Robert Edge

I have a question for Tim Tyler. What is the point of this thread and why is a website about cinematography providing a platform for posts that are about trashing 35 million people on the basis of their nationality? I also have a comment to make to Mr. Parks: You can be assured that I never take offense at people who are determined to demonstrate their ignorance in public. Really, what is the point of this?

I am going to proceed as you requested, and assume that the director/editor, the sound recordist and you were the only people involved in this project. In the normal course, the three of you would agree on who owns what at the beginning of the project. In the absence of an agreement, either express or implicit in your discussions, actions and contributions (financial and otherwise), I suspect that you would own the footage, the sound recordist would own the sound and the director/editor would own the copyright in the specific form that the footage and sound took after editing. This means that the film could not be shown unless the three of you started talking sense to one-another. When I first read your post, I thought you might be talking about another, and more interesting, issue. That issue is this: which of the three of you should be credited as the director of this film? In A Man and His Camera, Nestor Almendros made the argument that in some cases the cinematographer for a documentary film, as distinct from a fiction film, should be recognized as co-director. I think that the argument has some merit to it.

I walked into my local video store yesterday and discovered that this film, which won awards at Cannes and a 2005 Academy Award for best animated short, has just been released on DVD. It is an animated documentary about Ryan Larkin, who worked at the National Film Board of Canada until cocaine and alcohol reduced him to making a living by panhandling in front of a Montreal landmark, Schwartz's Deli. By animated documentary, I mean that the images are the product of computer generated animation, but the story is Larkin's and the dialogue comes from discussions that Landreth had with Larkin and people associated with him. Larkin's own reputation rests on the animated shorts that he made between about 1964 and 1972. I watched the DVD last night and it is a wonderful package. In addition to Ryan, the DVD contains: Laurence Green's Alter Egos, a 52 minute documentary about Landreth and Larkin that includes, in the last 20 minutes, the film Ryan and Larkin's reaction to it Two additional Chris Landreth films, The End (for which Landreth was nominated for an Academy Award in 1995) and Bingo Three Ryan Larkin films, Syrinx, Walking (for which Larkin was nominated for an Academy Award in 1969) and Street Musique For anyone interested in this material, I'd suggest watching Green's documentary first. It is a nice film on its own. It charts the relationship between Landreth and Larkin (the juxtapostion between Landreth showing Ryan at a film festival in Monaco and Larkin hanging out on the streets of Montreal is striking) and contains interesting interviews with Larkin's former colleagues at the NFB and friends from his post-NFB life. Green's documentary moves seamlessly into a session in which Landreth and Larkin watch Ryan together. The film is shown almost in its entirety. The discussion at the end of the screening is gut-wrenching. Larkin doesn't say so specifically, but I think that he was completely taken aback not just by the content of Ryan, but by the style. Landreth's film (and I don't mean this as a criticism) is harsh and ugly. Larkin's films were lyrical. This comes through most forcefully if one watches Larkin's films right after Green's documentary. The film Walking is as fresh and as beautiful as when it was made 37 years ago. The DVD also contains director's commentaries, including commentaries by Larkin about the substance and techniques involved in his films, that are a good deal more insightful than usual. Both in Green's documentary, and the commentaries, Green and Landreth show that they are fully aware of the ethical issues that were involved in making their films, and they address these issues directly. Those who know the work of Norman McLaren, who was Larkin's mentor, will smile at the passage in Ryan in which Landreth pays homage to McLaren's film about dance, Pas de Deux.

Lance Accord is on the Kodak DVD The Difference. If I recall correctly, he talks about Lost in Translation and why he went with film rather than video. If it's not on the Kodak DVD, it's on the Lost and Translation DVD.

Thanks very much. I gather, then, that there is no electrical aspect to the use of fiber optics for viewfinders.

The current Aaton and Arri cameras contain electronics that will do everything except make coffee. Does anyone know how integrated the electronics are? Will a failure in the electronics, computer, software or memory unrelated to the basic functioning of one of these cameras bring it to a halt, or will the viewfinder and motor keep working? How reliable are the electronics? Would you take one of these cameras for a few weeks to a remote area without worrying about gremlins in the electronics causing the camera to go dead. What are the most recent 16mm synch sound cameras in which the functioning of the viewfinder and motor are clearly independent of other functions? Thanks.

Bump... Surely someone has a view on this. If not, does anyone know what any of the TV shows that are shooting super 16 are using as a c of c? Thanks.

If you have access to Nestor Almendros's book A Man with a Camera, he talks repeatedly about lighting candles and open fires and fireplaces. It was a subject that interested him throughout his career. The book doesn't have an index, so you pretty much have to read all of it to find all the passages on this subject. That isn't a bad thing, because the book is wonderful.

David, Your comments are extremely helpful and they greatly clarify the issue. If I reject Nikkors as an option, at least now it will be based on a demonstrably solid ground. I don't have any doubt that the focus marks on Nikkors are too close together to change focus during a shot. For what you do, I also have no doubt that focus pulling is essential. Sorry if I made light of it a little. I don't do what you do (regrettably), and for the application I have in mind, at least in the short term, there is a real issue about whether focus pulling will be necessary. I need to think further about this. By the way, Nikon does make zooms that retain their speed throughout, but in my case it's beside the point because I'm not interested in using a zoom lens. One question if you have a moment, more out of curiousity than anything. I gather from one or two previous posts that you are very familiar with the work of Nestor Almendros. Do you have a sense, off the top of your head, about how much Almendros used focus adjustments in the films he made with Rohmer? I re-read Almendros's notes for those films a couple of days ago, and he doesn't discuss the subject. Stephen, I wrote the foregoing before seeing your post. Thanks also for your comments. Interestingly, the application I have in mind includes still life subjects. Anyway, you've given me more to think about. If I reject Nikkors, thanks to you and David at least now I'll know why I'm doing it.

I'm surprised that that kind of testing hasn't already been done, or, if it has, that the results aren't well known. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a variety of Cooke, Zeiss and Nikon primes to do the tests myself. Does anyone know if Cooke or Zeiss publish MTF charts for their lenses? I'd like to compare them to Nikon's charts.

I've now received an e-mail that suggests that Kodak can decide unilaterally how long it will support the A-Minima and for what emulsions. As for Fuji, the Aaton website says that Fuji film is not available because Kodak handled the tooling of the flanges. Josh, People choose camera equipment based on their experience and objectives. I do a lot of travelling and backpacking with a 4x5 large format camera. This works because I keep the weight and bulk down. I use one of the lighter camera brands and a carbon fiber tripod and I carry no more than two or three lenses. I intend to use a 16mm camera the same way. I need a light, synch sound, super 16 camera with a bright viewfinder for use with two or three prime lenses. That is why I am interested in the A-Minima, as well as why I initiated a discussion in another thread about the viability of Nikkor primes. They are much lighter, as well as a lot cheaper, than Cooke and Zeiss primes. I know that several people on this site have said that the A-Minima is a "specialty" camera. I'd love to know why, but nobody ever gives a reason for this statement. If I have learned anything from large format photography, it is that a camera is a box with a lens at the end. For me, the less complicated the setup, the better. Features that I won't use just represent things that can, and eventually will, go wrong. I haven't ruled out the XTR or an Arri, but right now it isn't clear to me why, for my purposes, they are better boxes. I've read the threads about loading A-Minima spools. I imagine that it's a lot like loading sheet film into film holders. In other words, it's a bit of a nuisance, and you have to be careful about static and dust. I already load film holders, although I prefer to use Kodak Readyloads when the emulsion I want to use is available in that form. I know that at some point, Kodak will pull the plug on the A-Minima rolls. My working assumption is that it will do so sooner rather than later, and it sounds like Fuji won't be there to pick up the ball. This is a consideration, just one more thing to weigh. As you probably know, there has been some discussion on this site about whether it is best to give self-loaded film time to adjust to the rewind. Some people say yes, others say no. A few days ago, I came across an article published by the Australian Cinematography Society that suggests 24 hours. It isn't clear whether this is the view of the author or of Aaton or Kodak. Anyway, the article is available at http://www.cinematographer.org.au/freestyl.../files/ac17.pdf Cheers.

Rik, I know, and it would be cheaper than buying the Kodak A-Minima rolls. From my point of view, the A-Minima rolls (if I wind up buying that camera) are akin to Readyloads, a Kodak product that I use for large format because Readyloads, while relatively expensive, are more convenient, and less dust prone, than loading film holders in a darkroom. I'd just like to know if the future of Kodak's support for the A-Minima is entirely up to Kodak or whether there is a commitment, and also whether Fuji's failure to make these spools available is a business decision or the result of an arrangement between Aaton and Kodak.

Rik, I just noticed that the 16mm you referred to is a fisheye lens. I've now looked at a book on Nikkor lenses to check which wide lenses are rectilinear. The book is a bit unclear, but it looks like the company has made rectilinear lenses at 13, 14, 15, 18 and 20mm. The current lineup is a 14mm f2.8, an 18mm f2.8 and a 20mm f2.8. The 24mm is f2. The 35mm and 50mm are available at a variety of speeds and vary quite a bit in price. If one bought a 14, 18, 24 and the 35 and 50 at f1.4, the cost would be roughly what you suggested in your earlier post (i.e. $4000).

You might find it helpful to read one of John Shaw's books, either his Closeups in Nature or the chapter on closeups in Nature Photography Field Guide. Reading the first paragraph in your post, it isn't clear what reproduction ratio you are aiming for and, consequently, whether you actually need a macro lens. Note that a macro lens, by itself, will not get you beyond 1:1, meaning that 1 inch of film covers 1 inch of your subject. Shaw's books are widely available, and very reasonably priced. He also has a website at http://www.johnshawphoto.com/.

I am very appreciative of the comments. The following is intended to generate discussion, not to be argumentative. Nikon has made lenses as wide as 6mm. However, the 6mm is a beast and their 8mm would probably be the widest that would be usable. The company has also made lenses between 8mm and 14mm. At B&H in New York, the total cost of the 16, 24, 35 and 50mm lenses would be about US$1300. I already own the 24, 35 and 50. The 14mm is $1230. You can probably buy it second hand for about half that. Renting a wide lens, when needed, might also make sense. The foregoing prices are for AF lenses. Manuals would be more new (small market), but cheap used (little demand anymore). In any event, Nikkor AF lenses can be used manually. In comparison, the list prices for Cooke and Zeiss primes, which are set out on the ZGC and Arri websites respectively, are astronomical. It doesn't surprise me that Cooke and Zeiss cine housings are made to withstand abuse. On the other hand, photojournalists have used Nikkors for decades to cover everything from scrums to riots to wars to natural disasters, and photographers have taken Nikkors everywhere from Everest to Antarctica. I've never heard of people complaining that their lenses are falling apart. It's an interesting question about whether a current Nikkor is less sharp than a Zeiss first generation Superspeed or, for that matter, a Zeiss Ultraprime and, if so, by how much. I don't know if it's true, but a fellow named Mitch Gross said in an earlier thread that Contax was selling lenses for its cameras that were the same lenses as Zeiss Superspeeds. Anyway, I wonder if anyone has actually done tests to compare the performance of cine and still camera lenses. I've compared the speed of Cooke/Zeiss and Nikkor lenses. The former tend to be faster, but not by much. In any event, given the current quality of film stocks and the range of ASA speeds available, I wonder whether this is really an issue. To me, the more interesting question is whether cine lenses are in fact sharper than still camera lenses at their first couple of stops. I've read suggestions to this effect, attributed to the Distagon design, but I've also read statements on this site that suggest that these claims are exaggerated. How often do cinematographers actually use cine primes wide open? I have a question that Mr. Milford might be able to answer. The Aaton A-Minima comes in PL and Nikkor mount. Do you know what the market is for the Nikkor mount? What do people want it for? Thanks again for the responses.

I've been looking at the cost of Cooke and Zeiss primes compared to the cost of Nikkor primes. The former are astronomically more expensive than the latter, even at fairly short focal lengths. From previous posts on this forum, the argument for the Cooke and Zeiss primes over still photography lenses seems to come down to two main points: First, the Cooke and Zeiss lenses have focus rings that make it much easier to change focus during a shot. Maybe so. For the price difference, I figure that I can live without changing focus during a shot. In fact, I find some of this focus change stuff fairly aggravating (such as changing focus from a face in the foreground to a face in the background). The second argument is that Cooke and Zeiss primes are "matched" in terms of colour and contrast and Nikkor primes are not. I'd be interested in knowing when Cooke and Zeiss started saying that their lenses are "matched". More imporantly, I'd like to know how real this is. Is it noticeable or is this akin to Leica photographers going on about bokeh? Does anyone know of a film where the use of different lenses has led to an apparent mismatch on the screen. If it is real, is it something that is significant not just within a scene, but between scenes? How difficult would it be, during the post process, to "match" footage made with Nikkor lenses? Parenthetically, why are Cooke and Zeiss primes so heavy compared to still photography primes? Thanks.

I'd appreciate knowing what value participants in this site tend to use for super 16 footage intended for broadcast on television. If you use a range of values, comments on the variables you take into account would also be appreciated.

I happened to watch Eric Rhomer's Pauline a la plage (Pauline at the Beach) just before I saw these clips about King Kong. There is a wonderful scene in Rhomer's film that involves a lengthy shot in which the camera dollies back as two actors approach it. Nestor Almendros, who was the photographer, explains in his book how the scene was shot. They got their hands on a Deux Chevaux, which Almendros used as a platform, and the Deux Chevaux and Almendros and his camera (an Arri BL if I recall) were pulled by a member of the crew (five people for the entire film) and some local people. If you know what a Deux Chevaux is, this is a very funny image. Peter Jackson should be so lucky as to make a film as good.

I asked the above question about support for the A-Minima because I'm trying to decide whether to buy one. If I'm going to buy a camera that uses special film rolls, I'd like to know what the support arrangement is. I'm wondering whether the participants on this site from Kodak or the US Aaton agent, Abel Cine, might respond. One other question: Is there an arrangement between Aaton and Kodak that precludes Fuji from supplying ready-to-shoot rolls, or is this a business decision on Fuji's part?

Does anyone know what commitment Kodak has made to Aaton to support this camera with ready-to-use rolls of stock? Is there a duration? Is there a commitment about making certain stocks available? Or is the support solely in the discretion of Kodak? Also, does anyone know how successful this camera has been in terms of sales?

Those who are interested in this documentary might also be interested in the open letter that the filmmaker, Jonathan Nossiter, has posted on the website of the celebrated wine critic Robert Parker: http://fora.erobertparker.com/cgi-bin/ulti...=1;t=054628;p=0 I made my original post on this site because the film has also been attacked photograhically and I'm curious to know whether any cinematographers have seen it and, if so, what they think.

Has anyone seen this yet? Comments?

Have a look at this thread: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...wtopic=5158&hl=

P.S. If some still photographer offers to show you a transparency made from an 8"x10" or 4"x5" sheet of film, beware that you will henceforth be unable to take seriously anyone who tells you that negative film is aesthetically superior :)

Brian, A lot of the available books that address your questions are pretty expensive, but there are two that are fairly cheap and provide solid, reliable information: John Schaefer, "Ansel Adam's Guide to the Basic Techniques of Photography", volume 1; Steven Ascher, "The Filmmaker's Handbook". Many of your questions are about general photography rather than cinematography in particular. I think that the best internet fora on general photography are at www.apug.org and www.largeformatphotography.info. The largest forum is at www.photo.net, which also has some reasonably good articles. If possible, beg or borrow a large format camera that takes 4"x5" sheets of film. Shoot some film and find a darkroom where you can process and print the film yourself. It will teach you an enormous amount. If you post a note on www.largeformatphotography.info saying where you live and that you want to try a large format camera and want to see what processing and printing is about, there is a very good chance that someone will respond favourably. If you can't get your hands on a large format camera, use a medium format or 35mm camera. I can't resist saying something about your question on positive and negative film. Historically, still photographers and cinematographers went down different roads. Professional still photographers tended to prefer postive film (many still do) and cinematographers came to adopt negative film. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but I think that the divergent paths had to do mostly with the practical differences between the way that still images and film images were printed. Now that all images made for books and magazines are digitized, there are endless debates between still photographers about whether postive or negative film is "better". Much of this debate has to do with arguments about the scanning of transparencies vs. negatives. Cinematographers don't seem to have the same debate. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that Kodak and Fuji don't offer them the range of positive films that is offered to still photographers.