Bill DiPietra

You have some nicely-lit frames that are definitely worth included in your reel, but as it stands - at a whopping 7 minutes & 33 seconds - it feels as though you've turned this into your own personal music video. Don't take this the wrong way, but if that were my film and I saw it on the internet, I'd be extremely aggravated because you have essentially re-directed the film. I also think that turning this into a kind of short film keeps anyone from appreciating your photograph skills. Wait until you have enough projects, then take the best shots from this film and put then on your reel. I especially liked the ones with the shafts of light.

I guess it doesn't. Not your fault - looks like you put a lot of effort into this, thanks for posting.

And is there any way we can get this chart to fit on the page, next time? Interested thread, but hell to scroll through.

Speaking purely as some who's watched decades of commercials, I've always felt that there's a lot more psychology to commercials than people think. Plus, the two most-effective types of commercials are the ones you love and the ones you hate - because you will remember both. Then we get into the many levels of subtext of lingerie, car and food commercials and just how important every element of production is for each. There is a video on the Friends of the ASC website which shows how to properly light a beer commercial, and it's amazing how the slightest adjustment completely changes the feel of the beer. Of course, is true of how the beer is poured (too much or too little of a head,) too. And if you are dealing with a manufacturer that has boatloads of money, they will pay whatever is necessary to get that 30 second spot right. Because the next time you and the rest of America sees that perfect Budweiser, that's what'll be lodged in your sub-conscious until you hit the supermarket.

Agreed. I did some 16mm 2K/4K tests there and was very pleased with the results. Jack Rizzo occasionally posts in this forum, too.

You should watch as many films as possible, and not just for the cinematography... Nosferatu (1922) Battleship Potemkin (1925) The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) The Gunfighter (1950) The Seven Samurai (1954) The Seventh Seal (1957) Wild Strawberries (1957) Contempt (1963) Fellini's 81/2 (1963) Persona (1966) Solaris (1972) The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) ...and many, many more....

The Insider

Yup...that was my guess too, Sat.

Regardless of whether or not the film is a success, it's an accomplishment to be proud of. Best of luck.

Star Trek The Motion Picture?...

Correct!

Yay! Here's an easy one...

I'm amending my answer to Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Ordinary People ...there's only one last possibility...

Didn't know that. I'll test it again when I have the time. Thanks.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)

All the settings were correct and I had a print made. However, I shot this when UN54 film came out. So, to be fair, I'd have to do a new UN54/7222 test to see if there were any significant differences. But we were talking about this being a replacement for 7231, not 7222...

And how do you know this? Many of us who loved Plus-X used ORWO as soon as it came out. Some people saw it as a nice replacement, others not so much. Just because people miss older stocks does not mean they are not shooting B&W film anymore. At the same time, people have the right not to see things the same way you do.

I can't speak to 65mm since I've never shot on it, but I understand what you're saying about the grain (or lack thereof.) But I'm talking about the stocks in general. On the 16mm level, I'm telling you what my experiences have been. If UN54 suits you as a replacement to Plus-X, that's fine. But I've been disappointed with it and see the stock as more of a visual relative to Double-X. At the end of the day, it's what you see on the screen that matters - not what the technical ads say.

ORWO is not the same thing as Plus-X even though many people talk as though they are. Having used all, the grain structure of ORWO's UN54 (100ASA) is much closer to Kodak's Double-X - very grainy and nowhere near the fine-grained, high-contrast look of Plus-X.

Plus-X was discontinued in 2010 and I think custom orders usually refer to stocks that they currently offer. Whether or not Kodak still has the ability to make discontinued stocks is a good question. I doubt they'd do it, but the best way to find out would be to call up and ask.

Hi Diana. Apologies for the late response. In short, no. The class is a 5-day intensive and every day is chock-full of information (as you saw from my post.) I can't say that there were any exercises where we pooled our knowledge into one final project, but I think that's merely due to the fact that there wasn't any time. There was a brief session (about an hour) on business practices which also included a Q&A with a panel of our ASC instructors. And I can't really say anything about finding more work as a result of the class since I really haven't had a chance to start freelancing due to personal circumstances, right now. But I can say that - especially if you were already thinking about taking it - the ASC class is a wonderful experience every film-maker should avail his/her self of. There is a lot more to the class than just the classroom/set sessions.

Well, there you have it. Personally, I really would have liked to see Roger Deakins take it home for Sicario. I felt the cinematography truly served the story without any fanfare.

As others have stated, it looks like it's from the early days of still photography. The fact that the f-scale goes all the way up to f/64 and that there is no focus ring (as someone else observed) gives even more credence to this theory. It makes me think it was used for photography where there were wide open, sunny landscapes - like the Wild West. But there are plenty of real lens experts on here that can tell you much more...

Couldn't have said it any better, Sat.