Thomas Cousin

hello, for a short film to come, i am wandering around to find some info about shooting "dusk for night". it's something i have wanted to try for some time, and this next project calls for an "effect" like this one. we want a scene taking place a night. the story ends. the sun is gone. the action take place in front of an house in the country. we want something deep in the shadows , and silouhettes. but still have the feeling of the presence, of our men, the car and the street at "night" or "very late dusk". we opt for a street with no light at all. just the lights inside the house are playing. i want to "feel" the shadows. i am going to play depth with the house behind, but all the rest of the texture of the image will be with the help of the dying day. we are in s16mm with a 35mm print behind. i try to achieve the kind of beautiful dark realism, that harris savides did for "gerry" and "last days" for their deep dusk and dawn. for the moment i imagine shooting it with the help of 7229 (for low contrast, low saturation for a soft, blue grey night) shooting wide open T2.4 (canon 8-64) and underexpose faces and silouhettes about 3 to 4 stops. and composing the shots to keep the action in silouhettes against the lights from the house. any suggestions around here to avoid the problems that might appears. or any tricks to do it better? i would like to be able to show waht's it's like when it's almost dark but your eyes are fighting and you see the forms and shadows but not the colors anymore. thanks thomas we found a picture by edward steichen that shows well the kind of feeling.

hello, the topic about DP commentaries on dvd has already been discussed. what i would like to list here is the dvd's where there is a bonus section explaining the work of the cinematographer. often, a small part is about the lighting and camerawork through onterviews, but just a little part. i recently saw a huge section of explanations for "panic room" on the special edition dvd , and it was AMAZING !! we see the tests for exposure, wardrobe, make up etc etc ... and a lot of explanation from conrad hall jr. a true in depth doc through the work of cinematographers. suggestions anyone for such dvd ? thanks thomas

hello, today i count almost 10 negative stocks from kodak. as they are presented on their website. the older exr stocks, the vision ones and the later vision 2. In my works as a young cinematographer, i am often obessesed with the idea of "contrast" : how to handle it, how to increase it, how to manage it the best way to serve the story.... this is one of the element in cinematography that fascinates me the most , and (working in film) frightens me also a lot ! During my first shootings on film, i learnt to respect and trust the negatives, because they offer you the most incredible results and texture, and they are very often surprising. today with the telecinema, scan and other digital tools, we can control a lot more the contrast and the kodak vision 2 offers a flexibility for the post process and tend to make all stocks able to capture a wide tonal range. But since we still got access to vision stocks and some exr stocks, i would like to "rate" all this new and old stocks in terms of contrast range. to help me choose among this huge palette of products. so can you help me ? from the less contrast (maybe something like vision 320T) to the more contrast stock (the exr 100T or the exr 50D)? and i speak of course for normal process and normal exposure, just to make some comparisons on the same level. thank you thomas

hello, comparing these two stocks. i prepare myself finding the eterna : finer in grain, with better latitude both in shadows and highlights, best neutrality in colors, less contrast... but this is all theory. Now can anybody can me how is it in practice, in the real world ? Does the new eterna really LESS contrast ? Is it as good as the kodak 7218 . the screening i saw seemed very convincing, but i essentially saw examples on 35mm. What are your experiences around here with these fuji stocks. i am esentially eager to learn about the respectives latitudes and how well they see into the shadows. thanks for helping ! bye thomas

Hello, Could you share any information about this lens. In term of definition, contrast, breathing, etc etc . I know it's an old lens and may react as one of this kind (softness, flares, lack of def at wide aperture...) , but what if you compare it to the other old angenieux 12-120 (the one i read very bad reviews in this same forum). It's for a Super16mm shooting and then a 35mm print. thank you all in advance. thomas

indeed, Ultra Primes ! i can understand now why this movie, although it's super16, has a very precise definition and is very crisp. 2.35 "inside" the super16 image is a verry little image, and yet in projection, the image still have a very good definition. the stock must be very fine too. i know it's kodak (saw it in the end credits), and there must be some 50 D or 250 D, and a fast stock for nights but still sharp, maybe the 7218 ? i still don't know, just trying to guess the recipe ? am I on a good way ? thomas

hello, i've just seen the movie "Calvaire" shot by benoit debie. I saw in the end credits that it was "Color by DeJonghe" who took care of the film. So maybe we can explain what kind of stocks and process benoit debie used on this. I saw a nice print. The movie is hard and shocking and interesting. and the photography enhanced a lot the horrors lived by the character. this is kind of cinematography that i love and fascinate me. I guess the film was shot in Super16 in the 2,35 aspect ratio (but no anamorphic) and there must be some bleach bypass on the negative involved there. but i am not quite sure. can you tell us more ? thank you thomas

hello, It happens to shoot tungsten film in daylight without the 85 filter to compensate. We know that, in the print and in the telecinema, we can easily get the right color balance back, with some minors shifts in colors (corect me if i'm wrong). But what i'm i'm interested in is : what happens if we do the inverse, i mean shoot daylight stock under tungsten lighting without the proper compensation neither in camera nor in the lights. I guess the lab can correct the color balance too , but what happens to our colors then, Is there some noticeable shifts after pulling out all the warm and red cast produces by the tungsten balanced lights. and does the "wrong color balance" correction change contrast and graininess ? i'm curious thomas

hello Yes, it is. Just saw a presentation today here in Paris for this stock. and some feature films in 35mm are already in production, as they said. and the super16 version of eterna is just beginnig to be used. thomas

hello, it seems not too much people already use the fuji eterna 500 stock for the moment. i tried to find some infos here and there. not much. maybe some of you shot it or saw some tests ? For a shoot in a few weeks, i think about using this stock for their speed and the inherent particularities of fujifilm stocks. it will be shot on super16 and blown up. i maybe plan (still preparing and thinking intensively at the moment) to use the 2 stocks : the "old" 8672 fuji 500 and ,so, this new eterna. to use in separate scenes in differente times and places. my goal is to show some emotionnal différences and evolution in the story playing with the texture of the image mainly, and lighting of course. but i want to try this with making grain structure different according to the scenes. i want to create a real difference. maybe by exagerate the grain on 8672 by pushing it, and on the other way pulling the eterna. well, you know , playing a lot with these two stocks to achieved what i want. I need to keep fast stocks to minimize our lighting. But if i want to over expose a little and pull process the eterna, i am going to rate it maybe around 200asa or 125asa (pull by 1 stop then overexpose by 1). The experience seems interesting as i personnaly never played with pull processing. but i would like to know if it's worth it with this stock. eterna seems fine grain for a 500 asa stock. i would like to minimize it much more by these process. but then what is going to happen to the contrast and the colors ? i can't shoot tests, unfortunately, that's why i ask. thanks thomas

hello, i am not too much of an HD lenses expert myself. however, i shot a few month ago a short film with fujinon HD primes. we used only three focal length : the 8mm, 20mm and 54mm. i have to say i was very very pleased with the results and totally excited too to use these optics. the digiprimes by zeiss was unavailable and i think totally way out of our budget. i used the fuji primes at their maximum aperture (around t1.5, t1.6) and i found they have a beautiful quality. they have a great definition and sharpness (maybe not as sharps as the zeiss but very good too), and however they keep a very beautiful soft, warm, round quality by themselves. the 20mm on medium shot, and the 54mm on close-up of a face and extreme close-ups were very "generous" and "cinematic" in terms of depth of field and softness. it was not cold, harsh and clinical as you can expect from some video lenses. they have the optical and physical advantages of a prime lens, and a kind of quality that reminds cine lenses. is seems to be an hybrid world between cine and video , with it's own aesthetics and advantages. i find this very interesting. i , of course, heard that digi primes are great lenses, and i look forward to use them. but as i only used the fuji ones, i wanted to share this pleasing experience. thomas

hello, we are preparing a film, kind of mix between fiction and documentary. it's going to be shoot "documentary"-style, with an handled camera, available light or a few additional lights. and in various conditions : indoors, outdoors, night, mixed lighting, moving cars... we are shooting with a sony dsr 570 in 16/9 fitted with a standard lens canon yj 18x9. but i am going to choose another zoom lens, essentialy to be able to shoot wide angle, and from there maybe shoot the wole thing only with this lens. and i have to make my choice for it. i try to select the most suitable zoom for this project. so i need some advices. could you explain to me some major différences you know and experienced between fujinon, canon, angénieux, optex vidéo zoom. i don't need a zoom with extreme long focal length. i need one very versatile. we are assuming totally our "video-look" but i don't want to exagerate that, i mean i don't want a lens that gives you a lot amount of lens flares, or breathes too much,.... i need a robust one, and build the documentary look through the operating and camerawork. i also tend to find one with the maximum sharpness and lot of definition, though i know we are only working in dvcam. please share your thoughts about this. i look forward to read you posts. thanks. thomas

and how does the grain texture react with the bleach bypass in this fuji stock ? does it become more apparent or not so pronounced ? does the process make the look grittier, even on this pastel stock ? i would like to know difference in texture between this stock and kodak vision 320T with the same process. thomas

hello, I am looking for the equivalent of a certain scene file for the pal version of the panasonic sdx900. the scene file "eyeball" on the panasonic website is interesting because its settings are made "to match a monitor to a chroma DuMonde chart by visual reference and not by use of a vectorscope". i find the idea interesting and a base to start with. but i can only find the NTSC file for this, and i don't think that certain matrix and color correction settings are suitable for pal. it seems to correct certain minor color shifts for ntsc, but if i apply this to a pal camera, it's not appropriate. in my opinion. maybe i'm wrong. so, maybe someone can correct me if i'm wrong, or help me to set theses matrix tables for a true neutral color rendition . but for PAL cameras. thank you thomas

Hi ! I"m preparing a short film with panasonic sdx 900 and fujinon HD lenses. this is a first time for me with this camera, and a lot of excitment is coming with it. i found at panasonic on the net the very interesting scene files, but i'm a little confused about it. can these settings let me the latitude (in highlights, shadows and detail...) to work the pictures in post (for both video finish and blow up in 35mm) ? or, are these settings are intented to produce pictures meant to be shown as they are shot ? anyone has the experience with these files ? thank you thomas

hi ! thank you David, this is some very useful advice. exactly what i need to know ! another step in my research on this min35 kit: someone at a rental company explain me that this adaptater is really great for pictures ending on a tv screen, but when blew up on 35mm and projected, then the result is going to be largely too soft (because of this focus screen element david spoke of). Is this so awful once projected ? unfortunately, as you can imagine, i won't be able to test it all the way through the blowing up process (money, money , money). that's why i ask. a little softness doesn't bother me at all. but i definitely don't want to show to the director a projection too soft, and diffused like the worst wedding photographs.... i think you see what i mean. anyone please tell me ? thanks thomas

hello, I've read some very interestings things about this camera.It would be nice to handle it a little to see how it works and reacts. does somebody know if this camera is available for rental here in France ? thank you thomas

hello, a little question : when shooting in dvcam with the mini35 adaptator, and 35mm lenses , what kind of strenght i must use in diffusion fliters ? do i have to consider the larger 35mm ground glass and use stronger diffusion filters, or stay with the logic of the video and the small ccd and use the lighter ones ? and does this mini35 kit add a little diffusion by itself, due to the presence of this "intermediate" ground glass ? does it produce a reduction of the definition ? thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences . thomas

oh, and... sorry about my english not really "parfait" sometimes tom

hello everybody, i read some very interestings things everywhere in these forums about manipulate video and use differents tool to achieve certain looks and use video in differents ways. i was wondering some little things. does anyone around here ever use anamorphic lenses with digital cameras (from DV to HD), with the use of mini35 or pro35, or maybe with special adatator to fit the camera ? to obtain the 2,66 ratio (and maybe crop to have a real 2.35 after )? another one : i read some stuff about the anamorphic adaptor that fits in front of the lens to get 16x9 with 4x3 ccd. i wonder if another kind of optical adaptor exists with an anamorphic ratio of x1,77 to get 2.35 with a 4x3 ccd ? and a last one : if i use a digital camera in 16x9 mode and then i put a the 16x9 anamorphic adaptator in front of the lens, i add the x1,33 anamorphic ratio and so i will obtain 1,77x1,33 = 2.35 aspect ratio... it's a bit tricky i admit, but it is just theory for me as i never tried ever since. now, did anyone here ever try some of these solutions ? with what kind of digital cameras ? and what was the results , good or bad ? the kind of depth of field with anamorphic lenses , the texture of image ? as opposed of course to shoot in full frame and crop the image to the 2.35, which is THE simple solution but results in poor image quality, due to the large loss of resolution in the small height. so now i let speak .... thank you thomas

hi everyone, i am preparing a film with long scenes taking places in night exteriors. this is in the country with no "city" lights , and we are trying to mimic the look of moonlight (once again ....). i was thinking i could maybe use an aurasoft hmi to bring up my light level , and recreate a "visible" full moon effect and then construct my lighting with more "hard" sources for backlighting people, create mood , etc etc. the aurasoft seems powerful and especially soft , and also maybe could help me to light areas with a single source, and have a working light level to begin with. maybe some of you have already use this tool. please tell me if this idea for night exteriors seems good or silly and will help me to create the look we want. thank you. THOMAS

hi, i don't exactly know about storage of the roll before we had it. But it was a new roll. We just took it from kodak, here, and shot the test a couple of days after. and it was kept in normal condition between. the film was develop normally. and our roll didn't go through x rays. before seeing the results, i asked the lab to do a sensitometric curve from the same emulsion. and it seemed to me, according to the datas and E.R, that it was less sensitive than e.i 800. Is there a relation between these ? thanks thomas cousin

hello, i enjoy so much this forum since i discovered it that i can't stop myself from asking questions !! :-) last time, i tested 7289 for shots intented to be "rough". i wanted to test this stock because of its grain texture. . . . the shoot is in exterior daylight but i wanted to test it however. i filmed some shots of someone in exterior. with and without a 85. and also with some under and overexposure. i shot with zeiss t1.3 lenses and we see the test scanned on spirit. the reason i am talking about this, it's because of course we did have "grain" but it was HUGE !! i intented to have a bit of texture on the video screen at first with this stock, but it happened to be enormous !! and not the kind of "rough quality" that would have given an interesting look to the pictures. it was a large presence of grain and more, we seemed to lose a lot of sharpness. and it was very disturbing and unpleasing. with the 85, the results was very grainy also. and with the stock rated at 400 asa , it was a little less grainy, apparently, but not much. the subject was not "too" contrasty, a little 3/4 backlight by the sun (approx. 2 and a half stop over), buildings behind in midtones, foliage behind, and i exposed for the face toward us. there was no diffusion, but a pola and neutral densities according to what i needed. and my stop was beetwen T 4 and T 5,6 all the time. Did i do something wrong with these tests ? why was it so grainy ? Is the 89 like that all the time in super16, or my roll maybe (i don't think so ...) ? maybe you can help me figure out .... thank you. thomas cousin

Thank you very much, these informations are very interesting and helpful. and concerning the 7218 and what michael said, i know the stock holds highlights pretty well, but do i have to be more careful concerning the highlights for the telecine? concerning the video noise ? how far can i go ? knowing that the contrast will be enhanced a lot after.... thanks again. thomas :D