Trevor Greenfield

I heard many good things about OCC Film, and had a friend who started last year. She seemed to like it, but haven't talked to her for awhile. I moved away before I could transfer there.

Realistically though you can do quite a lot with 200 or 250T, right? I mean it takes a fairly low light situation to necessitate 500 speed film, and then you have to consider the high fstop you'll use or even ND should you get anything remotely high key? I mean could you really think about using 500T for a whole feature assuming its not all night scenes?

Interesting opinions, thanks. My friend asked me this question out of the blue the other day and I came up with 2 different answers after quite a bit of thought and I thought I'd pose it to you pros. David, Its true there's some flexibility to ease yourself into a job if you don't know much (I imagine you went through a similar thought process recently when preparing for the quick turnaround from Farmer to that new night shoot movie and you didnt know much). Of course this is a totally unrealistic scenario (you'll at least know what kind of scenes you'll shoot ans your basic lighting setup) but it really makes you evaluate the value of particular stocks and if you have to play it safe what can you fall back on -- from your opinions -- 200T Kodak or 250T Fuji.

Theres a few threads already on the subject like this one: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...=10434&hl=x-ray Best bet, take your film in a seperate bag for carryon and tell them HAND INSPECTION.

I really enjoyed it tonight from the production side. The set was very very cool too. The cutoffs were awful, but that's happened before too.

I was pulling for Elswit because Ive been in love with his work for awhile but Geisha probablydeserved to win.

So, here's a hypothetical situation. Suspend your good-natured professional apprehension for a moment and play along here... You're going to shoot a feature in just a few days. About the only thing you know is you're going to be paid well, and that you are shooting with the 35mm camera and lens package of your choice. Just about everything else is unknown. You don't know where. You don't know what kind of lighting environments or situations you might find yourself in, or even what lighting equipment you might have on set. There might not even not be a lighting budget! There might be night shots, there might not. Again, the first time you will know anything else, will be the moment you arrive on set and by then it will be too late to change your mind. In this extremely unlikely scenario, which two film stocks would you choose to film with and why?

1.8 is great but isnt 50mm the equiv. of a 100mm telephoto for 16mm on the k3? Thats kind of tough to find use with in most situations, but certainly it would be a good addition to the arsenal. .... Personally I've shot a bit of footage with the stock zoom lens and I like the quality but yes.. it is cheap. And whatever you do don't leave the screw on lever on the zoom control if you don't want to zoom during a shot! That thing will move on you (I found out the hard way).

I assume you've tried Quicktime Alternative? http://www.codecguide.com/download_qt.htm Allows you to play QT 7 in players such as VLC and Media Player Classic, without the need for installing Apple Quicktime. I now use this and have stopped downloading Quicktime for exactly the reasons you mentioned. In the infancy of streaming video, I used RealPlayer a lot too, but Im glad it died because I hated all the AOL and bloated crap it installed. I too dont like players that phone home, or install bloatware, spyware or are adware (though Im usually tolerant of adware as long as its tasteful.

I had it happen on High Fire Danger! during an EXT sunny day shot looking in the direction of the sun with the angle from the source being 40 degrees or so. And that was with the stock Meteor lens on the K3 and most likely at least 1.2 ND I'll have to go back and look. Looks like a fluttering insect or something.

how much (ballpark) is your camera/shooting budget, and your post budget, and how long is your shooting schedule?

24 frames per second is the playback or acquisition rate. It applies to both film and video, but it merely refers to how many frames are played back, and not necessarily the content or any other information in those frames. 24 p "progressive" can refer to a couple of different video terms. It does not really apply to film because film does not record in interlacing or "fields" like video dows, that can only happen when it is transferred to video... so in essence every major contemporary film is recorded and played back at 24 frames per second. Where the term progressive comes into play is the odd and even video fields of a frame are not scanned all odd lines then all even lines to produce a frame (which can cause irregular looking frames on progressive displays like HDTV's)... they are scanned odd even odd even producing no irregular looking movement, just solid "film like" movement at 24fps, replicating film movement and cadence. On the playback side, 24p often refers to a method on DVD called flagging where a DVD player can automatically adjust your 24p movie for regular television at 30fps, and still display it normally. 24p is the ideal method for acquisition with video when you are going to do a filmout because technically the frames should directly equate to a very similar to film acquired cadence and structure, not needed more than some color correction and prep and certainly nowhere close to trying to get an interlaced source structure to prep for a filmmout.

According to IMDB it did go theatrical and grossed nearly a million. Which I certainly agree with the sentiment... with Paul Reiser, Peter Falk, Olympia Dukakis, and Elizabeth Perkins (who's no stranger to the screen), written by a known quantity in Reiser, why not at LEAST shoot it on a Varicam, unless it was to truly try some sort of Curb My Enthusiasm (I love the show BTW) ripoff. It seems such a shame to waste the talent and an otherwise fairly popular script and movie on standard def video planned for DTV. I mean, the user reviews on IMDB give it a 7/10, and the comments seem to back it thats a pretty fair judge of a movie's resonance... and with writing like this, even I MUST see this movie now: [Two young girls walk by. Sam keeps staring after them, finally points at them] Sam Kleinman (Falk): Explain that to me. Ben Kleinman (Reiser): What? Sam Kleinman: The holes in those jeans... Ben Kleinman: Uh-uh. Sam Kleinman: They're on purpose? Ben Kleinman: That's right. Sam Kleinman: It's not because she's poor, and can only afford ripped clothes? Ben Kleinman: That's correct, sir. Sam Kleinman: [takes this in] And she doesn't mind that we can see her ass peeking out like that? Ben Kleinman: No, she does not. In fact, I think she would be insulted if you didn't look. Sam Kleinman: The last thing I wanna do is insult her.

As a proud K3 owner and user myself (not s16), I have never seen anything like the black thing. It really does look like a perf though. Considering how simple the K3 is though, there really could only be two things - something obstructing the lens, or something obstructing the gate, both of which should be easy enough to spot. Now one thing that I can't imagine is that you were using double perf film and those are actually perfs where the soundtrack/picture side would be on singleperf... right? (EDIT just reread what you posted and this was not the s16 camera you used I see.. interesting, thats the only conclusion that I could come up with for this) The scratches, I had only 1 roll of the 20+ Ive shot now come back with scratches on them. This was fortunately a test roll, and I didnt have it tc'd so I dont even remember much about it other than it was noticable. I attributed this to likely setting the loops incorrectly (I did the loop former mod). So for you the only thing you can really do is make sure you take out those loop formers (pretty easy actually) and check the gate and the path to make sure there are no burrs sticking out. Obviously those scratches are near the center of the film so especially check there. Then run some reversal through as a test and check it out. Once you remove those loop formers, set your loops to be just loose enough to not be tight and not so loose that theyre going to be floping around. This is easiest to check with some scrap film with the cover off... you'll figure out how to set it so you get the loops set right, the sprockets locked in the perfs and she'll run like a smooth well oiled... tank :)

DVD-R, DVD+R has problems in older players. Paper labels can get gummed up. Printed (on disk) labels are fine if you can do that. I don't think theres much chance of errors if you burn 8x media at 8x as long as you have an 8x burner. Burning faster than the rated speed of DVDs or burner is usually where people get into trouble. region free is a software issue and doesnt have much to do with the discs themselves.

My 2c would be if you want to shoot sunny ext with 7218 bring A LOT of ND if you want a low stop/shallower DOF.

The film, starring Helen Mirren and Cuba Gooding Jr. as assassins for hire, is a twisted and cinematically lush work of art. Must make you feel good to read things like that.

I've thought of this with previs tools, but why not shoot a trailer for a feature if you're serious about it. That way the investors really have something to look at. For more complicated scenes, sure pre vis could be a very useful tool. But if just looking for a way to show your project to investors, I wouldn't want decent looking at best cgi representing my vision. But if it was to demonstrate a million dollar vfx and gci scene, by all means I would want to have it mapped out, planned out, pre visioned etc etc and show whatever the investor wants to see.

I'm pretty sure they are constructed from leftover WWII Russian tank parts. They are very simple, pretty durable (only the plastic veneer seems to come loose), and most reviewers have said they can be cut in as B-Roll cameras with just about any camera on the market.

On the cheap and easy Neutral Density filters can help a bunch as well as a polarizer to cut through the haze and glare that may be causing some extra reflection or refraction. A large flag to block out the sun a bit is more time consuming but can accomplish exactly what you want, reduce the amont of light hitting the actors by a lot.

Here's a simple search at IMDB... sorry can't sort out the camera films from the prints: http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?for=fuji This one film called Twin Falls Idaho was shot on Fuji 35mm. Who was the cinematographer on that again? :D Said cinematographer also was nominated for best cinematography at the Independent Spirit Awards so the stock can't be that bad!

Congrats Eric. What a fantastic achievement. Well done :)

Thank you for this, this was something I looked into for my latest short unfortunately I only discovered two sources to do this and both were quoted around $400-500. Now, although it suffered my being transferred to DV, I did get to go do a supervised session with Alpha Cine which is relatively local at only 350miles away (this is how you do things when you live in a town of 1800 in Idaho). So my question is twofold - 1, do you have a raw bm frame or two you could share with us so we can play with it to see the difference? 2 - I wonder if there is truly more power available to a colorist doing a tc than if you simply get it uncompressed and do it yourself.

Forgive me for being estatic at getting the actual author and authority's response. I very much appreciate it. For the most part, that is what I had figured, you are either overall lighting the frame more as you make a print or less, and changing the overall color, not able to play with individual levels. Thats all fine. As you said, if you light correctly and achieve at least uniform lighting somewhat close to the look you are trying to achieve, you should be allright. Afterall, its not as though there is some huge defect in Kodak Vision 2 films that we all *need* a DI to overcome. :lol: And this is exactly what I and I'm sure many others are trying to get to the root of, when figuring in the costs of trying to make a respectable but inexpensively budgeted 35mm (or for others 16mm). rheotorically: Do I need to Shoot anything but 4-perf? Do I need a DI if I shoot it well? I'm not sure why but the tried and true standard of 4-perf, non DI seems to be so out of everyone's mindset now that you almost don't even hear those terms mentioned anymore. Its all about the latest tech... Super-35 with a 4k DI etc. Whenever you pickup Filmmaker or Film & Video (Now defunct print) it seems like everything you read is about how everyone is pushing the limits and yet it seems no attention is given anymore to the simple neg cutting 4-perf routine. I have plans for three features right now, the one with the most potential for the least expenditure is of course at the forefront - a romance comedy, mixed amongst one of the most beautiful cities in the world as a backdrop. It would seem very much that since my budget will weigh heavily on the equipment / DP / gaffer / 1st camera, AC, and editor for the visual side, and no huge expensive explosions or car crashes or any unusual "look" other than what should be doable in camera, the film should be lit, exposed, and executed well. Needing only simple titles, no need for a DI or anything beyond the good tried and true system, IMO. I'm sure there is lots more to be learned in your book, Dominic, so I'm ordering a copy :) Thanks again.

Another great response from David Mullen. Generally how much flexibility is offered from a traditional 4perf timing session? Does that book give traditional workflow examples, and maybe some cost breakdowns? Thanks :)