so color temperature issues don't get in the way. Cine Lab seems to still process b&w reversal and it just looks great projecting the camera original images! Best of luck David!!!!

Ah memories... From my memory, the Aaton 35mm camera was noisier than a typical Moviecam SL. Of course an SL in poor tune will get louder ? Weight wise, the SL was light enough for Steadicam. a 535B was heavier than a BL II and also required 24v, yes? But it was more quiet. Until the Moviecam SL, the BL I or II was the lightest sync sound camera available for the Steadicam if one couldn't get a lightweight Panaflex, which were in very short supply. Panavision was still trying to get everyone to rent a Panaglide, to get the lighter camera at the time.

I think if this was an IATSE union shoot, and there was no camera operator hired, you should not touch the camera. But, as a director, if you insist on operating the camera, and there is a union camera operator assigned to that camera, you could request to operate the camera yourself. I'm not sure if that is strictly within the "rules" but, the director is the boss... But if the MC operator was a union camera operator, then...maybe sort of ok, as you are operating the same camera that he/she is assigned to. Or you could have had the union MC operator operate the shot.

You are building a movie film scanner?

It all depends on the technical skills of the crew. And the working style of the cinematographer as well. I would like it if I could tell my gaffer to "light from over there" and place f2.8 over "here" ? But, I've been working a lot over seas where my gaffers are not used to working this way and really don't want to be responsible for all that. So, I need to choose the lighting fixture (each and every one) and say exactly where it will go, but I do take suggestions. I no longer think about lighting ratios, but rather work by eye for consistency. I find that each camera angle needs it's own lighting ratio for all of them to look as if they are the same. And, I'm doing all this even though my gaffer and I don't speak the same language. But, KinoFlow is KinoFlow in just about every language ? As for rigging, this is still the expertise of the gaffers and grips and I generally let them figure out how to make it work, but I do need to be clear about what will be in the movie to keep the rigging out of the frame. But, most of all, I would love it if the Gaffer stays very close to me on set so that I can just whisper to him about adjustments and he can radio those to his crew. I also sometimes have the Gaffer to view the monitor and ask for his opinion and suggestions.

Watch the film, you'll enjoy it!

You can try to sharpen slightly out of focus shots and that will help a little bit. But you will also sharpen the noise as well, so you may find that you need to sharpen and use noise reduction at the same time. The best settings will depend upon your footage, so you will need to do a bit of experimenting. I don't believe that the free version of Resolve includes noise reduction, so you may need to pay $300 for the "studio" version. Keep in mind that noise reduction is very processor intensive, and that you may not get close to normal playback until you render the footage. Lastly, you may find that adding sharpening to the entire image also sharpens the parts of the frame that are already in focus, and this will still give the sense that your people are out of focus. So, you might try adding a mask/vignette so that you are mostly sharpening the area of the frame that contains the faces, and not the entire frame.

I don't think this is something you can learn from a forum post or even a book. You're going to need to learn by doing, experimentation, and trusting your eyes. If you need to practice by getting 3 old lights and shoot on an iPhone, that's what you need to do. ?

The original Zeiss standard speed PL primes are quite small and light and I think would be perfect for this project. I'm sure you can find this for rent somewhere...