Daniel Klockenkemper

Why doesn't someone just ask Steve Annis, instead of offering baseless speculation? His e-mail address is at the bottom-right corner of every page on his website. http://steveannisdop.com/contact/

There isn't a uniform standard as far as I can tell. If you look at filmtools' stingers, they do white for 25', red for 50', and yellow for 100ft, with no color for 10ft (which makes sense, it's easy to ID the length when it's that short). A rental house I've worked with a lot does orange for 25ft, yellow for 50ft, and no markings for 100ft. I've also seen the PRG color code system on the internet, which goes like this: 5′ Red 10′ Green 15′ Blue 20′ Brown 25′ Purple 50′ Orange 75′ White 100′ Yellow There are also color codes for DMX cable, if you or others on your crew use DMX frequently you might copy that so as not to have two separate systems to memorize: 5ft - red 10ft - yellow 15ft - green 25ft - orange 50ft - white 100ft - purple If there's a rental house that you use to supplement your own equipment for bigger jobs, it makes the most sense to copy whatever system they use.

Hi Austin, There are a lot of ways to define "cinematic", and in my opinion the character of a lens is only a very small part of it. To me, if the choices that were made in creating the image support the narrative of a film defines whether the image is cinematic or not. Do you have an overarching narrative or theme beyond a "cinematic look"? For a photo stills project, lighting (hard/soft shadows, contrast ratio, etc.) and compositional choices (deep or shallow focus, depth in staging, proximity of the camera to the subject, etc.) will be the elements that you can apply from cinema, while things like camera movement and editing which derive from the temporal dimension of motion pictures - in my opinion these are much more defining of "cinema" as a medium - are less applicable. Do consider the "editing" of your project, though, as the order of your images can create an impression on your viewers as much as narrative cinema can. With all that said, I've certainly tested lenses to find the set that has a rendition that feels right for the project I'm shooting. I don't know if anyone can tell you what lens will feel right to you; the best way is to handle the lenses in person, put them on a camera, and look through the viewfinder yourself. Seattle certainly has its share of camera stores that you could visit; and while it's a bit far away, Blue Moon Camera in Portland, Oregon might be worth looking into as well. There's sometimes a snobbery about prime lenses, in both cinema and still photography, but you could find countless examples of cinematic imagery created with zoom lenses as well, so don't rule them out - the Pentax K 35-105/3.5 is a zoom with wonderful rendering that comes to mind. Don't get caught up in numbers or technical specifications. When you put your eye behind a lens and it feels right, you'll know it. Good luck, Daniel

Glad it was helpful. For me, using a variety of different formats has helped me understand better - 8mm, 16mm, Super 35, full frame, medium format, large format (4x5). It's just so much easier to think about the format than to try to convert everything back to full frame. As far as picturing what's happening with a lens, it might be helpful to start with the most simple optical device - a pinhole, a hole in a wall that was used before photography to create images in a camera obscura (literally means "dark room"): The focal length of a pinhole is the distance from the pinhole to the wall. While simple, a pinhole has a lot of disadvantages when it comes to photography, which is why lenses took their place. A simple lens is one piece of glass: In the picture above, the light rays in red are entering the lens from infinitely far away, and the distance from the optical center of the lens to the point where light converges to form a sharp image (the focal point) is the focal length (lower case f). Simple lenses still have some drawbacks though, so more complicated lens designs were invented to improve the image: The above lenses are symmetrical, and conveniently the focal length of these lenses is measured from the central point of the combined elements to where the light converges, which is where the camera's sensor or film would be placed. Once you get into more complicated lens designs, mentally conceiving exactly how the light rays are moving through the lens starts to get more difficult. If you want to read more Wikipedia provides a lot of information, but a lot of it gets technical very quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design I think it's important not to let yourself get too bogged down by technical information though - you only need to understand it as much as you need to in order to advance your craft. All of us go through repeated cycles of learning and application; you find the limits of your knowledge by putting it into practice. Best, Daniel

Kendrick, Lenses don't have a crop factor. A lens has a focal length (the amount of bending it does to light) and an image circle, the size of the circle of light projected behind the lens. Crop factor is really a way of comparing two different sensor sizes, not lenses. If lens X on one sensor gives you a certain angle of view, you can calculate what lens Y should be to get the same angle of view on a different sensor. That's all. Here's a better way to think about it: Start with the sensor size of the camera you use - I believe it's 12.7mm x 24mm for the FS5. The diagonal measurement is 27.15mm. I'm simplifying a bit, but this diagonal measurement basically tells you what focal length would have a "normal" perspective on this sensor. Every focal length shorter is a wide angle, and every focal length more than that is a long lens, or telephoto. If a lens is referred to as APS-C, Super 35, full frame, etc., those are just common ways to talk about the size of the image circle that a lens has. If a lens has an image circle large enough to cover the sensor you're using, you can use it. All you need to think about is how that focal length relates to "normal" for the sensor you're using. -- Some examples: If you put a 28mm Zeiss Ultra Prime (a Super 35 cinema lens) on your FS5, it will have a basically normal perspective, not wide angle. If you put a 28mm Zeiss CP2 (a full-frame cinema lens) on an A7S, it will be wide angle, because the sensor is much larger - 23.8mm x 35.6mm (42.8mm diagonal). If you switch the lenses around, the CP2 will have the exact same angle of view as the Ultra Prime on the FS5. They are both 28mm, and they both have an image circle larger than the diagonal measurement of the FS5 sensor. When you put the Ultra Prime on the A7S, you would see a circular image in the middle of the frame, and the sides of the frame will be dark. However, if you compared this circle to the same area on the CP2/A7S combination, you would find that the images inside the circle are the same. The Ultra Prime has a smaller image circle than the CP2, but they both have the same "bending power" because their focal lengths are the same. You would need to put a 44mm lens on the A7S to get the same angle of view as a 28mm on your FS5. That's the only reason to think about crop factor. -- I realize this got a bit long, but I hope it makes things more clear for you! Daniel

Since you're in LA, most of the grip / rag companies will happily make you something custom - the Rag Place has "Any size available upon request" for basically every item - though there are off-the-shelf things that should work for you: Canvas Grip has 42" x 42" floppies made for SUVs; I've creatively (and just barely) squeezed a couple of them into a full-size sedan - http://www.canvasgrip.com/p/FL35.html Modern Studio has a 40" x 40" floppy, as well as floppy cutters in lots of sizes - http://modernstudio.com/product-category/technical-fabrics/flags-cutters-floppies/ The 4 foot wag flag might also be of interest to you. Their nets are offered in 30" x 36" off the shelf - http://modernstudio.com/product-category/technical-fabrics/framed-scrims/ Modern will also happily make something custom for you, I imagine putting a different fabric over a 40" frame wouldn't change the price much at all. I work part time at a lighting and grip company and we have a lot of items from both the above companies. I'm sure there are similar products from other vendors, too, if you dig through their catalogs.

There's an interview with Claudio Miranda, ASC that discusses the background footage used in the sky tower scenes. It sounds like they shot with 3 Red Epic cameras and stitched them together to get the 15K front-projected image. http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/03/29/claudio-miranda-asc-on-oblivion/ Maybe that's just how Tom Cruise's skin tone looks these days? :P

The general rule for exposing old film is that you subtract one stop of speed for every decade past the expiration date in order to compensate for base fog. The expiration date for film is typically 2 to 3 years after manufacture; higher-speed films are affected significantly more quickly than slower films, and color films are affected more so than black and white. I've seen 25 ASA black and white film from the 1970s exposed 40 years later and come out looking great, so 50 ISO color film that's only 5 years old should have negligible loss of speed given proper storage.

A Cameflex mount on a lens looks like this. It was the mount on Eclair cameras - mainly the CM3 a.k.a. the Cameflex (35mm) and the NPR (16mm). If you have a Cameflex-mount lens, there are adapters to convert it to C mount. Of the cameras which have a hard Cameflex mount, either they also have a C mount (NPR) or are not possible to convert (CM3).

If I were in your situation, I would probably hold out for a good deal on a IIC. While they're quite old at this point, there are many of them around, so finding parts and service for them shouldn't be an impossible task. You're also correct that lens choices will be better, especially if you find one that's been converted to PL mount. (Nikon mount conversions are not unheard of either, which broadens your lens options considerably.) The Russian Konvas cameras are perfectly capable when they're in good condition, but you are limited to older Lomo lenses, which are respectable optically but I've found to be lacking in build quality. Prices on Lomos have also climbed considerably due to digital shooters wanting vintage lenses with character, so in my opinion there not even much of a good deal anymore. Maintenance on a Konvas camera could also be difficult to find, so if anything breaks you may have to purchase another camera. I don't have any personal experience with Eyemos, but they're supposedly very simple and reliable. I think there are many out there still in use as crash cameras or for when the most compact camera is necessary. Lens selection may be an issue with Eyemos as well, though I think the largest limitation is the 100-foot loads. I'd be hesitant to get one as a primary camera for work purposes. All of the cameras you mention are noisy in operation, even with crystal-sync motors, so shooting dialogue would be a challenge. If you're playing the waiting game for a IIC, you could also keep your eyes peeled for an older Arri BL; I've seen a few sell at rock-bottom prices comparable to that of IICs on occasion.

For a 2K or larger light, you'll need a variable autotransformer, also known as a variac. Unlike router controls, variacs are large and heavy - the windings are all copper, and thus more expensive. You can find used ones out there if you're on a budget - I have one that originally was for dimming lights in an old theater.

I would imagine that Ektar 100 is probably the closest equivalent to 50D. It was the first still film from Kodak that was based on their motion picture products - Ektar was introduced in fall 2008, while the Portra films were reformulated in late 2010 / early 2011. I usually rate Ektar 100 at 64 or 50.

Try your local glass supply or framing company and ask them to cut you a piece of museum glass in the size you need.

Examples of the Tamron lens are a little easier to find. Here are a few links with samples: http://forum.manualfocus.org//viewtopic.php?pid=82658#p82658 The user Abbazz posted images on pages 1 and 3 of this thread: http://forum.mflenses.com/new-pictorialism-soft-focus-alert-t40873.html among other lens examples (not all of which achieve softness by the same means). The same user posted additional examples here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/84187-soft-focus-lenses-actually-useful-3.html

Hello Guillaume, I would guess that the soft effect is a spherical aberration control. It would allow you to dial in the amount by which you can make the lens "less perfect." See the following: http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/s4i_more.html http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/51A.html

I have a set of Cine Kowa primes, which are identical to the Ultra Ts aside from the nameplate. I think you'll find them an improvement over the Angenieux 12-120, particularly in low-light situations. I haven't used the Angenieux for probably 4 or 5 years, but I remember it needed to be stopped down pretty far to look decent. My experience with the Cine Kowas is: T1.25 - soft, but you can get away with it sometimes T2 - decent T2.8 - very good T4 - great As for the Zeiss, I've used a 10-100 converted for Super 16 (Optex 12-120 T2.4). It's a really nice lens, and covers a useful range. The portholing at close focus on the wide end is limiting, especially if you're trying to cram the camera into a tight space. The more advanced coatings on Zeiss lenses give them higher contrast than the Ultra Ts, which can give the at-a-glance impression of higher sharpness if you're comparing them side by side. Color-wise, the Ultra Ts have warmer, less-saturated reproduction than Zeiss, though if you mix lenses it's easy to adjust any differences if you're transferring to video. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer.

http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/About/Chronology_Of_Film/1980-Today/index.htm Vision 500T was introduced in 1996 and discontinued in 2005/2006.

Thank you, David and Jean-Louis. :) Any suggestions for additional topics?

Hi Jeroen, Is the PL-mount adapter a c-mount type or the ACL external thread mount (I think it is called TS mount)? Would you consider selling it seperately? Regards, Daniel

I've written a series of articles about shooting Super 8, and I'd appreciate some feedback. I work at a camera store / photo lab, and we sometimes have customers bring in a Super 8 camera and want to know how to use it. Since they're generally familiar with photography already, I wrote these articles with that in mind, to explain the conceptual difference between filming movies and shooting still images, and to gather that knowledge into a single resource. I have three parts so far: Part I is a general introduction Part II describes various features of Super 8 movie cameras. Part III covers film stocks, color balance, and camera compatibility. I'm working on part IV, and plan to address where to process the film, where to transfer it to video, how to incorporate sound, and more about the movie-making process. I'd appreciate any comments on the first three parts, as well as any suggestions for topics to cover in part 4. Thank you, Daniel

I'm rather late to this party, and there some good points have definitely been made already. I could be considered a "film guy," since I've shot pretty exclusively on film for the last four years, but I started off as a computer/tech nerd. I switched to shooting on film when I realized that it was easiest and best for the way I wanted to realize narrative imagery, and was the best fit for my ideal creative process. I believe that the tools artists use shapes their creative process, and filmmaking is no exception. I think the greatest loss if film is no longer viable will be the loss of direct movie-making tools. Case in point: I own an Eclair ACL, which is around a 40-year-old camera design, and it's about as simple to use as a movie camera could be. Because I've been using it for a few years, I know exactly how it behaves; I can rely on its consistency. The same is true of photographic emulsion - I can simply load a roll and start shooting, and know how it will look after it's been processed. Video technology is lacking in these respects. Camera behavior changes from one software update to the next, and more new camera models come out every year. Will there be a digital camera I can rely upon for 40 years? Likewise, for video imagery that quantifiably approaches the characteristics of film at this point in time, it has to be shot with grading in mind. Without that direct connection with the medium and the process, I feel that there's less room for the creative aspect, and thus less opportunity for artistic inspiration to strike. Further, without the penalty that wasted film footage incurs, the creative process becomes less decisive and less committed to achieving an artistic goal than ever before. For my own part, I want to take risks and commit to my creative choices, and current digital working methods are less conducive to that. Will digital tools become more streamlined in the future? I hope so. I don't see why people feel like they have to take sides. If someone is creatively inspired by their medium of choice, that's wonderful. But there's no need for anyone to denigrate mine.

I've shot over 10,000 feet of 16mm with my ACL in the past year. One of those projects had a successful Kickstarter campaign that gave us the funding to film macro photography of live spiders. The ACL was crucial for that shoot - the crazy assortment of lenses I had for close-up work wouldn't have been available or affordable to use on any other camera.

Other drawbacks to gyros include the noise (they spin at 15k RPM or so, like a power tool), and the fact that you can't change directions quickly. If it's a linear tracking shot with minimal panning (which is a good idea with long focal lengths anyway) that shouldn't be too much of a problem. No worries, we've all been there. Best, Daniel

You have your conversion backwards. Use this converter: http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/tblelenseqvform.asp 100mm on "Super 16 1.78 HDTV TV Transmitted" has an angle of view 6.7° wide, which is equivalent to 179mm for 35mm 1.78 HDTV Transmitted (or 204mm for Super 35 1.78 HDTV TV Transmitted).

I have done a handheld tracking shot with a zoom lens at around 100mm on Super 16. I used a Ken-lab KS-8 gyroscope to stabilize the camera; you can rent them from aerial photography companies.