Trevor Greenfield

I just did a short on 7265, David is 100% right. I'm not sure if its accurate but Ive heard neg has 8 stops of latitude and reversal has 4. My experience says this to be pretty close, in other words, if you are more than 2 stops off you will be resurrecting the image and will have lost substantial information (and will be greatly increasing grain). I did a few shots like this on purpose to make it look authentic to the 1920's, then we maxxed out on the tk bringing a couple of shots back. But for a contemporary film, you will want to hit it right on. The reason being that although you could shift the look towards over or under, you will lose basically twice the data you normally would on the flip side of the image... I had a shot that was a normal EXT... with an overhang in the back which I could have still picked up a bit with neg, but with reversal it ended up being black. Sorry my film is on the other comp right now all I have is this still so you can see what I mean. This was taken with a CMOS camera which would be closer to neg than a CCD would. We also shot side by side with an HC1 and it picked up the overhang area easily.

As per imdb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272338/technical Technical Specifications for Punch-Drunk Love (2002) Camera Panavision Cameras, Primo C and E Series Anamorphic Lenses Laboratory Consolidated Film Industries (CFI), Hollywood (CA), USA Film negative format (mm/video inches) 35 mm Cinematographic process Panavision (anamorphic) (Fuji F-125T) Printed film format 35 mm Aspect ratio 2.35 : 1 Did you just watch it on FX?

I've seen the IIC as well and I'm looking forward to hearing your results.

Well Ive been typically filtering my audio in Vegas with the EQ manually, but I just did a demo of SoundSoap2 on their website and I am very impressed. From what I know if it can work with the BL it should work with anything. Would you mind posting or linking to a before/after of the BL sound for my sake, please? I ask because there is also the Konvas 2m which I am very interested in but most say even with a blimp it is too loud for synch (Id imagine the 50db only comes down to 40 or so with the blimp). If SoundSoap can remove the sound from the BL which is probably nearly as loud, it could work with the Konvas. EDIT: although this page says the BL is only 39db without blimp and 35 with... so I may still be in trouble. http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat...k_machines5.htm

Reversal has half the latitude of negative and therefore produces a much more contrasty image. It is also less expensive for stock, but can be more expensive for processing because it requires a special process (not the same as negative). If you have the money you would likely be better off shooting in neg and then creating your look in post by crushing blacks and blowing out whites. Also, with reversal you have no negatives to cut from if you're looking to go the traditional neg cutting route.

This is not a fair comparison. You are comparing arguably standard definition with an inherintly greater DOF to high definition with 35mm DOF and image quality. The question is, what looks better to you, and what makes the most sense for what you want to make? If you have very little money to spend, you're probably not in the market for a HD100 or an H1. An aside, the DVX100a and b are standard def.

I saw it yesterday, my first show since moving up here. The facilities weren't what Im used to at say an AMC.. imagine an 80's cinema or something. Anyway, I thought overall it was great. It was long. Too long? As a filmmaker I hate saying anything is too long, but could some stuff have been trimmed or cut? Sure. The creatures - all of the CGI IMHO - was terrific. The sets were great, I totally felt the emotion from Kong and Ann. The ice scene was a beautiful moment. There were brief tears I fought back a couple of times. Kong vs the TRexes was awesome. Overall it was epic. But sure the pacing seemed kind of strange. No doubt PJ is the king of action and mixing CGI with live action as well. But dramatic live action especially in the beginning seemed a little off pace, and odd. Also, although I respect Black as an actor, I dont think he ultimately delivered. I think his character at times seemed a little lost. IMHO Denim needed to be a fast talking filmmaker, a guy who is overly confident and smooth wording. He ultimately is so slick - he leads the story along... fake out the producers, arrange for the early departure, get the boat to go unbeknownest to the crew to SI, film the whole thing, bring kong back etc etc. I just felt like it wasnt hit just perfect. So I dunno, to me I overlook that and say that the film was incredible overall. It was epic. PJ nailed so much. Objectively though it was in some small shape odd... pacing? JB? Im not 100% sure. Also, I was definitely caught looking at the light reflections in the CU eyes trying to figure out the setup used. But thats my problem in stopping to learn.

There are quite a few K3 threads in the 16mm section that talk about the pros/cons of the camera in detail and show you how to remove loop formers etc.

I suppose this is a good place to ask my question, can either the 1m or 2m use 1000ft mags, and if so where can I buy them?

Just as an aside, I think you should look into a few filmmaking books. You could buy a book on filmmaking, screenwriting and cinematography for less than $30 in a used book store. That $30 will be the best investment of your career.

Well thats both true and not, certainly the difference between registration pins and not, super 16 gate or not, 100' loads or 1000' mags all makes a difference. Assuming it is a recent camera though, yes lens and film are the difference. Also, dont forget your filtering can make a huge differnce on the warmth or coldness of the image3.

IMHO for exteriors on a sunny day, 50D, cloudy day, 250D, for interiors, 200T unless its real dark, and then 500T. If I had to choose a single stock and filter it, Id go with 250D. But Im not a cinematographer, just a guy who's shot some Kodak.

Gee, is Sunset Boulevard noir? I guess it is... in which case thats my fave. In terms of contemporary noir, there's LA confidential, The Usual Suspects, and even, dare I say, Closer?

I just used them, no complaints and their tk prep was fantastically clean.

Ive accumulated maybe 1 dozen various clips from the K3 before I bought mine. Since then Ive shot close to 2000 feet of film - (1300ft) Plus-X, 50D, 250D, 100T, 500T. The camera does a fine job but it is rather elementary. In short, if the lens is good, you thread the film right and shoot it well I have heard many say the footage could be cut in with any other 16mm (keeping in mind the k3 is not crystal synched). So the quality is great. You wouldnt regret the quality assuming there is nothing wrong with the cam when you buy it. My story is my k3 was aligned fine and all, I removed the loop formers and the plunger. After this last shoot on the last day my lens went a little bit soft. Cloudy like. I couldn't understand it... turns out the three little screws that hold the barrel together came loose. I recalibrated it, tightened the screws and now its fine. Also, Im not sure but I think the wind has gotten tweaked a little. The handle sits crooked slightly, but it still winds and shoots fine. To recap, the quality of the K3 is great in terms of picture. Just keep in mind these are cheap cameras from Russia and they have known issues. I'll be getting a website up with my film shortly, but it was tk'd to SD not HD so its only 720x480 stills. But for reversal it looks GREAT!

These might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image) another: http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/other/aspint.htm and one more: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/4303/aspect.html

The heat may not be such a good idea because the bumpy covering they used on the sides of the K3 is held on with glue... and glue is not one of the Russian's strong points.

I have no idea if this is right or not but I heard Kodak sends all of the processing to Kodak Switzerland or something like that. This would be funny if true but it was probably one of those things you hear. Make sure you do carefully label it negative or reversal as two different processes are required for them.

Rubbing Alcohol?

Hi sorry to dig up an old thread like this, but I was still unable to get the images to open in PS. Did you fix it or can you please? I really want some more raw clips from the bono labs DtHD procedure to mess with. Thanks.

I'd like to make great features of varying genres and varying styles, with exception to Horror or specifically a war movie. And although I have some specific ideas in mind of how I do that, I also find that different stories dictate different style. Principally, as I'm writing my scripts I am envisioning it and acting it out in my head, so definitely visually my films will be impactful. But I suppose you could say that about every part of the puzzle... I've seen bad actors in films and good actors with terrible direction, I can't have that. I've heard horrible sound and even been responsible for some myself, can't have that either. I've seen directors who think every single shot needs coverage and they don't know the meaning of "onner". Me, I'm quite a bit more forgiving than that because again I know what I want to see. I take many films for inspiration, but in the end I'm not sure I can directly relate what I have done or will do as a direct rip off of anything I've seen, and I suppose thats a good thing. But they will be great. And due to my continuing disgust for terrible dragging dialogue scenes, I will do my best to write fantastic dialogue and make it what it should be, both on paper and on screen. Finally, I like organization to films. Purpose. Scenes that drive the film forward. Epic storytelling, even if it is an epic within a microchasm. We'll see whether I can keep my word :)

I just shot my most recent short on 16mm 7265 and with an HC-1 side by side. My producer has the tapes from the HC-1 but while I was there at his place making the film we loaded a few clips into his computer... BEAUTIFUL. I won't be able to judge completely until I get all of the tapes and load them in and grade them but I was very impressed. My producer's friend, a guy who has been doing SD stuff for quite awhile professionally, said to him when he saw some of the footage "F****** beautiful". My whole contention all along has been that this new range of definition, although sure the HDV codec has some problems in places, is the next step for indies. It is night and day better to watch, closer to the resolution of a traditional cinema image, than SD is. And while the FX1, Z1, HC1, A1 may stack up ok on res charts, that doesnt mean crap when it comes to overall quality compared to a viper or something. But what it does mean is that overall quality of productions can and should go up in the near future. So you hate 60i and dont want to use dvfilmmaker? OK. You hate HDV and long GOP or anything else with the sony camera? Fine. There will be others. There is now the Pany that takes P2, the Canon, the JVC. There will be more. For me though, The penis (quality) envy thing has to stop somewhere and the production has to begin. I'm GLAD I didn't let more time go by than I did. I've sat listening to "experts" who conveniently own Panasonic, Canon, and JVC cameras and post on their respective forums, tell me since the FX1 came out over a year ago that "its crap, etc. wait for the Pany, canon, and JVC!" Well I'm still waiting, and in the meantime I finally bit the bullet and shot with the HC1. And I dont think Ill regret it in the near future when I have a HDTV projector and can project an HD image and not an SD one.

Thats about accurate, reversal processing is more however.

That's a fantastic post, David. And to say that once an independent filmmaker understands what it takes to make a marketable film and does so, and is "discovered" as a hot talent, he/she finds themselves in a situation where 35mm, for all future films (until one flops), is financially covered. A financier or financiers step forward or are more easily located and the money is there to shoot the film on whatever the filmmaker wants to shoot on. Whats that you say? Someday you wont have to fret when you say, "This one I think we'll shoot scope instead of 1.85!"... yes it is true... filmmakers make this decision all the time. Generally speaking they might decide to replace those SD cameras with a Z1 for behind the scenes footage. Hence why there is this invisible wall in the industry, those who are bankable and A-list and those who are not. Those who have budgets guaranteed or close to for the next few films vs. those who are trying to figure out how they can pay off their new HDV or 3CCD 24p SD camera AND con enough people to shell out the dough for their $20k breakout pic. To the first group, HDV is crap... even HD from a viper is crap because why shoot HD when you can shoot film (unless for aesthetic reasons). For the latter, HDV is a BREAKTHROUGH, it means for the cost of a SD camera and a higher end desktop computer, they're stepping into the next level. In the end, what David said is true. Shoot it on f'ing s8 or 35mm if its great they will care. But if its on 35mm with a couple of names attatched it stands to good reason that it will see a cinema run. Thats how the industry works. Everything else in between is an excercise in attempting to attract bees with anything but honey.

Yes. Again, your reasoning is contradictory to mine in what shelf life will entail in the next five years. It is my contention that SD will be for all intents and purposes dead in three years, and HD will be the only thing that anyone will shoot or release on. Therefore, I, who looks at a documentary my father made in Borneo only 10 years ago, recongize the end of shelf life of a product is VERY real, and not just some arbitrary term. If you want your product to be worth anything to anybody in 5 years, or lets say 10, you will want to make it HD. Remember you can always come down from HD but you can never go up satisfactorally. I would also contend that anybody serious about creating cinema in today's world, unless they specifically need the look of SD for aesthetics, should be striving to produce cinema at as high of resolution as possible... it is the nature of what we do, for distribution and for projection. If you have no intention of ever making this material into a serious piece that could be distributed into cinemas, do a festival run, or make it onto an HDDVD for someone to buy, then I would contend that your intentions for what your piece is to be doesn't merit buying a new camera at all - it would simply go to waste. I would check out every HD camera I could, go to shows, go to stores, and if you have broadband, there are quite a few places online you can your hands on RAW .m2t files for FX1 or Z1 or HC1 or A1 or get raw files from the new Canon, JVC, and Pana models. Find out what you like, what you need, what you don't. Maybe you want to wait on that big project until a camera you really want comes along. The absolute last thing I want to see is filmmakers going out and buying cameras that will be boat anchors in 5 years, and making products that will have a short shelf life because another format change is coming.