Robert Edge

The October issue of American Cinematographer contains two references to the use of video goggles as an alternative to a monitor. The magazine says that Cesar Charlone used video goggles on The Constant Gardener. I gather that he also used them for City of God. In an article on the film Dear Wendy, the magazine says that the cinematographer for that film tried goggles, but found them of questionable utility. Apparently Steve Gainer also used video goggles on a film called Black Cloud (see http://www.stevegainer.com/press/ac1.html), and there are suggestions on the net that at least one National Geographic cameraman has used them. Does anyone have experience with video goggles? Comments?

There are a few previous discussions about this lens on cinematography.com. The October issue of American Cinematographer has an article about Cesar Charlone's work on the film version of John LeCarre's The Constant Gardener. Charlone, who also shot City of God, apparently shot a good deal of the film on super 16. In additon to two Aaton XTRProds, he used his own A-Minima together with the Fuji 10mm-40mm and the Canon 8mm-64mm. If he had reservations about either lens, they are not expressed in the article. My understanding is that Zeiss, if it has not already done so, is about to come out with a 15.5mm-45mm zoom lens for 35mm weighing about 1 kilo/2 lbs. It will no doubt cost a great deal more than the Fuji.

I like Stephen Williams's lighting a lot, especially the first and third. The Longines shot is beautifully done. What is the light to the right of the watch from?

Downix, Surely the basic question is why this is about "guesses" and "feelings" in the first place. To be honest, I have a problem when someone on the internet tells me that what he presented as a statement of fact is actually a "guess", and that the "guess" turns out to be based, at least in part, on what he "heard" about Pentax 6x7 lenses, and in particular that they are soft. I don't know nothin' 'bout these lenses, but I do use a Mamiya 6x7 rangefinder, and I have never, ever heard Mamiya lenses described as "soft". In fact, there are times that I wish they were softer than they are. But that, in fact, is beside the point, which is whether, as Adam suggests, the manufacturers of lenses design them in such a way that their resolution deterioriates as the format gets larger. If this is true, it is something that we should all know. In my own case, I want to know whether a lens designed for super 16 is optically superior, in terms of resolution, than a lens designed for 35mm. I have in fact heard that asserted (on cinematography.net), and it would seem to follow from what Adam is saying, but it is hard to believe given that it would seem to suggest that super 16 lenses should command a premium over 35mm lenses.

Adam, Thanks. I do want to run this idea by apug.org and the large format site, because your hypothesis intuitively makes some sense, but as far as I know has rarely been discussed. I'll get back to this website with the results of my inquiry. Meanwhile, as Matt says, any light on this subject from cinematographers would be appreciated. Enlightenment from Cooke, Zeiss or a lens technician would be even more appreciated :)

Adam, Are you saying that Nikon lenses in particular, or 35mm still lenses in general, have half the resolution of 35mm cine lenses? If so, do you have information that supports that statement? I'm not asking that question because I want to disagree with you, but rather because I want to know what the basis is for it if it is true. I have seen this kind of statement only once before. It was a South American photographer on cinematography.net who said that a lens designed for 16mm or super 16 is superior in performance, on a 16mm camera, to a lens designed for 35mm, because it has been designed for more limited coverage. If you check the cinematography.net site, you will find this statement easily enough. If this kind of thinking is correct, it would seem to mean that a still photography lens designed to cover 8x10 is inferior in terms of resolution to a lens designed to cover 4x5, which in turn is inferior to a lens designed to cover 2 1/4 x 2 3/4, which in turn is inferior to a lens designed to cover 35mm. In cine terms, it would mean that the resolution of a lens designed to cover 35mm is inferior to a lens designed to cover 16mm. It would also mean that the claim, on this site, that Zeiss Superspeeds and certain Contax lenses are the same, is either false or (i) that purchasers of Superspeeds for use on a motion picture camera are buying an inferior product or (ii) that users of Contax cameras are getting demonstrably better resolution, and demonstrably better photographs, than users of Leica or Nikon cameras. I would like to know what the basis is for your statement, and I would like to run this idea, and whatever support there is for it, by the people who participate in www.apug.org and www.largeformatphotography.info. It is an intriguing idea, that is either absolutely correct or spurious. I'm quite interested in knowing in which category it falls.

Dominic, The problem with American Cinematographer, to which I subscribe, is that it is 70% fluff and 30% substance. The Blankston articles are no exception, except that the writing style is unusually obtuse and the constant digressions into subjects that have little, if anything, to do with the subject, and his attempts at humour, are distracting and ultimately aggravating. The reader starts to wonder, given reference after reference to everything from Plato and Aristotle to Newton and Goethe and the rather peculiar introduction to Part II about the Mining industry, whether the author is mostly adept at cutting and pasting bits and pieces from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or alternatively, whether he is being paid by the word. The main thing that I learned from this two part series is that there is an ASC Technical Committe that has been working on colour management for two years, and that Mr. Blankston does not think that the Committee's accomplishments, if any, are worth mentioning. In his world, it is sufficient to say that the ASC Technical Committee is an "august body". Given that Mr. Blankston, who works for the ASC, doesn't refer to a single accomplishment, perhaps we need less august and more spring. It is good that the ASC thinks that colour management is so important that it would devote a two-part article to the subject, and furthermore feature that article on its website, as it is currently doing. I just wish that it had hired someone like Bruce Fraser or Andrew Rodney to write it, instead of a guy who is in serious need of an editor and who thinks that his readers should have to suffer through his dissertations on Plato and mining in search of something approximating substance. Having read the Blankston series not once, not twice, but three times, my own conclusion is that the substance is pretty elusive. Mike, Thanks, your posts are very informative. One of the extraordinary things about Blankston's article is that the ICC isn't even mentioned. Andrew Rodney lives in Santa Fe. Isn't that where David Mullen is currently making a film? Maybe there's a chance here for a book about colour management for cinematographers, or at least an informative essay.

Conor, Why do you suppose a photographer who has a reel would submit it to a guy who has just started film school who says that he is directing a feature film, but isn't quite directing it yet because he hasn't quite finished with the script (which, if I understand matters, he is either writing or supervising), given that the guy in question is making it clear that he would just as soon do the photography himself (along with the directin' and either the writin' or directin' the writin') except for the small problem that he doesn't have enough experience yet takin' pictures, meaning that he wants to know how to find photographers who will give him a reel so that he can judge whether they are good enough to overcome his temporary deficiency as a picture taker (as distinct from his expertise, as a guy who has just started film school, as a director and writer/editor)? I'm sure that you don't mean to sound like the foregoing. That's just my literal take, not intended to be taken seriously, on your post. Cheers.

If anyone is interested, Andrew Rodney, whose book has just been published by Focal Press, has put the table of contents, acknowledgements and a good piece of the introductory chapter on his website. It's on the home page, under news and updates, at www.digitaldog.net. Format is .pdf. John might be intereseted to know that the acknowledgments refer to Chris Heniz and Jim Abbott at Kodak.

John, Thanks again. I'm going to make an appointment with the Kodak office here. Greg, Thanks. I understand the basic functioning of Look Manager. What I want now is more detail, as well as information about cost. Algis, Colour management is a broader subject than the functioning of a particular image editing programme. It takes a bird's eye view of capture to output. If you read one of these texts, it will fundamentally change your understanding of how a hands-on programme like Photoshop or Final Cut works, and perhaps more importantly, how it fits into the chain from capture to print. In my case, I had to get a grip on the subject because I'm working on a book that will contain a lot of photographs and I was having a difficult time getting answers to basic questions, such as how far I can go with scanning and digital editing of the photographs before I face the prospect of someone down the line (e.g. a pre-press person) telling me that what I've done, having regard to their requirements, is wrong and/or has gone too far and we have to go back to the original scans. It turns out that I'm not the only person who has these kinds of questions, but clear answers are not easy to come by. For that matter, there aren't even that many people who understand these questions. Rodney's book contains a number of case studies, including one involving the Los Angeles photographer Greg Gorman, in which Gorman says that his biggest problem in this area is the failure of people he deals with, such as printers, to understand and properly implement colour management. I'd like to get this same bird's eye view in relation to cinematography because I'll be facing motion picture colour management issues in the coming months. It would be nice if there was a text equivalent to Fraser or Rodney instead of having to rely exclusively on ad hoc discussions with specific labs and individual vendors of cinematographic colour management tools. That said, there's no doubt in my mind that reading these two books is going to make my life easier when I have those discussions.

John, Thanks for those very pertinent links. I know about the ICC website, but I was not aware of the Kodak documents. As far as I can see, discussion and information about colour management, at least public discussion and information, focuses almost exclusively on still photography, yet the concept and the issues are just as relevant to current cinematography. Having just finished Fraser's and Rodney's books, which have been a revelation for me as someone who is currently moving from analog photography to digital, I'd love to get my hands on material that deals with cinematographic colour management. At a high level, what Fraser and Rodney have to say is applicable to motion pictures, but at the nuts and bolts level of tools, colour spaces, gamut, profiles, workflow, etc. they don't cover cinematography. Rodney mentions SMPTE-C and Pal/Secam as work spaces, but only to make the point that Adobe got out of the business of supporting these spaces with version 5.0 of Photoshop. Do you, or perhaps someone else reading this, know if the ICC is playing a role on the motion picture side? If not, is there some other industry organization that is playing this role, or are the players all just doing their own thing? Is there a book, or a public e-mail list, about cinematographic colour management? Regarding Kodak Look Manager, I'd love to get detailed documentation about what it does and how it works. Does such documentation exist? Is it a tool that is financially accessible to mere mortals, or is the cost equivalent to what still photography colour management tools cost before Apple got a bunch of people into a room and kicked off the ICC and an open platform approach :)?

Andrew, If you are looking for graduated neutral density filters with a 52mm thread, B + W, Heliopan and Tiffin make them. Both Adorama and B&H have them in stock. There's also a store in New York, which I discovered courtesy of a thread on this site, called the Filter Gallery, that has, or can get, any filter that is made. Michael, I don't mean to sound like a proponent of still camera lenses. It's just something I'm thinking of tryiing with my own camera. My sense from earlier discussions on this issue is that few people have actual experience doing this, and that you won't know whether it works or not, for the kind of photography you have in mind, until you try it. On the question you raise about the fact that cine lenses are matched, my sense is that a lot of films have been made with lenses that aren't matched. One thing I'd like to know, independently of the issue of using still lenses, is when the phenomenon of matched lenses arose, whether the concept is about substance or marketing and what the consequences are, in the real world, of using unmatched lenses.

Thanks. Blain Brown's book is a general text on cinematography. I'm looking for a book or other source that deals specifically with colour management based on either digital capture, or film capture converted to digital, with a digital workflow and either a digital or optical end product. Does the GATF book discuss the subject in the context of cinematography? I wouldn't have thought so, but if it does, I'll check it out.

If you do a search, you will find a couple of previous discussions about the choice between Nikkor lenses and cine lenses, including a discussion within the last three to five months. If you look at these threads, you will find that some people have a lot of reservations about using still photography lenses, reservations that have not come to the surface in this thread or the other one that you started on this subject. These reservations are not based only on issues relating to change of focus during a shot, but on a belief that cine lenses are optically better, including cine lenses that were designed 15-20 years ago. It is unclear to me whether this belief is based on objective data or on the assumption that a 15-20 year old design that costs US$6,000 (give or take a grand or two) must be optically better, presumably better by a rather large margin, given the cost, than a current Nikkor that costs $200-500. Complicating the discussion is the assertion of one apparently knowledgeable person (can't remember now whether it was on this site or cinematography.net) that the lenses on Contax cameras are the same lenses sold as Zeiss Superspeeds. The fellow who said that, and who works as a cinematographyer in New York, apparently got his hands on some Contax lenses and had them modified for his motion picture camera. I would have thought that it would be demonstrable, beyond any doubt, that a lens that costs $6000 is significantly better, from an optical point of view, than a lens that costs $500, but if that is true, nobody seems to have the data to back it up. If you go the the cinematography.net site, you will also find a recent exchange about the performance of the current Nikkor 17-35mm constant aperture zoom on a 16mm camera. While the individuals who participated in this exchange were very enthusiastic, the exchange was so brief that there was no discussion about the basis for that enthusiasm. One other thing. I may have misread the other thread that you started on this subject, but I seem to recall a suggestion that AI and AIS lenses are what you want on the ground that current Nikkor D-lenses don't focus manually. IF someone said that, it is incorrect. If I were going to use a Nikkor lens on a motion picture camera, I would go with a D lens provided that I was satisfied that (i) it would work manually without any electrical connection (my recollection, although I stand to be corrected, is that it will) and (ii) that there was sufficient focus rotation in the barrel for my purposes (current Nikkor and Canon lenses have less rotation than older lenses). If changing focus during a shot was not an issue for me, barrel rotation would also not be an issue. If changing focus was an issue, then I think that there is a legitimate issue about the appropriatness of still camera prime lenses. If you do a search, you will also find a suggestion that Nikkor zoom lenses are not constant aperture. That is a potentially important issue, but the statement is not true of several current Nikkor zooms.

Does anyone know whether there is a cinematography book or web site that addresses this subject in the same way that Bruce Fraser's Real World Color Management and Andrew Rodney's Color Management for Photographers do for still photography?

That isn't the question. The question, which arises from how Jason interpreted the Toronto Film School's web site, is whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is somehow associated with this school. On that subject, I'll repeat what I said earlier. If one calls the CBC public affairs office, I am as certain as I can be that they will say that they have nothing to do with this school. If I'm wrong about that, I'd be happy to be corrected.

A few days ago I picked up a copy of Max Keller's Light Fantastic. It is about stage lighting, but it is precisely that perspective that I'm finding useful as I read through it. An impressive book. Has anyone seen Vittorio Storaro's two volume Writing with Light? I was able to briefly flip through a copy of volume I in the bookstore at the Dia Museum in Beacon, N.Y. recently, but I have't found either volume in a NY bookstore. There appear to be positive comments on Amazon on Voume I, not so sure about Volume II. Is either volume worth buying?

If you get to the point where you are looking for volunteers who read English and French to help polish up a translation, after you have done your own corrections, I'd be willing to help - well, for one article anyway. Of course, since there's no shortage of native English speakers in your part of France, maybe you've got an army of volunteers lined up :)

Thanks for the reference to your website, which I just looked at for the first time. There is some very good material on it. I think that you are crazy if you commit to translating some of it, because it will be an awful lot of work, but I suppose that we all have our moments of madness :)

This is a bit late, but anyway... If university is not an option, this may be worth looking into. The fee is not unreasonable if the school offers a quality programme. I'd be worried if the fee was less. The website is sincere and there is biographical information on each of the teachers. There aren't any big names, but that isn't necessarily important. The school claims to have partnership arrangements with a number of legitimate corporations, Kodak among them, although it is unclear what this means. It could be nothing more than student discounts on equipment rental and film purchases. I'd want to look further into a few things. The school has been in operation for only 18 months. Is it financially stable (this is important, because if they close, you could be out a lot of money)? Is the programme stable? While I like the fact that the school discloses what kinds of equipment it has, it seems to be a bit light on types of equipment and it is unclear how much equipment there is in relation to the number of students. The number of students is an important issue in itself. How many are there? What does the physical facility look like and what condition is it in? I wouldn't jump on board, but I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand either. You need more information. The Quebec City and Montreal arts communities are tight enough that it should be pretty easy to get more information on both the school and the people who teach there, and the school should be willing to refer you to former students who can tell you what they think of the programme. Consider dropping into the film department at Laval University. The people there should know something about this school, and about the people who run it. Because the school is fairly new, I would NOT pay them $9000 up front. I would insist on paying in installments. That way, if they go under, you are protected. It isn't like they are inundated with applicants, given that the website says that there are spaces available for classes starting Sept. 6, so an installment arrangement should be acceptable. If they refused to consider installment payments, I would consider it a very bad sign. Bonne chance. P.S. Would your academic qualifications get you into a CEGEP? If so, have you determined whether any of them offer programmes that would fit with what you want to accomplish? It would be cheaper, and the programme would be clear and properly staffed and resourced.

Jason, If you look up the International Academy of Design and Technology, you will find that it is a US company with operations in several American cities as well as one operation in Canada, specifically Toronto. The IADT claims to be a first-class school for a whole raft of skills, filmmaking being just one of them. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but there does not appear to be a central website for this outfit, just individual sites for certain of its locales. It isn't clear whether IADT owns and operates all of its schools or is some kind of franchise operation. Its Toronto Film School site does not contain the kind of information that one would expect from a legitimate college, and on the other hand contains no shortage of puffery and hype. If you call the CBC public relations office in Toronto, I am as certain as I can be that they will tell you that they have nothing to do with this company. From the IADT info that I was able to see on the web in the last few minutes, I wouldn't touch this place with a 100 foot pole. If you haven't already looked at the legit Toronto colleges, check them out. There are some good people at those schools who are genuinely interested in teaching, and who have the commitment to help you get where you want to go.

Just curious to know if you are going to have someone from Unilux on set to operate the equipment. My understanding is that they recommend this, although it is not essential.

The film that made me start paying attention to his work was none of these, but rather Pasolini's Mamma Roma. On the Criterion DVD, there is an amusing interview with him about his dealings with Pasolini, who was just starting out as a director, and Anna Magnani, who was, to put it mildly, focused on how she looked on screen. Delli Colli talks about telling the street kids who carry much of the film, none of them a pro and apparently few of them capable of reading a script, to just count to 50. When Pasolini asked whether the counting would be evident when the lines were dubbed, Delli Colli said "No problem, we do it all the time".

You might find it helpful to look at the books referred to at this URL: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/boo...chitecture.html, especially Norman McGrath's Photographing Buildings Inside and Out and Julius Shulman's Architecture and its Photography. I have both books, and in some ways I prefer Shulman's, even though it is quite a bit older. He is also strong on the use of continuous lights, which are not used nearly so much as they were when he was writing. You might also find it helpful to look at the work of Hedrich Blessing, a Chicago company that is a major player in the field. See www.hedrichblessing.com and the book Building Images: 70 Years of Photography at Hedrich Blessing: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 If you want a really different look, Vancouver photographer Jeff Wall does interiors that are painstakingly lit. See the Hasselblad Foundation page at http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/prize_2002_en.html and the books Jeff Wall: Figures and Places, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books and Jeff Wall Photographs: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

Based on a very quick look at the current Dedo catalogue the other day, it appears that they are now making softboxes for their fixtures. Perhaps worth a look.