Trevor Greenfield

Thank you for recommending. I have to go to Spokane in the next few days and Ill try to see it, as thats the only place that has it around.

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-01-26/ "Exhibitors Blowing Off 'Bubble' Theater owners are apparently mounting a fairly united front to black out the Steven Soderbergh-directed Bubble in many cities on Friday. Exhibitors object to the planned simultaneous release of the movie on DVD and on pay-per-view high-definition TV. (The film is actually being released on DVD on Tuesday, the day of the week that virtually all DVDs are released.) " More at link. Well, thats what you get for trying to buck the system. Not that I'm passing judgement one way or the other, just that theater owners arent going to take it laying down.

That is no joke. The noise in the still with the fire chief and fireman is from Alpha Cine's telecine at max before serious noise pops up. Fortunately I did a supervised session, and if I hadn't I have no doubt some shots would have been overlooked... the telecine op having no idea which shots were important enough that I had at least some noise in and it was still OK. Undoubtedly there are other better telecine's than theirs but when I said before you have 4 stops to work with I meant it. Fortunately there were no shots that were too far gone to resurrect, and most were spot on but there is a very very small window to work with. Also, my short is meant to replicate a 1920's silent comedy so I can get away with a small amount of noise and error in exposure, as was common in the day and is even moreso now that films are being resurrected from old decaying prints for DVD.

Hmm guess I cant edit the post anymore :huh: So here's another, you can see some detail in this one: Should add that I did not sharpen these at all because it needs to have that authentic 20's look to it. For somereason though, the still image does not do the film justice, the uncompressed files are a bit sharper than that.

Kodak 7265 Hi-contrast? You tell me :P Nevermind the added feather border mask :)

Actually, I didn't mean to quote you and didnt realize I did it until after but its all the same. I wasn't trying to make an example out of you. I don't read German but I get the gist of it, I think. Personally, I want friends and co-workers that are friendly and helpful and focused on their work and not political activists using the world as their soap box, and was trying to get that point across in case some hadn't considered the visibility they have on this forum. I would imagine in this day and age most individuals are investigative enough to research over the internet potential cast and crew. Obviously, you don't care, or at least dont care what anyone thinks of your political views or activism, so disreguard this message.

The reason I don't like talking politics at a party or on the internet, especially with my name attached, is because its not worth it. All you're doing is throwing your contreversial opinion out there for anyone to read and you never know who might read it and be turned off by it. Considering if you type someone who posts here's name into google and cinematography.com postings show up, you might want to take that into consideration - you never know whom you might be offending whether they be producers, directors, talent, or even just casual fans of your work.

There are quite a few threads on the Konvas here even its own sub forum which you may not have seen. In short, yes the lenses are pretty good and technically so are the cameras but they are loud (around 53db) and so they would take a miracle (or a lot of blimping and sound filtering) to shoot sound with. Much like the K3, however, many claim that these cameras can be used for B-roll very efficiently. Further, as can be obviously determined, this camera served on many European and Russian productions, some of which are very well known in foreign cinema circles.

Great, another horror film! It looks like it was shot well though. BTW, curious how he raised 9200 when he dropped out of high school. Anyone know? Mommy and Daddy? New credit card?

Sidney also followed through on his original promise to talk about his film with those curious (ie me) and gave me a lot of good info... not numbers as he said he can't do that but lots of info on what it takes to pull one off in this budget range. A real professional, thank you. And it may be hard to digest but the industry deals with a plethora of films per year since its inception. There are hundreds of low budget, some high budget, a lot of shoestring budgets and a few no budgets. Its just a term, and its all relative. When a sales rep represents a film that has a budget of $40mil and then takes on another film of $200k, yes, that does seem like no budget. Personally, I agree though that business wise it obviously makes the most sense to shoot a film like Napoleon Dynamite for $400k and have it gross $44mm in box office. Or shoot one for $200k like Sidney and have it do $2mm in limited release and 800k in rentals/dvd sales, or more. I looked at the estimated business for Cecil B. Demented last night on IMDB and its a wonder how that guy keeps getting to make movies. $10m budget, $2m box office.

Its all relative. You talk to someone who's been in the industry for over 20 years and ask them what a sub $200k 35mm budget classifies as, and I think most will say that its no budget. ie. There's no budget above cost to do anything, no budget for anything elaborate at all, mostly practical locations, no elaborate custom costuming, very few creature comforts on set, no budget for much in the way of extras or crane shots or extra days or reshoots, just the absolute bare minimums. Of course indies have so much more flexibility, and so to make a full feature on 35mm with even some soundstage time might be possible. A lot is possible in the right hands. But its not hard to see why rarely does anyone who is successful on 200k decides to make the jump to 500 or a million or more for their next.

I think David covered my feelings exactly on the subject, except I think as well as 2.35 can lead to an isolated feeling in some cases, especially the bust shot, in many ways by positioning the subject in dead center of frame you get an enhanced feeling of ambience, not necessarily in a negative conotation. Imagine a candlelight dinner at a restaurant, with a little practical lighting your leading lady's face, meanwhile in the background out of focus we see the dancing candle lights, bustling waiters etc. I harken it to a feeling of inclusion into a much bigger world... here is this candlelight dinner scene happening in the middle of all of these other lives going on, but our focus is on our leading lady. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words and I'm getting close but I dont have an accurate picture to just link to ;) In another point, what would films with amazing vistas be without scope or a very similar widescreen ratio? Full frame could ruin the ambience of the above shot if you were in as tight on your actor as I mentioned. It would cut most of the other dinners, the dancing candle lights, the bustling waiters... we would lose a lot. That said, for purposes of tight framing, vertical composition, or where it is crucial to show a subject full frame, well there is no replacement for 1.33. I just shot a B&w 16mm short full frame to replicate silent 20's films and certainly after studying many Keaton, Lloyd, Chaplin, etc films, I've grown to see the abilities of full frame too. Personally, I think that 1.33 is much maligned simply because for some peculiar reason we as humans prefer more information in the horizontal sense and so we find ourselves looking to tell and watch stories with more widescreen of an effect, but 1.33 shouldn't go without consideration for unconventional films for standard tv or such. Hence why we end up with the perfect middle ground in 1.85. More horizontal, but not so limiting in your vertical.

Thanks Ken. It also sounded to me like your boom was a bit far away from your source, as the level was low. Also, after watching the soundsoap 2 demo, I think you might have more controls to play with to not chop so much treble out of your voice. Nevertheless, a very good first try, I think you might be seriously on to something here. How far away was the IIc from the mic and how far away were you?

thanks for the links and info O&O. Why do you feel your adapter was not as good as it could have been? And why do you think the G35 is going to be the best? To me, your footage, although reduced in size, looks pretty darn nice.

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller_info.pl?seller_id=9853 2 reviews, both say bait & switch. I know it costs more but you're best buying from either one of the few resellers of stock that are reputable or kodak direct.

Clive :huh: You guys were out of the motors for so long and I spent months watching and waiting for when you were going to add them. Finally you did in the middle of 2k5. Now you wont carry them again? I have a k3 and was considering selling it in a few months to a friend who is trying to get a few and wants to crystal synch them. Why??? You're the only hope for crystal-synch modders!

on a wind it will last about 24 seconds at 24fps, if you undercrank you will obviously gain more time but only in seconds. It might be possible to hit a minute @ 8fps. Optionally you can have a TCS crystal-synch motor installed http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/ but that is about $500 just for the motor then you need to have it installed or do it yourself if you have the cajones and equipment.

Is this just for the gear? How much for the whole follow focus system, or do I need to buy that elsewhere? I wanted to check your website for info but most of the links there seem to be broken.

I have not used one on a DVX So I can't say for sure on that but I made one and used it on a VX1000 and I didn't lose more than two stops total. I'm not a mathematician or anything but best case scenario you posted above would be 2 stops. Also, don't stop down the 35 lens, stop down the video camera. The 35 lens needs to be left wide open for maximum light, shallowest DOF, and most of all to prevent vignetting and hotspotting. Further, this is from Redrock Micro's website: "I hear you lose light when using the micro35? This is true of the micro35 and any other 35mm lens adapter. Typically you lose 1.5 to 2 f-stops of light. You can compensate for this by opening up your aperture (both on your camera and on the 35mm lens), increasing the lighting in the scene, or adjusting the gain on your camera." And from the Letus website: "We use vibrating ground glass instead of rotating diffused plastic to eliminate light loss to the minimum. With the Canon FD 1.4 lens on the adapter, it lose only one stop of light. " Obviously its not as more and more indies are using the mini35, and now more choices for the adapter are available and affordable than ever before. This thread is about a gentleman who is basically saying "I really want to use the 35 but I can't light it on some locations!", so I think this is a legitamite question, yet, as I said there is simply no way to change physics. Either you add light somehow or it will be underexposed with a 35. An SDX will probably have native ability to capture this scene. There are many out there that are not experiencing this problem, like myself. For interior shots, its amazing what a little light does to brighten the image. Also, I have been following the creation of these alternative adapters to the P+S since it was basically born from the movie "Marla" over 2 years ago. There is another forum that has been a constant source of research and development since then, and spawning from that has been several users who have made it a business to create these adapters, moving or static. So I would say that if you made your adapter 1.5 years ago it may not have been using the most up to date pieces that have come about. Myself, I have discovered a GG that loses only about 1 stop of light, slightly more than a Nikon D or Beattie intenscreen. So you may want to check out one of these newer adapters. Anyway my point was, 2 stops is a lot when you are shooting low lux in a natural light situation, even 1 stop can be a lot. IMO video gain/noise never looks good.

In my subjective opinion, great cinematography needs to compliment the story so well that it does not detract from the story and call attention to itself. When you can put crane/steadicam/static wides etc. shots into a film and it doesnt call attention to itself, it draws you into a scene, that is great cinematography. When I look at Sydney and see the colored neons and stoplights out of focus in the background and want to eat them because it looks like candy, thats great too. When I see a movie comprised of a LOT of handheld like Eternal Sunshine and I dont even realize it was handheld until after the film because it was appropriate, that is great. The cinematographer is ultimately in jeopardy due to the editing however. The editing could put the intended effect in the wrong context and then it shows poorly or not to the dp's intention. Not much the DP can do about this. Ultimately the cinematography is just another piece of the film to suck you into the story, it is not the film in itself. And when you find yourself so sucked into the film that afterward you say "wow"... like happens a few times every decade, then all of the pieces worked, and I term that as great all the way around.

I think that this counter point is important. In a worst case scenario I dont think you're going to cut the stops by more than 2 or 3. Of course in a location with natural light and only 30-50 lux the difference between f1.8 and f4 is huge. Enormous. But the better adapters are only 1 stop or 2 off. In either case, there is more to it than simply the DOF issue, with 35mm optics, light plays with the lens differently than a video lens. Setup a shot with a SDX and then a cheap SLR and you'll see what I'm talking about. I too would never again shoot a cinematic piece on straight video, ever, unless I needed that video look. The 35 adapter is just too good of a look to give up.

Its not that the theory is difficult, its the machining that needs to be exact, and the complication of the moving parts. I suppose if you have another camera to go by and a machine shop with exact tools for another business you could do it.

Both. On set recording happens when it is practical to do so, otherwise it is done ADR. On set recording is of course, better, when you can do it. Generally speaking though even if a production knows that the on set recording will be unusable they might attempt to do so anyway as it will make ADR that much easier.

They both look terrific, and two very different styles. I love the dancing scene in front of the cars.. just goes to show you sometimes its your hardest shots that come off. Your cuts on the 2nd on are a bit quick for me though. Would you mind giving us more info on: - Your homemade 35 - What is your GG, are you using condensor... basically what is your setup? - What primes did you use for the two shorts? - Exactly how bad were the artifacts, and were they only on the shots with the smoke or were they elsewhere too? Thanks :)

I dont know what anyone can tell you that would change your opinion. In anything but daylight you will probably have to pump some light to it. If you are looking for natural light for something low lux, then probably the 35 adapter is not the way to go. There is no way to change physics.