Robert Edge

Participating in this site is actually not the same as having a discussion among filmmakers in a pub. It could be, but it isn't, because a conscious decision has been made to make everything people say about their identities, and the content of what they say, searchable to anyone with an internet connection. Some people do not like to make personal information about themselves (name, city and occupation) and/or their views public to the entire world. This reticence, which may be based on a desire for privacy or concerns about internet security or both, does not strike me as in the least bit peculiar. In fact, it is perfectly understandable, or should be. The contrary view, which is that people put their legitimacy in question if they are unwilling to make their name, location, occupation and views public, including to people who have nothing to do with filmmaking, is the view that strikes me as odd. Given that making up personal information is not particularly difficult, I also don't see what demanding this information actually accomplishes, unless one is also prepared to demand that people reveal other data, such as their social insurance number, as well. As for CML, it is true that there is a general policy requiring people to identify themselves. There is also a forum on CML specifically designed to let people post anonymously. Indeed, recently people were encouraged to do just that on a particular topic as a result of a problem with intimidation. If I find this thread a bit troubling, it is because people who are happy to make their personal data and views available to anyone who wants to read this information are questioning the legitimacy, if not the integrity, of people who would rather not do the same. Is this an inability to understand the contrary view, or a refusal to understand?

What is a rebuilt lens? What has been done to it, or should have been done, and how does a rebuild compare to a new lens?

Based only on the credits ("color by Delux"), it appears that Stephen Katz shot the black and white sequences on colour film. Does anyone know if that is correct?

David, I'm neither a kid nor a student, but I can take the time from my regular job and I'd be happy to fly to New Mexico, arrange my own accomodation, pay my own way and work full days for the duration in whatever capacity I can be useful. If you are looking for a student, cool. If it doesn't matter, and you get permission to do this, let me know, because I'll do it at the drop of a hat.

There's a guy named Chris Jordan from Seattle who will be the subject of an article in the New York Times Magazine this weekend. Some of his photographs will also be in the August issue of the Smithsonian Magazine, and his work will be exhibited in a number of private galleries on the west coast and New York in September. He is not a cinematographer, but his work is both artistically and technicallly interesting and would be of interest at least to cinematographers who shoot certain kinds of time lapse. Has anyone seen the DVD dedicated to Michel Gondry's work? His roots appear to be in animation (he specifically acknowledges Norman McLaren) and watching the development of his earlier work to what he is doing now makes it clear that he is quite talented.

My thanks also. I was at Penn Station today and took the opportunity to drop by. I wouldn't have believed the Filter Gallery if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. It reminds me of a shop in Manhattan that sells nothing but buttons and shop in Paris that sells nothing but umbrellas. Filters, filters everywhere. And Stan Wallace is both very pleasant and very knowledgeable.

This photo is neither cropped nor manipulated. I could see myslef adding a tad more saturation, but not much. No doubt it is apparent that I am not a professional photographer, but these images do give an idea about what I want in colour palate, saturation and contrast.

Thanks Stephen and David. Here are a couple of photographs that give a general idea what I am looking for in a stock as interpreted in telecine through to digital output. The first is a digital image that I made yesterday. It hasn't been manipulated in Photoshop. The light is from above through frosted glass. I cropped the photo as part of my attempt to get it under 100K. In the original, and especially in the 6x7 transparency that was taken just after, the flowers are quite luminous, and in the uncropped version there is a fair amount of negative space to the right.

David, Thanks. It sounds like the Vision-2 series will do fine. Good range of speeds and probably a longer life ahead of it than its predecessor. Nathan, Between choosing a camera, choosing lenses and choosing stocks, I could spend a lot of time testing options. For people who work full time as photographers, that may well be a good thing. For the rest of us, making decisions is sometimes more conducive to getting a project done. It is highly unlikely that the choice between Vision and Vision-2 is going to make or break what I'm working on. Besides, I like to steer clear of magic bullet chasing, and one of the worst forms of that affliction is getting tied up in knots over things like film choice. For me, it's better to pick a stock and stick with it until I understand it than to search for the holy grail. I'll leave the latter to Tolkien :) That said, there is one test that I may do. I'd like to see how Vision-2 100T, filtered for daylight, compares with EXR 50D. Does anyone know whether Kodak has footage showing how its various stocks treat the same scene and, if so, whether it is possible for one who is not making multimillion dollar movies to see that footage in New York?

You could also try HP Marketing (www.hpmarketingcorp.com) which represents Heliopan in the US.

I think that Calumet has them: www.calumetphoto.com. Barbizon might too: www.barbizon.com Sorry, just noticed that Calumet seems to only stock that size in gelatin. It's not clear from their website whether Barbizon actually has the Tiffens and Schneiders in stock.

You might have a look at the extra material on the DVD for the film Fargo. If I recall correctly, there is some discussion about how Deakins lit a scene that takes place on the roof of a parkade.

What is the difference between Kodak: Vision 250D and Vision 2 250D; Vision 200T and Vision 2 200T? Is one of these series more suitable if the input is super 16 and the output is digital? Are the Vision simpliciter stocks on the way out?

Edward Burns has an interesting take on this on the DVD version of Sidewalks of New York. He uses top-down drawings that show the physical environment and the movement of actors. He doesn't call them blocking diagrams, but that is essentially what they are.

P.S. If anyone has technical information on how diCorcia's made his Cuba Libra photographs, especially the one in a bar open to the street, I love to be enlightened. Viewed as a 30" x 40" print, which is how it was exhibited at New York's Museum of Modern Art last year, it has quite wonderful gradations of colour and luminosity.

Philip-Lorca deCorcia (especially his Cuba work) and Jeff Wall. OK, so these guys don't make motion pictures, but if we're lucky, they will. They sure know how to create a fictional universe.

Thanks Stephen, that is helpful. Filip, I use negative film for black and white 6x7 and 9x12 photographs and I do my own processing and printing. Bracketing a full stop works and lots of people wouldn't be bothered with a half stop. However, I do range from a half stop to a full stop, depending on subject and how much time I have on my hands, because my patience in the darkroom is limited. I am not one of those people who equates spending lots of time mucking around with development and tiny dodging and burning tools with nirvana. Some time ago, I read a post by a gentleman who has a fine sense of humour as well as a lot of experience. He was talking about light meters and lighting and exposure latitude, but I also like to read his comments as an amusing caution to get the exposure right in the camera. Some people might get a kick out of whaqt he said: "In my highly opinionated opinion, some folks attempt to use the zone system to photograph scenes which are impossibly (read: poorly) lit. They go to excruciating lengths to spot-meter every square inch of the scene, making copious notes for later super-heroic development antics. "I was taught still photography in 1960's Hollywood, by old-timers who were heavily influenced by the lighting and metering techniques of cinematography. A universal right of passage was the acquisition of the ubiquitous Spectra 500 incident meter. "If you work outdoors at the same altitude and latitude, in the same weather conditions and time of day, you can make absolutely breathtaking photographs with a simple incident meter like the Sekonic L-398M Studio Deluxe II, currently available from B&H for $161. And after a few hundred sheets of film you won?t even need that. "If, on the other hand, you insist on making photographs of a white bride standing out in full July sun at high noon in Arizona, while simultaneously carrying shadow detail in a black cat hiding under a nearby parked automobile, you probably will benefit from a whole suitcase full of expensive equipment. "My short answer to your question is that you might not actually require a Zone VI spotmeter."

I will indeed be able to take certain shots more than once and to bracket these shots. This may make less sense for people making dramatic films. It is something that I am interested in doing until I become familiar with the Kodak motion picture stocks. Also, I am inclined to do as much as possible in the camera rather than fix things later. For still photography, what works for me for negative film is 1/2 to one stop. I would not bracket two stops, but if that works for you, great.

I've just purchased a 16mm camera that I'll be using a fair bit outdoors in natural, and therefore changing, light. This will be my first foray in 16mm filmmaking. When I use a still camera for critical work I shoot at the metered reading, adjusted for the peculiarities of my meter and the scene, and then bracket the exposure. How I bracket depends on whether I am using reversal or negative film. For the latter, I bracket in larger increments (1/2 rather than 1/3 stops) and normally in the direction of overexposure from the adjusted meter reading. I haven't come across any discussions about bracketing for negative motion picture film in uncontrolled lighting conditions. Is this because it isn't done, relying on the telecine process for correction and, if so, just how much latitude is there in the telecine process. If bracketing is done, are there particular strategies that are used? I'm interested particularly in bracketing for Kodak negative films where the final output is digital.

What mostly comes through in the interview that is the subject of the above link is the arrogance of the filmmakers, who would be spitting nails if they were told that they did not have the right to decide who could use footage from their film and at what price. Phil Rhodes has this so right. It is just not that hard to find people who will write music that can be used legitimately. For that matter, it is really easy to take a piece of music in the public domain and find someone who will arrange it and record it in a modern idiom. As a piano player, I can take a traditional, public domain blues piece and turn it into jazz or rock or pop or rap or whatever I want, just by placing the melody in a particular framework. The real issue here, which has come up before on this site, is about understanding that one can take a melody and interpret it in many ways. It is basic musicianship, and people who don't play music are likely to find that these problems of rights can be solved pretty easily by talking with people who do play. It is certainly a better solution than canned or computer generated music, which in my own experience is garbage.

In case anyone is interested, the manual that describes the operation of Nikon Camera Control software is available on the Nikon site here: http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikon...li=&p_topview=1

You also need to realize that festival organizers themselves have an interest in ensuring that what they screen does not violate copyright. A festival that screens a film that contains material that violates copyright is itself in violation of copyright.

Sid, Forget the law for a minute. What do you think it does to your personal reputation to screen a film in public that contains the work of others that you do not have permission to use? That said, the ASCAP website and others talk about the distinction between educational and commercial uses. A little research might help answer your question about film festivals. Certainly, a screening at Toronto or Cannes would be a big problem. For a small campus festival, maybe not. Regarding re-mixes, I seem to recall that there is an issue about when there is, and is not, a copyright violation. You would have to research this.

On the Nikon D70, the monitor can be active, in the absence of an operation of the camera, for a maximum of 10 minutes. The Nikon Capture software that I discussed above allows one to use a laptop to control the camera for time lapse photography.

In other words, if you string some notes together so that they sound "almost exactly the same" and "would fool 99 per cent of the audience", and tell the copyright holder that that is what you intend to do, you are home free on copyright. Please tell us that you don't really believe this story.