Bruce Greene

If no file attached, you'll have to email me to receive it, sorry.

I think this is a job for digital post production /efx work. I think you should really do some tests first, especially if you'll be shooting actors day for night on a large field. You should experiment with different angles of sunlight and amounts of fill light (you can do this with a digital still camera if you'd like) and then take the image(s) into photoshop and use only those tools which would apply to a moving image. ie. painting by hand individual frames should be avoided. A few things to keep in mind: 1. A bright sky is obviously daytime, so you will want to avoid sky in your shots, or shoot in a way that it can be selected and darkened or replaced. An actor in front of a clear blue sky should be easy to mask (like blue screen compositing), but combine bright sky through trees and and intersecting actor and watch out. It will be hard to fix. 2. seeing your example photo, you'll want to think carefully about bright sky reflecting in water surrounded by grass as well as selecting the sky reflection might become very labor intensive. I've one shot on my website 2/3 into this clip: http://brucealangreene.com/dancingtheater.html that has a day for night desert shot that I "fixed" in photoshop myself :) I've also done a little work to your sample (took about 10 minutes) where I added a graduated ND to your sky, darkened your sky reflections, added a layer of monochrome blue image overall, tweaked the overall contrast and gamma, and threw in a few stars in the sky...But remember, if actors images had intersected the trees and bright sky, this would not have worked so easily in your example.

The AJA I/O HD will do it. It costs about $3000. Maybe you can rent one.

Anna, From my experience, the SL will be fine for most situations. You will hear it though if you shoot in a small bathroom with tile floors and walls.

I think you should think of it like this: 2.5 stops above your base exposure is "white, with slight detail". 3 stops below your base exposure is near black. So really you only use about 5-6 stops of exposure latitude when the goal is to reproduce a "realistic" portrayal of the scene. I would map these 6 stops over your 11 zones when making an optical film print. All the exposure latitude above +3 stops is to roll off highlights. Anything below -3 stops is just grainy noise, even if detail can be seen on the negative. You can use more of the exposure latitude of the film when making a low-contrast scene during the computer color grading. Something like a bright sky and shaded landscape. An electronic graduated filter might even be added to boost the contrast of the scene, while maintaing detail in the bright sky and shaded land for example. Since the contrast of the digital negative can be manipulated in the computer in the DI, there is no hard and fast relationship from the camera negative exposure to the final print negative (or print) created through the digital intermediate process.

Hi Roy, I've done this in the past...but I'm not sure there are any labs left that will process movie film in short such short lengths. Don't send the film to a regular still photo lab as it will muck up their processor. I did shoot a feature film in the Republic of Georgia a year ago, and the still photographer from Tbilisi used movie film to shoot production stills. I asked him where he could process the film in Georgia, and he said it was no problem: He processes it himself in his apartment! I think he said he uses a sponge or squeegee to remove the remjet backing. So, for an art class, just get a changing bag, a developing tank, a few chemicals and thermometer and go at it! Don't forget the squeegee:)

Tim, A simple way to see the difference would be to shoot a still photo with the DSLR in JPG mode. Also take the same photograph with 35mm color negative and have a low contrast scan made in 16 bit which holds almost all the info from the negative. You can convert each to ProRes HQ and color correct in Apple color...Or just do the color correction in photoshop and compare. I know from my film still photography / scanning experience that the film scan will enable one to make some very radical changes in the image, especially if there is an over-bright sky in the image. Also, color temperature adjustment, within reason is easy in the film scan, but almost impossible in a JPG.

Recently I had the experience of showing a small movie we shot with the 27H tape based varicam on a very large screen in a multiplex projected through Barco DLP 2k projector. The movie was still a work in progress, and so we played it on my MacBook Pro in quicktime and plugged into the projector as a mirrored computer monitor. The film was shot in 720p, mostly using an AJA I/O HD box and recording to a HD in Apple ProRes HQ, though a bit was recorded to tape and a few scenes (mostly in cars) were shot with an HPX170. The camera was set to FilmRec mode and we used the lowest setting that could capture the needed dynamic range of the scene. This was usually Dynamic Level 200%, but higher when necessary. This meant that the uncorrected movie looks a little bit low in contrast and saturation so the Quicktime player was set to slightly increase contrast and saturation. I was a little bit nervous that the 720p image on such a large screen might look a little soft, but it looked amazing! Going next door to glimpse a big Hollywood 35mm print revealed that the 720p digital projection looked as detailed as the 35mm print, and much cleaner and steadier of course. The Varicam projected had much more "life" than the dull 2k DI film print in the next theater (I'm talking about basic image quality, not the cinematography :) ) I was also particularly impressed by the HPX170 footage holding up so well. It's a little noisier and about 1/2 as detailed as the Varicam, but the additional detailing added to the HPX170 enabled it to cut in quite well and nobody in the audience was the wiser. The DVCproHD shots from the Varicam did not stand out from the full raster, 10 bit, ProRes recordings and I could not tell which were which at the screening, though I have noticed banding in graduated areas of the image from this format at other times. I guess I'm making these points to say that, detail wise, 720p is darned close to 1080p. And when shooting a movie almost every frame has some amount of motion blur, making the difference insignificant to the eye, even on a very large theatrical screen. The low light advantage of the 720p chips, and the slow motion capability make these cameras a true rival to any of the 1080p cameras that I saw demonstrated in the ASC camera assessment series last month. And while I wasn't able to compare the 720p Varicam directly to the 4k camera named after a color, I would say that after seeing the ASC tests, the 720p Varicam is about equal to or more detailed than that camera on a 2k projection. Just my 4 cents worth...

Back in my AFI days, our cinematography teacher was the great George Folsey. One day he brought in his 1st light meter that he had acquired in the early 30's. I think it was made by General Electric. George had started in silent films as an assistant and he described a technique of placing a piece of un-exposed film in the gate of the camera and covering the camera, and the head of the cameraman, with a black cloth. The cameraman rotated the iris until he could just see a certain amount of the image through the film. There was no black backing on the film in those days. Of course, this was not the most accurate method, and the film, not being sensitive to red light was developed by inspection (I think he mentioned that one of his duties as an assistant was to develop the film). If not enough image was visible in the negative, it was placed back in the developer until it was satisfactory.

Rolfe, There might be such an adapter...but you'll get the same DOF and field of view. There are no adapters to project the image on a MF sized ground glass to give you the MF DOF and I don't expect anyone to build one. How about finding an f1.2 still camera lens in the 35mm format and adapting that?

Hi Jack, I'm not busy at the moment :) And I love dramas. www.brucealangreene.com 818-802-9252

I'm not sure that 8mm will sell the distributers, but It just might be the right look for at least some of your periods:) I do think to sell the distributers that decide by format that you'll have to shoot 35mm.

David, of course you are forgiven, but I assume Stuart is looking for a normal color rendition rather than a deep blue look. When shooting color reversal, color balance is more critical than shooting with negative film. Also, if I remember from (gulp, the 1970's), tungsten balanced film was the "standard" for super 8 cameras as all home movie lights were tungsten. The cameras generally had a built in 85 filter for shooting daylight with the same film. And beside, poor Stuart was confused enough. You want to give him more choices? I don't think that will help him. And lastly David, I very, very, rarely shoot tungsten negative film in daylight without the correction filter. :P

"85" is the name of the orange filter you must use to shoot 64T film in sunlight. This filter is often built into super 8 cameras and might be put in place by setting your camera to the picture of the sun on a switch. "64T" stands for "ISO 64 - tungsten (lightbulb) light. So as david said, for outside make sure you add the "No. 85" (orange) filter, either on the front of the lens or use one built into the camera if it has one. Since the 85 filter absorbs 2/3 of one f-stop, you must expose as if the film is 2/3 f-stop less sensitive to light which will be ISO 40 on your minolta light meter. If you can't understand this post, then you will need to study basic photography. A little blunt, but I hope not rude:)

Of the choices listed, I would choose 720P 29.97 if 720P 30 is not available. The HVX is not really a 720 camera, never mind a 1080 camera, so I wouldn't worry about that aspect. You can convert the 720p 29.97 to 1080p 30 in FCP and cinema tools.

I have a similar issue: Astigmatism. While I don't notice that I'm not wearing my glasses in daylight, I really do need them to see critical focus. If you're operating a movie camera, it's a real pain to wear glasses, and unfortunately, the eyepiece diopter adjustment will not correct for astigmatism. What I've done is to have some round lenses made of my right eye prescription to place into the viewfinder cup. It's not ideal, but it's the best I can come up with. I've tried contacts, but then found I needed reading glasses when wearing them :angry: The drawback of the eyeglass in the eyepiece is that it must be rotated precisely for the astigmatism correction to work. The other challenge is eyepiece fogging. Unfortunately, wearing glasses can let some light into the viewfinder and it can sometimes find it's way to the film. With video eyepieces, light leaks are not a worry and I wear my glasses without problem. My ophthalmologist had told me not to wear glasses, that I didn't need them. But I had trouble driving at night, and I could not see when a movie was really in focus. When I got my first pair at the age of 25 I was shocked by how sharp the world was! And in 3D! I had thought normal vision was what I had grown up with...

I haven't seen the clip, but this is usually caused by a hard matte in the matte box at wide aperture. Try making some mattes in the shape you want and experiment. You can see the effect in the viewfinder. It only shows on out of focus highlights like headlights and such. It drove me crazy, until I figured it out, when I didn't want it:)

Hi Damon, I've probably worked with hundreds of dp's over the years, and there are all kinds, with different strengths. I've worked with some that have a brilliant eye, but don't know how to really use a light meter. Others are masters of story telling, or just making directors comfortable (a very important skill!), but don't really light much. In the end, if the result is successful, I think one must give credit to the cinematographer, even if only for hiring a brilliant crew and knowing how to communicate to them. Also, there are often many things a cinematographer may consider, that aren't obvious to others. Maybe it's the schedule, perhaps it's a story point that others aren't aware of. You know, many crew people, even gaffers don't read the script. Without knowledge of the script and the director's approach, one can come up with many brilliant ideas...for a different movie. And lastly, If "the gaffer should have been the dp", why do you think he's the gaffer and not the DP? I'll bet there is some strength the DP has that may not be obvious. The trust of the director may be 1st among them. Damon, I always feel when I work as a crew member for another cinematographer, that my job is to serve the DP to the best of my ability. I'm long past thinking about whether they are skilled enough to deserve their job. After all, they did get the job, and I'm there to make them look like a genius:) That is the crew person's job I think.

I haven't seen Public Enemies yet...so I won't discuss that. I have been to the movies a couple of times in the last week and also supervised the DI color grading of a film I shot on .... film. My beef is that- the films in the theater (projected on film) looked rather "dead". The resolution was poor. The color pallet, dull. I keep reading that film has a "larger color gamut" than digital capture. This is probably true. But what I noticed again, and again in the DI suite is that the color gamut of film is very limited in the darker tones. Dark flesh tones and reds/oranges loose their color in the film print and come out kind of neutral/cyan. It reminds me of the weakness of the early Epson printers I owned:) A digital original shown on a digital display does not have this limitation of gamut, even if there are highly saturated colors that film can reproduce that digital can not. While the film certainly has more latitude in the highlights, the way it rolls off in a 2k scan makes it look rather flat compared to a properly exposed digital capture. It's as if I can't make out the high frequency detail. So I guess my point is, that for all the romance of film capture and presentation, we're not seeing it in the theater by and large. I remember being in awe of films presented in 70mm in years gone by. Fame and The Right Stuff come to mind. But now, I'd rather see a digital projection of a digital original (on a good projector) than the lifeless film prints being sent out to the public. Just my 2 cents, and I think this is a real challenge for the future of film as a medium. As movie goers get used to seeing almost 2k digital presentations at home, settling for a <1k film print in the theater will send the customers back to their home theaters perhaps. Comments welcome!

Rich, I think it all depends on what kind of projects you are photographing. I shoot mostly narrative projects and find I need some fresnel lamps on every shoot. The reason is that control of the light is sometimes/often more important than soft, face flattering light. This is especially true for back lights and wide shots where it's a challenge to keep lighting equipment out of the frame while still creating a "mood". If I were shooting mostly interviews, I might not miss the fresnels so much...

Hi Goshi, I have a Varicam and can tell you that it gets pretty hot, especially when shooting on a warm set. From your post, I can't tell how warm your camera gets, but if you see smoke coming out...then it's definitely too hot :blink: To give you an idea, my camera gets hot enough that I wouldn't want to hold my hand on the heat sinks on the top of the camera when they are at full operating temperature. I also always try to shade the camera when shooting outside in the hot sun.

He also said "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put." Your point? :P :rolleyes:

This is a fantastic series of videos explaining a lot about imaging. I'm only halfway through, but it's some of the most informative discussion of these issues that I've come across. Everyone who's interested should watch them. I think you need quicktime installed to view them though....

Rick, In whatever business you choose to pursue your career, you will probably start at THE BOTTOM. You can just as easily start at the bottom of the Movies as any other business :rolleyes: Most of the people I went to film school with never stayed with it and have faded into the ether. Some had very good early success. I didn't, but I stuck with it. I don't have a gold statuette, but it's still possible, even if not likely B) Determination on your part will make a big difference. And remember what Tim Allen said in "Galaxy Quest": Never Give Up, Never Surrender.... Good luck Rick!

I'm game. When is it? :blink: