James Malamatinas

Thanks David, that makes sense. Time to do a little hisatory research on Panavision anamorphics!

Thank you Satsuki. Unfortunately we did not get a chance to prep the ST - we had originally anticipated using the LT which we had spent prepping the day previously, however the steady test sent to the lab came back with issues and consequently the rental house swapped in the ST body as a replacement.

​The ground glass that came in the ST was incorrect though and set 1.78:1, so like you mention the video tap could also have been set incorrectly.

I just finished a shoot with the Arri ST and we had an issue with the video tap.

We were shooting 2.39 and had a 2.39 ground glass in the camera - through the eyepiece everything was looking fine. The video tap however was transmitting an image that was cut off. The whole image appeared pushed to the right so that there was additional black to the left of the frame and the right hand of the frame was truncated - probably about 25% of the frame was missing. It was an issue that we were seeing on all monitors plugged in so I don't think it was monitor related. Does anyone have any ideas? I sadly didn't take a photo to illustrate the issue.

​Also, by accident we managed to access the video tap menu, something that we couldn't repeat when we wanted to try a reset of the tap. We were shooting at a weekend and the rental house was not open to troubleshoot. Perhaps if we'd have been able to access this we would have been able to try fixing it there.

I don't see why it should be relevant but we were also shooting a modified ST to shoot 3-perf.

Thanks.

I've recently had the pleasure of working with a variety of the old Panavision anamorphic glass including the B, C and G series. I'm curious however why about the A series, or more accurately - the lack of it.

A quick google hasn't produced much; was there such a series but it's no longer available? Or did they go directly to the B series?

Bit late to the party but this thread just got a mention on one of the bigger camera assitant groups in the UK - deeply fascinating read, both regarding the lens and the insights about the shoot.

​Cheers Greg for being so forthcoming with your experiences, posts like this make this site a extremely valuable resource - not the kind of info you find in a text book!

Dom is correct, this article here with lens guru Dan Sasaki goes into a bit more detail - http://www.panavision.com/dan-sasaki-panavision-vp-optical-engineering

 

How do you “tune” your Panavision lenses?

It depends. Many times we ask for a still photo or example of what they would like to see. Based on the example or description the Cinematographer gives us, we can start determining methods to “customize” a lens. It usually takes a couple of iterations before we match the cinematographer’s expectations. The method of detuning is constantly evolving and we are continuously trying to innovate new ways to create a unique look.

An example would be non-coated lenses. Originally, we would remove the coating off lenses. We found this was an unnecessary and destructive method of achieving a look. Now, we have found a way to produce the same look without having to destroy the lens and have better control over the degree of effect and unwanted glare.

Were Panavision lenses originally designed for this kind of adjustability?

Every case is a unique challenge. Very rarely are we asked to duplicate a detuning scenario.

Another useful resource is "The Camera Assistant's Manual" by David Elkins (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Camera-Assistants-Manual-David-Elkins/dp/0240818687).

​I have not read the most recent version which apparently incorporates more information relating to digital production, however the description of the 1st and 2nd AC's role for film productions was very informative and useful. I would thoroughly recommend it.

Not to take away from the effort that you've put in but there is also another long-running list that covers the same ground:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U5Dzl4ziFl4SWQyamBj8Z57RIDYsSy4jD5E4CYTENjo/pub?hl=en_GB&hl=en_GB&gid=9

I imagine you spent a lot of time in your list, it's a shame that resources such as this list and yours are not more readily discoverable!

Thanks David, that's exactly what I was looking for - having grown up a little late to experience optical printing the techniques, how it was used fascinates me. Slowly trying to make my way though Raymond Fielding's "Techniques of Special Effects Cinematography"...

I'm in the midst of reading the David Lean biography which has been fascinating, particularly learning how he started as an Editor (and quickly became regarded as Britain's best by many). I'd strongly recommend it to anyone interested in the man.

In conjunction with reading the book I'm taking the time to watch his filmography too, starting with 'In Which We Serve'. I've just finished and one of the things that caught my eye was rippling dissolve effect they use when transitioning from the scenes of the men in the water to the flashbacks. I've tried finding it on YouTube but although the full film is there the quality is not very good.

​If anyone remembers the effect I'm referring to, do you also know how it was done? I've done some research and there seems to be multiple possibilities but I couldn't find anything concrete.

Thanks in advance.

I've been hunting around to see if there are any manuals available for the IMAX cameras such as the MSM 9820 or the MK II LW / MK III Reflex - I've tried numerous places including IMAX's own site but not coming up with anything.

Does anyone have these in a format they could share, or have a link to somewhere on-line to view them?

Thanks.

Thanks David, that looks like a very good e starting point - ordered already for delivery Wednesday.

I'm fascinated by film and in particular the journey of film from an exposed magazine through to film projection (a rarity these days). Unfortunately my understanding right now is fairly limited.

I've recently read this interesting article which gives a nice overview but lacks a lot of detail:

http://gearpatrol.com/2015/03/20/how-motion-picture-film-is-made/

Could anyone recommend some articles, books, videos to take a look at that would help me fully understand:

• What happens once film gets to the lab, including a description of each stage and an explanation of why each stage is necessary
• How traditional colour timing is done e.g. how printer lights work and affect the image, what equipment is needed
• How is the scanning done for a DI now?
• How special processes are performed e.g cross processing
• What different prints are made before hitting the theater .e.g inter negatives, inter positives

As a 2nd AC who occasionally still gets to shoot 35mm and 16mm I'm also especially interested in how the things I do get utilised in the processing stage:

• Who is responsible for reading the film labels on the cans, unloading them and feeding them to the machine
• Who reads my neg reports and how are they interpreted?
• I know what a frameleader is used for, but how is the frame actually checked in the lab?
• How exactly are grey charts and colour charts used for timing the print?

It's obviously a large topic but if anyone can feed me a few starting points that would be much appreciated. I've found a few Kodak slides on processing which give a bit more information but I think they also expect the reader to have a bit of a better understanding!


Cheers!

Just to clear up something I'm a little confused about - what is the difference between the 65mm shots in this film, versus the 65mm shots that were used in The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises (and other films) if you watched those films in Imax? I saw both at the Imax but can't remember if they were film or digital projection - is the difference here that those films were ONLY projected digitally where as this is projected on 70mm film (at certain screens.)?

It's not often that I get to work on 35mm or 16mm shoots but I'm optimistic that it might change! In the hope of getting more film work I'm just brushing up on all the ins-and-outs of film specific loading.

One of the things that I have little experience of from the few 16mm shoots I've done are the common lab instructions that a loader will end up writing on lab reports for processing e.g. one light print, time to colour chart, push x stops and so forth.

I was hoping one of the members here with more film experience might be able to list some of the common instructions and what they mean (if they're not completely self-explanatory!). It would be useful both so that I know what to expect and what exactly they mean.

On a separate note, if anyone has a 16mm / 35mm shoot coming up where there might be an opportunity to load or even trainee, please get in touch. I do have some 16mm experience and have also been spending time in rental houses familiarising myself with loading different mags, I'm really just looking for experience shooting film wherever possible.

Thanks for the recommendation, I've actually had a few people suggest that now so i'll pick it up and give it a read. Given that the thread has resurfaced I should also recommend David Stumps "Digital Cinematography: Fundamentals, Tools, Techniques, and Workflows".

http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Stump/e/B00EP6D8PY

I'm only part way though it but it's very well written, easy to understand and covers a hugely comprehensive list of digital cinematography topics.

Cheers Brian, I'll take a look at that site to see what information they have. I also found a good primer on LUTs here, it may be useful to someone else:

http://blog.abelcine.com/2012/03/27/the-difference-between-luts-looks-and-scene-files/

Hi,

Does anyone have any suggestions for good, accurate articles or resources describing and explaining LUT's. I'd like to improve my understanding of how they all vary and the different kind of uses they have depending on production stage (e.g. monitor LUTs vs. LUTs used for Dailies).

I've found a number of articles however the information seems very spread out so if there are some more in-depth, consolidated information it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

James

Thanks Carl, I'm very interested in his work, he's been pushing this particular aspect of filmmaking as much as anyone. Like you say though, to date and from what little I know, it feels like they have remained technical achievements and haven't yet found their place as part of the craft of cinematography.

I caught the Hobbit and again was completely fascinated by the effect of HFR. I still don't believe it looks "better" than 24fps, in fact in many cases it looked worse in my opinion, however it definitely felt different and more real. I know the 'more real' description has been used lots in talk about HFR and it is difficult to describe exactly why but for the first time in years (much more so than with 3D) watching the film felt like a completely new experience.

If I was to try and put a finger on some of the things that contribute it would be; the additional sharpness of the image which made the image feel higher resolution and gave it a texture I haven't experienced with traditional cinematography. The depth of field in the shots also felt deeper than at the standard frame rate, even in shots that were clearly shot wide open.

In terms of where the image seem to fall down; I thought that the HFR made the lighting of a lot of the interiors feel a lot more obvious and more akin to stage lighting. Also there were strange motion artifacts in the showing I saw with quick pans, and faster camera movements - something I was surprised at since I thought the format was meant to make these better. Possibly it could be related to the 3D rather than the HFR?

All in all I'm extremely keen to keep an eye where this will go (hence my original post), I can really see cinematic styles developing which take advantage of format. I think an interesting comparison would be to see a 2D HFR showing next to one in 3D unfortunately there don't appear to be any 2D HFR showing where I am (London).

I'm beginning to look into HFR cinematography as a possibility for use in a future project but also out of personal curiosity . Apart from watching the The Hobbit last year, which left quite an impact (not all good, but definitely intriguing and some very unique experiences), I have no knowledge or experience of HFR others than the pure basics. I will be doing the usual Google and forum searches but I was wondering if anyone had particular resources they would recommend, for example;

- research papers and audience feedback on how it is perceived by audiences themselves

- historical information on how HFR been used in the past

- information on the current state of HFR technologies right now e.g. Douglas Trumbull's new tech, other new films in production now at HFR

- discussions or articles on the impact of HFR on cinematic style

- HFR samples at different frame rates e.g. 48, 96, 120

- I'd also like to look into the difference HFR make to 2D compared to 3D.

- HFR distribution and projection (what % of theatres can project HFR, are there known issues etc)

Additionally information on the practical side from anyone who has shot it would be useful. I imagine the impact here is mainly from a post point of view since the biggest difference is surely the additional data?

And yes, I am off to see the Hobbit: TDOS tonight in HFR, so that's my most immediate port of call!

Thanks.

Thank you both, it was a DVD I was watching.

David, you bought up that the mixed colour sources and set/wardrobe design would have been a big part, but your mention of push/pull processing encouraged me to do a little more reading into exactly what this is and how it affects stock. I haven't howerver found many good showcases for the process (more photos rather than films). What are other cinematic examples of films which have been shot and processed in this way for artistic effect (rather than compensation for lighting/technical errors)?

Also, if you are shooting film today would you still generally use push/pulling as the technique for fixing exposure issues (rather than to achieve a particularly style), or would this generally handled in a DI after being scanned?

I finally got around to watching 'Paris, Texas' last night and the super saturated colours through the film, particularly at the beginning, left me curious as to how it was achieved.

I'm assuming that it is almost entirely due to the choice of film stock used; if so what kind of stock renders these kind of colours, and even with this stock would anything have been done to emphasise the effect (e.g. filters, or something with the printing)?

My practical experience with film is sadly minimal so I don't have too much to draw from in terms of being familiar with the characteristic of different stock and film processes.

Thanks for your comments!

I personally think that this is a great commercial, creative, funny and nicely shot. What I'm most curious about however is whether it was shot with the trucks driving in reverse, or whether it was done with them driving forward and then the image was reversed in post?

The motion has a strange feeling about it which could just be the choice of camera movement but I wasn't sure if maybe it was the fact the image is being played backwards. Does anyone know?

Link to the specs sheet for the range can also be found here:

http://www.panavision.com/sites/default/files/Primo%20V%20Specs_0.pdf

Thanks Dom, that's a very comprehensive answer and exactly what I wanted to know. Like Bruce said, I'm very happy to know that the Alexa had adequate protection!

I've never spent much time considering the specific configuration of pins for different cables and what each pin does, but are there many other situations like this where actually knowing that information would come in handy on set, either in configuring a camera or other appliance, or for troubleshooting?