Robert Edge

I'm also uninterested in the Nikon v. Canon debate. I'd just like to make a comment about software and about the new D70s. Yesterday, I used a programme called Nikon Capture with a D70. This software does two things. It edits RAW files and it makes it possible to use a laptop to control exposure and shutter firing. When used to control the camera, the digital file by-passes the memory card and goes straight to the laptop's hard drive. Each shot is immediately available for viewing within the editor part of the programme. This means that you can see the shot on a large screen and fine tune the exposure with the mouse for the next shot. Meanwhile, the camera is sitting on a tripod whatever distance away that your USB cable runs. If you are shooting in a situation where you can use a laptop and tripod, this software saves a good deal of time. The software is available on a 30 day trial (it comes with the D70 on a disk) and costs US$99 to purchase. Given my own needs, I am completely sold. For all I know, Canon has equivalent software. I also had a chance to compare the D70 and the new D70s. The former is selling for about US$150 less. Personally, I don't think that the changes in the D70s are worth the extra money.

To get a sense of how music licensing works, you might find also it helpful to look at Cherry Lane Music's website, especially their sections on roster and licensing: www.cherrylane.com

Nestor Almendros talks about using Nikon primes in his autobiography. It's not clear from what he says about how often he used these lenses. The text suggests that he may have done so on a number of occasions. However, in the filmography at the end of the book, a Nikon lens is listed for only one film. On that occasion, he used a Nikon lens because it was faster than the available cine lenses and he wanted to shoot at night.

There is a distinction between a composition and a performance of a composition. You can use the music of a composer if the music is in the public domain. This covers a great deal of classical music as well as many traditional tunes. For example, you have a legal right to use one of Beethoven's sonatas or one of John Dowland's folk songs, in whole or in part. However, you cannot use Alfred Brendel's recording of a Beethoven sonato or Andreas Scholl's recording of a Downland song unless you get permission. If you want to use a piece of music and a performance that are both copyrighted, you need to get permission from both the composer and the performer. In your case, one possible solution is to use a composition that is in the public domaine but have it recorded by a local musician. Given the degree to which popular music is based on classical music, and in many cases pretty much rips it off, you'd be amazed at the possibilities. You can read further about licensing on the ASCAP and BMI sites. Note that these organizations do not represent all music or musicians, including some very important artists like Duke Ellington. Richard, Your views about shooting the exterior of buildings are not liberal. They are simply correct, and correct beyond any doubt whatsoever.

I have a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod (model 1325) purchased for still photography. It has a flat plate head. I want to use this tripod to mount a 16mm camera that weighs under 10 lbs with lens. I was told today that it will not take a Sachtler head. The sales person suggested a Sachtler "package" consisting of their DV-6 head and a Sachtler tripod. The head seems fine, but I was less than impressed by the tripod. I prefer the Gitzo that I already own. Can my tripod be used with any of the heads made for video/film cameras apart from Gitzo's own heads. If so, which ones? If not, how are Gitzo's own heads? Thanks.

That isn't a test I'm going to do between now and Monday, partly because I don't have the time and partly because I'm not concerned about repeatability, but it would be an interesting test, both with reversal and negative film. I might just do it during the course of next week, if only out of curiosity.

David, Well, I'm about to find out and I'll post the results if anyone is interested. On Monday, starting around 4:00 a.m., I'm going to do some 6x7 still photos at the Fulton Fish Market in NY. I'm not sure if the lighting is tungsten, fluorescent or both. I'm going to shoot some black and white, but also some uncorrected daylight color reversal or negative, just to see what happens when the color film is scanned and desaturated.

A semi-related question... If you use daylight color reversal film uncorrected under tungsten or fluorescent lights, scan the film and desaturate for a black and white final output, will the tungsten or fluorescent lighting affect the black and white image? If so, how?

David, As you probably know, there is a widespread view among still photographers that a transparency scans better than a negative and is therefore a better medium if the output is a digital print. Do you know why this view has not caught on with cinematographers if the output is digital rather than analog? I'm also interested in the fact that a lot of still photographers have a distinct bias in favour of the look of transparencies, despite the more restricted exposure latitude, whereas cinematographers seem to come out in favour of negative film. Any comments on why that is? I have a feeling that the difference in view might have a lot to do with how still images are processed for publication (e.g. for the National Geographic, which has traditionally used transparencies) in comparison to how motion picture images are processed for projection, but that's just a hunch.

David, A person can go around in circles on these issues and there is a point where one just has to make a decision. I trust your opinion and, in my view, you just cut through an enormous amount of gobbledygook, just in time for a decision that I intend to make next week. Thanks. P.S. Do you share the view of the ASC Manual, a publication which, according to the introduction, you are implicated as one of the culprit readers/editors, that zoom lenses are now the equal, in terms of quality, to primes? Coming from a still photography background, I have an intuitive distrust of this view, and in any event I don't like using zoom lenses, but the author of the ASC article on lenses sounds like someone who knows his business. PPS for whomever has a view: Regardless of the advantages/disadvantages of zoom lenses over primes, I'm thinking of buying one prime and renting other lenses as needed. I think that it might work for what I'll be doing. I haven't decided what prime it would be, but if I go that route, my reference point would be that a normal angle of view for super 16 (i.e. 45 degrees) would be 14mm. I'll have a chance to test that, in practice, next week. However, even if it proves true, I get the sense that a lot of people who work with super 16mm use a longer focal length, whether in a zoom range or as a prime, as their normal view, regardless of what one might consider "normal" in still photography formats. Is that correct, and if so, why, or do I have this wrong?

I would go digital rather than super 16mm film if there was a digital camera on the market that was similar in price, size and weight to a current Aaton or Arriflex and that exhibited similar tonal range (i.e. detail in highlights and shadows) to super 16 film when used outdoors in natural light. There is no way that I would buy a 16mm camera at this time if such a product is likely to materialize in the next five years. Anyone care to estimate when someone will come up with a digital motion picture camera, meeting the criteria mentione in the first paragraph above, that will match 16mm to the same degree that a digital 35mm still camera will currently match a film 35mm still camera? John, I've watched the DVD "The Difference" at least a dozen times, Unfortunately, the more I watched it, the less convincing I found it, including on the question of archivability, and I say that as someone who is favourably disposed to film and wanted to be convinced.

I'm appreciate views, somehwat speculative though they may be, on whether developments in HD and SD equipment will soon make regular and super 16 obsolete as a medium for projects intended for television broadcast and, if so, how soon this is likely to occur. In other words, is the so-called "revival" of 16mm real or, instead, either a figment of people's imagination or a short-term bubble that is about to burst? The question is of some importance to me because I am thinking very seriously about buying a 16mm camera. However, continued improvements in digital imaging and the rapid erosion of film as a medium make me very nervous about doing this. For example, this is what is happening in still photography. Digital 35mm cameras have all but buried 35mm film cameras and it appears that medium and large format cameras are living on borrowed time. This week, Kodak announced that it has completed its acquisition of Creo, an important digital imaging company, and that it has ended production of ALL of its papers for black and white printing. This means that one can buy Kodak B&W film, but can't buy Kodak paper to make prints from the negatives (once current stocks run out). That is a pretty sobbering development. Ilford is struggling to overcome its recent brush with bankruptcy, an event avoided only by an employee buy-out. Agfa has just announced that it is in very serious financial trouble and may not survive. I can see that there is still a future for 35mm motion picture film, but I wonder if the future is much more bleak for 16mm. I also wonder whether we are at a point where, for much of what is broadcast on television, video actually looks more "normal" than film. About a week ago, David Mullen made the following interesting comment in another thread: "By the way, the other day I caught this cooking show on TV Food Network called "Everyday Italian", hosted by Giada De Laurentiis. For a moment, I thought it looked odd, like it was shot in Super-16. Then I realized that it was probably a 24P shoot, which is rare for a cooking show. Just felt different, instead of a live video cooking show, it felt like a film commercial was running. It almost felt like it was something from the past rather than something happening right then." Mr. Mullen's comments indirectly raise the interesting question of whether film may actually be less appropriate than video, taking into account viewer expectations, for certain kinds of television programmes. If so, what are the kinds of programmes for which video might be considered more appropriate?

You are talking about filming on private property. To do that, you need the permission of the owner or, in this case, of the hotel manager. Personally, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about whether the permission is oral or in writing unless you are doing some big-time commercial production or intend to defame the hotel. If you want it in writing, there is no need to get real fancy. Just have the manager sign something that says "Jackfilmaker has permission to shoot in the lobby of the hotel". You definitely do not need a permit from the city to film on private property. You only need a city permit, in some cases, to film on public property.

The speed of the lens is indeed a concern. That aside, there is a question about the weight. On the internet, the US Aaton agent says that it weighs .8 lbs, but a European Aaton agent says that it weighs 800 grams, which is quite a difference. Do you happen to know which it is? I've already checked the Fujinon site, but there is nada about this product. I know that you have talked about the A-Minima on this site in the past, and I assume (perhaps wrongly) that your experience with the Fujinon lens is with that camera. Whether that is right or wrong, if you had a choice of a zoom/variable prime lens to use with the A-Minima, which one would you use? If your view on this question didn't depend on bulk and weight, would the answer be different? Thanks, if you have time to respond.

If you want to spend the money, go ahead. I'd only like to correct one thing. Sunpath endorses the Suunto compass and clinometer. If the above reference is to the Suunto instruments, as it appears to be, you are mistaken that the accuracy of these instruments is dependent on time zone. I suspect that you are mixing up the Sunpath software and the hardware that goes with it. The second thing I'd say is that Suunto instruments, like those made Sliva, its competitor, are well-made. Whether they are useful for the purpose envisaged depends, in the case of the compass, on the amount of local interference, and in the case of both instruments, on the degree of accuracy required. Whether they are worth the money (US$235) depends on what you know about the subject of navigation and where and how you want to use these instruments. Certainly, people who are into orienteering in remote areas get a kick out of both Suunto and Sliva handheld products. They do have a certain cachet. As for Sunpath, if you think that the package is worth the money, that's fine. I just wanted to point out that anyone who knows anything about navigation or astronomy knows that the astronomical data, plus moon data and a lot more, is widely available, for free, both on disk and on the internet, and with both greater precision and more options. I also wanted to alert people to two problems with the way that this programme is advertised. The advertising says: "You do not need to own expensive GPS equipment to determine coordinates and location data" "sunPATH is a well-designed professional program, but I refuse to charge the high price of other "Motion Picture Software." This software is priced reasonably so everyone can afford it." I think that those statements are based on the premise that the reader is ignorant about GPS, about the operation of a compass and clinometer and about the fact that this "professional" software, priced so that "everyone can afford it", is in fact re-packaged free information. If you think it is suspect that the UK and US governments have made a point of making both the formula and data for these calculations widely available for decades, consider that there might be a reason, such as the safety of international shipping. Consider also that backyard, let alone professional, astronomy, would not be possible unless this kind of data were freely available. Maybe it's not an accident that people who have an interest in astronomy and navigation are not among those who have endorsed this system in Sunpath advertising. Tony, I raised this only because I think that people should think twice before they sink US$335 into this. Cheers

Has anyone tried this lens? Comments on it?

David, I'm going to do my first super-16 shoot in a couple of weeks and I'll be very pleased if I find that I can easily judge the apparent depth of field that the finished product will have just by looking through the viewfinder. I'm skeptical, given that I'll be probably be using neutral density filters at some point and I'll also be shooting close-ups at small apertures, but hope springs eternal. In the meantime, I figure that looking at some depth of field charts as part of my planning is like chicken soup - couldn't hurt. I asked my original question because I believe that apparent depth of field ultimately depends on how much an image is enlarged and how far the image is from the viewer. Without assumptions about these questions, it is impossible to posit a circle of confusion and, consequently, impossible to construct a depth of field chart. It's also impossible to make a depth of field scale for a lens. I know what the underlying assumptions are when I look at a still camera DOF chart or at a Nikon DOF scale, but I haven't got a clue what assumptions underlie the ASC charts or a Zeiss cine scale. I'd like to know, if only because I am curious. I do realize that there is a significant subjective element to one's perception of depth of field and that charts are very much a rough guide. I asked specifically about DOF for television broadcast because it occurred to me that the resolution of a television screen might have an impact on apparent depth of field and because there may be differences, as between television broadcast and theatrical projection, in enlargement magnification and viewer distance that are absolute rather than relative. I do understand that television screens come in different sizes and resolutions and that viewers can sit as near or as far from a screen as they please. Of course, the same is true of theaters. I'm just interested in whether people have thought about these questions and whether they have come to any conclusions about what the implications are for super 16 depth of field, if there are any. I am interested in depth of field for super 16, because it is the format I am using, rather than in how super 16 and 35mm compare. I have read the ASC Manual. According to the introduction to the DOF charts, at page, 632-33, the COC for 35mm is .001". While this is expressed as applicable to all formats, the text also notes that the traditional COC for 16mm is .0005". In the charts on extreme close-ups, at pages 744-45, the COC for 35mm is .001" and the COC for 16mm and super 16 is .006" (I assume that .006" should be .0006", although maybe I am misreading something). As you know, there are some caveats to these numbers. In the article on lenses, at page 176, there are interesting comments about the impact of current lenses and stocks on circle of confusion assumptions. These comments are presented in somewhat more summary form in the introduction to the charts. Depending on circumstances, these comments could lead one to adopt a smaller COC for 35mm and perhaps a proportionately smaller COC for super 16. Although it isn't an issue for me, if one does want to compare DOF as between super 16 and 35mm the example you present in your post is interesting: It appears that the greater depth of field provided by the 25mm lens is indeed significantly reduced if one changes the COC from .001" to .0005". The DOF for the 25mm lens becomes 4'5" to 5'8". This is not necessarily good news if one WANTS DOF. On the other hand, if narrow DOF is desired, it appears that the smaller COC, if it is an accurate predictor of behaviour of the image, and for the example posed, will indeed result in similar depth of field for the two formats. The question is, does the smaller COC reflect the reality of what the image looks like when it is broadcast or projected. This brings us back to the question of magnification of the image and viewer distance. It would be interesting to see what happens with other examples, because I am certainly not questioning the fact that a smaller format/shorter focal length tends to yield more depth of field than a larger format/longer focal length. Thanks very much for your comments.

Raj, I'm not saying that the Sunpath programme and compass and clinometer won't work in a rural environment. I am saying that the same result, in fact a better result, can be obtained for a lot less money. I'm also saying that there is a signifincantly more more accurate and cheaper way to do this in a built-up urban environment. For example, in Manhattan a compass is really useless, and anyone who had driven a car with a GPS unit in Manhattan knows that relying on the GPS unit is an exercise in futility. Sorry, but that is just a fact. Furthermore, if I were spending a bunch of cash to construct a set, I would want to know the sun's path with precision. To get precision, you need the relevant data about the sun (and perhaps the moon if you want to use it or its light in your photography) for your exact location. There are only two ways to determine your exact location. You can do it with a topographical map that contains identifiable landmarks or, more simply, you can use a GPS unit. Once you know your exact location, the information about the sun's path is readily available.

I suppose I should mention that Gardner's Grendel is the story of Beowolf told from the point of view of the monster. And a good story it is....

Get your hands on In This World. It was directed by Peter Winterbottom and shot by Marcel Zyskind, who sometimes surfaces on this website. It is a very special film, and to my mind in a different league from most of what is being made these days.

Daniel, I guess I'm a bit slow. I don't have any problem with your scenario. In fact, I think that Chekov could have made it into a great story. Indeed, I think that Flan O'Brien, who wrote a novel called At Swim Two Birds, could have had some fun with this material. There is a caveat to that, which is that Chekov or O'Brien would have to have known one thing. Why did the mother change her mind? Te answer to that question is essential, because, as you present it, the film is about the mother. You could change the secenario very easily so that the film is about the father or the daugher. But as it stands, it is about the mother, and if that is what you intend, you need to make it so. With the greatest respect to Mr. Mullen, I think that Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge and what he has to say about it misses the point. Let me make a couple of suggestions, which you can take on board or ignore as you see fit: Get yourself a copy of John Gardner's The Art of Fiction. If you have a bit of patience, before you read that book, there is a short novel of his (about 120 pages) that is worth checking out. It is called Grendel. As for Gardner, he is dead. He was killed in a motorcyle accident in about 1985 or 1986. However, there are some people, including myself, who think that the Art of Fiction is the finest book ever written about writing, and who also think that Grendel is a very special book. Second, I would suggest that you read Rust Hills's Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular. Hills was an editor, perhaps best known for the work that he did at Esquire when the magazine was publishing serious fiction. It is a very short book, and not in the same league as Gardner's, but it is still worth reading. Not in print, but available second-hand.

I want to add some comments about why I responded to this thread. You will note that Hamid asked about this product because he read about it in the American Cinematographer Manual. I bought a copy of the Manual last week. I looked through all of the charts and noticed that there were several credited to a company called Sunpath. When I looked at those charts, I realized that the information in them comes from a joint UK/US project that has resulted for many decades in the production of something called the Nautical Almanac. If the information did not come directly from that project, it certainly came from similar material. When I saw these charts, I wondered why the American Cinematographer Society would credit some company called Sunpath for information that was readily available from governments to the public. Then I read Hamid's question, from which I think it is fair to say that there is a bit of an assumption that if the ACS credits some company like Sunpath in its manual, there might be some value to its products. Then I looked at the Sunpath material on the web and read the assertion, prominently displayed, that buying this package would save one the cost of an "expensive" GPS unit. I want to say a couple of things, as clearly as possible: The statement that this package will save one the cost of an "expensive" GPS unit is factually false. To use plain English, the statement is garbage. Secondly, the information that the Sunpath software provides is publically available at no cost. Thirdly, no-one in his right mind would pay US$235 for a compass and clinometer for the purpose envisaged.

Well, when I raised this very question, the response referred to the Manual and suggested that I was wasting people's time: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...237entry48237

The last few words should be "useless unless the sun is shining" How come it isn't possible to edit a post after one has exited the thread, or is there a way to do it that I am missing?

David Mullen has said the same thing in the past in the context of a question I asked about using different assumptions about circle of confusion for different formats. I'm hesitant to pursue the question further, because my question was dismissed out of hand. However, I looked at the Manual's charts the other day and I'd like to suggest that you guys have another look at them. Specifically, look at the introductory text for the charts, which contemplates a different circle of confusion for 35mm and 16mm and, if I understand the text, for 8mm. Also, look at the charts entitled "extreme close up" covering reproduction ratios from 1:10 to 1:1. In the close-up charts, the Manual expressly uses different circles of confusion for 35mm and 16mm. Curious to know what you think.