Bruce Greene

From my experience you can usually clip the gels to the barn doors without issue... as long as you do not spot the lamp down. use the lamp at full flood and you should be ok.

I think the big advantage of the R model is that it has digital video out over SDI. The earlier models only had analog video out which required 3 cables.

For HDR grading, you’ll need to spend about $30000 now. For SDR, I use an Eizo computer display, but I’ve needed to learn how to calibrate it correctly with a proper 3D LUT. This takes time and some money. For “out of the box” calibrated display, get an FSI monitor. There may be a 24” version within your budget.

What is a classic lens? Cinema lens or still photo lens?

In the past I've had some foreign releases use cinevator prints and they were fantastically ... awful! At the time, the cinevator was using an LCD display to photograph a negative version of the digital movie to film print stock. Maybe, if they've switched to some OLED display tech, they would be better today. But, now that distribution on film is essentially dead, I think I'd avoid this. Certainly, I'd perform a very short cinevator test and project it before ordering a print of your completed film.

Looks great!

Yes. The diffusion becomes the source.

I think a couple of the bodies were destroyed in accidents...

I think only Leonetti rented these cameras in Hollywood. At one time, I think there were 17 bodies in use.

I operated Steadicam on Child’s Play 3 ?

I worked on maybe 6 shows with this camera, including a few with John. Not a bad camera, just an inferior "copy" of a Panaflex. And they were a little bit heavier than a Panaflex. If I recall, not all parts would fit correctly on each camera, such as a viewfinder from one body wouldn't fit on another. The viewfinder does have a nice zoom feature that wasn't on the Panavision cameras. There was an "in-house" set of prime lenses with ziess glass, in a Mitchell mount, that we usually used with these cameras that were quite good. And all the common zoom lenses of the day worked fine on the camera as well. Some camera bodies were noisier than others, but all in all, they were quiet cameras. And I can't recall any issues with the cameras jamming more than others. And about "color spectrum" and "matrix"? This is a film camera and these comments make no sense whatsoever! Maybe you are referring to the nice blue paint on the camera body?

I don't know where to find a new take-up belt, but I do remember that it's normal for the image in the viewfinder to rotate as you reposition the viewfinder. With practice, you will get used to the rotated image in the viewfinder and your brain will correct it until it looks normal to you ?

To achieve a look you use all the tools at your disposal. Now it's time for you to learn the tools. You can start now if you have a phone that takes pictures. You can even find a phone app that let's you set the WB manually to experiment with that aspect. Time to stop posting on forums and get to work! A great adventure awaits you ?

The advantage of behind the lens gel filters is that they allow viewing the image in the viewfinder without looking through a dark filter. So it is easier to see through the viewfinder. Only color correction or ND gels should be used and not diffusion filters. But, if you have only one gel holder, then this would become kind of a pain in the neck to change filters. You really need an entire set of gel holders to have all your filters ready to go. And there is always the danger of dust showing up on the filter, with the same effect of dust on a digital camera sensor. So, the filters must be kept as clean as possible. They can not be wiped clean, so if the dust can't be blown off, the filter must be replaced.

If you are asking about shooting on film (not digital), then I would think any simple .ND filter would work fine, such as Tiffen etc. .3, .6, .9 are usually enough for shooting on film.

Yes. If you shoot tungsten light at a camera setting of 6500k everything will look orange. If you shoot daylight at 3200k everything will look blue. I suggest you take out you digital still camera and give it a try and see what happens. Shoot .jpg so that the color is locked in the image.

I drink the tap water here in LA, and most of the US. When I travel abroad, I drink bottled water as I don't know about the safety there of the tap water. Generally, if none of the locals will drink the tap water, neither will I. Of course, I don't know about the safety of the local bottled water either! I did once get very very ill from drinking tap water in South Texas near the Mexican border. (105 fever, nearest doctor 200 miles away) So, not everywhere in the US is safe for tap water, though I think all the major cities are.

Typically... If I'm shooting daylight, I set the camera WB between 5600k to 6500k. The higher number renders a "warmer" exposure. If indoors, or night exteriors the WB is set from 2800k to 3200k generally. And this depends on the color of light present on the set, and how warm I'd like it to look. If I'm shooting on a set with practical (non-movie) lights such as florescent, I will pull out the chart and do an auto WB on the chart to match the camera to the available lighting. If you don't have a chart, use a white piece of paper in a pinch, or a photographic gray card. I did shoot one scene a couple years ago at 9000k, under tungsten lighting for a very warm effect. I think this was the maximum setting in the Arri Alexa ? Framing and lighting create a "look" if you want to call it that. At least on the set. There are additional adjustments in color correction to reach the final image of the film. Really that's all there is to it. The rest is up to your "eye" and experience. To learn the other technical stuff like color spaces and color management, I suggest you get a good book about Photoshop and learn how to use the software and color correction very well in Photoshop. These concepts apply directly to color grading software such as Resolve, but there are many more books about Photoshop than movie color correction. And practicing on still images is easier than shooting movies. And.... it will make you a better photographer in general.

Well, these days we can shoot at such low light levels that... 500w in a ball seems like overkill ? And those balls... the light just goes everywhere! I find very few situations where I'd want a ball light, but it was a cool fad while it lasted!

Richard, I think the issue in the US is that we are very unprepared to treat the 5% or so people who could require extensive medical care. Once the virus expands it's reach to 1000's of people, even if only 5% need hospital care, there is no place to put them, and not enough equipment to treat them. So, we need to slow it's progress to give us time to be ready. So far, it seems, we have squandered this opportunity. And our whole medical system and employment system encourages people to avoid medical care due to costs, and to show up at work ... at all costs. So, we are entering a real crisis, even if the risk for most is low. Not to mention our huge homeless population, many of whom may die in the streets as they spread the virus amongst themselves. While hysteria will not help us, there is some real reason for concern I think. And I will skip NAB this year. Nothing there is worth hanging around in crowded places with people from all over the world in this situation. But, enjoy your vacation, and most likely, everything will be fine for you.

The DSC chart has color squares that match up to the vecotrscope, plus a grey scale. To see only a grey scale you can crop out the colors if you wish (either in camera or in post). The interesting thing is that if you shoot all the colors and the grey scale together, they will create a neutral image that you can white balance with. So, if you have a DSC chart, you won't also need a grey scale and/or grey card. Note however, that the middle grey of the grey scale does not equal the reflectance of a grey card. I think a grey card is one or two shades darker than the middle grey on the DSC grey scale. 18% Grey cards are pretty cheap to buy and they are useful for checking a spot meter or just calibrating your mind when using a spot meter (light meter) when choosing your camera exposure. Yes, white balance matters. If you are shooting LOG, you need to set the white balance in the camera before shooting as it effects the recording. If you shoot RAW, you can white balance more in post than with LOG, but it's still best to set the white balance even when shooting RAW as it sets the meta data for the clip with your chosen white balance and speeds up post color correction and, gives you the best on set view on the monitor. So, white balance always effects the look you see on set. Don't use "auto" white balance when shooting movies as every take will have a different white balance and not match. Always choose the white balance in the camera menu. If you need a custom white balance, you can grab that, using the "Auto" white balance, but use the same white balance for every shot in a scene.

You ask good questions, but the answers are too much for a forum reply. I sometimes photograph a DSC chroma du monde chart (it has everything you need). But, I set the camera to the WB to match my lighting, and only in unusual situations will I white balance to the chart. (non standard lighting). I shoot the chart in standard lighting to understand and see what the camera is doing when I bring the chart into color correction software, using a calibrated display. But, most cinematographers don't have a color correction suite in their homes, as I do. It's not very helpful to photograph the chart at the head of each camera set up, as once the film is edited, these charts are then cut out of the movie and don't appear in timeline for color correction. If you're shooting RAW or LOG, for post production color correction, there's no need or desire to match the cameras on set using the charts. The colorist will match the shots during color grading. Live video broadcast is another matter where the engineer will match the cameras through the video camera controls. It's best to use the same type of camera for all cameras used on the production to obtain consistent results. So, don't use an Arri for A camera and a RED camera for B camera. For practical reasons, just set all cameras on the set to the same WB and make your movie. The best chart is the DSC chroma du monde, but it does cost about $1500 these days... This chart is designed to work with the vector scope so that you can easily see what the camera is doing color wise. If you adjust the colors in post to put the little dots in the little boxes on the vectorscope, you have accurate color. But, rarely is accurate color your goal in color correction. And even a camera, such as an Alexa, does not create accurate color when white balanced, and using the "standard" Arri transform. Arri has their own idea of what a good "photographic" image should look like. If you shoot the DSC chart on an Alexa, convert the image to REC709 in post, and look at the vectorscope, you will see which colors Arri emphasizes more than others vs the "accurate" image that will put each color in the standard box on the vectorscope. When I started learning digital cinema, about 15 years ago, I bought a DSC chart, waveform vectorscope, and experimented with my Varicam for hours to see what all the in camera controls did by looking at the scopes when shooting the chart. It was a very valuable lesson for me. These days, since you can use Resolve at home, you can skip the hardware scopes and just shoot the chart and experiment on it in Resolve and use the software scopes. I hope this is a little bit helpful to you.

Good points Neal!

Lowcon prints aren't that low contrast, and are quite difficult to work from. In the end, your color correction is likely to look more contrasty than viewing a release print of the same movie. Your result might look "old", but not like viewing a film print in a theater in the 1990's ?

Many of the bigger streaming series today have the same recourses and budgets and time as a feature film. So, no difference there. Other "tv" series, less so. It's not so much as a difference between TV vs movies, but smaller budgets vs larger budgets. Artistically, I think all aim for the same goals, they just all don't make it to the finish line ?