Tomas Koolhaas

Hello everyone, Here's a shot taken by the stills photographer (on same small digital stills camera on the same shoot as the shot I posted of the monitor). I put it through photoshop to use as a rough guide for my colorist, I added a "glo" filter to the highlights. I lit this scene very quickly and simply, the shot is not taken from the picture camera's position but it's close enough, I had to light this really fast as we only had the bar for a short time. I for the heavy guy, I used an arri 150w with hampshire frost on it as a little less than a 3/4 edge, and for his side key I had a 250w bare bulb (3,200k) on a flicker box (to emulate candle light) dimmed down about a third of the way, going through a 1/4 straw. They bulb was in a gaffer grip w/socket clamped onto the bar below his face. The woman's key was the same bulb and she had her own 150w arri fresnel giving her an edge, (I didn't diffuse her edge as I wanted it to be harder and reveal her age and the texture of her skin a bit more) I bounced a 300w mole fresnel into the ceiling for some top fill as well:

Phil, Thanks for your concern, but that folder was the still photographer's and was left on the monitor only for the time it took to take that photograph (about one and a half seconds) which isn't long enough to cause any harm is it?

Hello everyone, I just wanted to say that I have seen many excellent examples of lighting posted on this subject, especially the shots by Justin, nicely done!. I was wondering what the exposure was for the old ladie's face, I think it was lit by a skirted china ball, in the first set of photos you put up. Here is a shot from something that I shot and directed on the F900 with the pro-35 adaptor and zeiss super-speeds, the shot of the monitor is slightly blury and taken on a little digital still camera (sorry about the poor quality), The scene is supposed to reflect a sense of sterility and the woman's loneliness . I have tried to attach actual frame grabs from a downconvert but haven't managed yet, I will keep trying:

Hello everyone, There was another post pertaining to this subject which no one replied to, so here goes my question again: Has anyone seen/used or heard anything about the Canon AVC-235 anamorphic adaptor for HD cameras, I tried to google it but got no info except canon's product info. (nothing which would tell me when/were the adaptor might be available). I would appreciate ANY information anyone might have, even rumours and conjecture. Cheers. Tomas.

Hello chuck, I have returned the camera already, but am greatful for your reply anyhow, that's really surprising that you had the same thing happen, a power resistor sounds about right as well, it always seemed to me that the problem stemed from power due to the way the camera just cut-out. Did yours also cut-out after eight seconds of rolling normally (or another regular interval) or was it more random? I am going to keep informed of the problem as soon as it is discovered (on Wed. most likely) I will keep everyone informed of what the problem turns out to be. Thanks again. Tomas.

Hello everyone, Leon, it seems 100% percent normal for the eight seconds! I haven't got the footage developed yet but as I said it seemed totally normal, that's what is so wierd about it, the buckle switch never tripped, there were no jams- nothing wrong at all it just cuts out, no beeps nothing, it seems as though the power just goes dead (it's totally sudden aswell the camera doesn't ramp down before it cuts out, it stays running normally at 24fps then just dies instantly) but I have tried multiple batteries and cables and it still persists. We were using it outside and there was some sunshine at first but then it got cloudy, the problem actually occurred when the clouds came out, do you think it could be caused by the change in Temp?? the weather wasn't very extreme in either case (hot or cold, it wasn't humid either) and I have shot in the snowy mountains and scorching desert with the BL and not had a problem, but then again that doesn't really mean that's not the case this time. your input is much appreciated. Cheers. Tomas.

Hello everyone, I have been shooting all day with a BL-4, I had absolutely no problems all day until suddenly the camera would stop rolling after every 8 seconds (roughly) of shooting. I checked everything I could think of (changed mags,batteries and cables,checked fuses etc) I rolled the camera without the mag on and it still cut-out after about 8 seconds so I ruled out anything related to mags or loading. it wasn't the buckle switch or anything like that, no jams had occurred either. It was wierd when it cut-out, it wasn't how it useually is, there was no indication or beep or anything to indicate anything wrong, it just stopped rolling and would start straight back up rolling when I put the run switch to 'off' then back to 'on' but again would only roll for about 8 seconds at a time. Luckily we were finished with our scene, and we are taking the camera in tomorow to be looked at but I was wondering if there's something obvious I may have missed? Has anyone experienced anything like this? any ideas would be much appreciated. Thank you very much. Tomas.

Hello, The last two shoots I have shot have been on the cinealta. For one I used the Pro-35 adaptor (with Zeiss superspeeds), and the other Digiprimes. Let me start by saying that anything I say about either setup is based solely on what I felt from seing the images on the HD monitor on-set, and on HD monitors in post production. Since the differences in images is such a subjective thing to describe or compare my advice is only based on my opinion and in no-way is meant to detract from anyone elses advice or opinion on this forum. Having said that, I would say that although both the pro-35 and digiprimes yeilded excellent results, I felt that the images I created with the pro-35 adaptor were much more beatiful, and also looked alot more like 35mm film than those I achieved with the digiprimes. This would be attributed by most people to two things; the shallow depth of field allowed by the Pro-35 adapter, and also the slight diffusion given by the ground glass to the image (similar to a 1/8 black promist according to most people) which helps take the edge off harsh highlights which is a tell-tale sign of video formats. I used a black promist 1/8 on my digiprime shoot and felt that (even excluding the D.O.F advantages) the images from the Pro-35 adapter still had a more pleasing "filmic" look. The pro-35 images seemed to have a sharp feeling, while also having a softness in tonal gradation that looked more like 35mm than HD. I feel that there is more advantage to using the Pro-35 adaptor than simply having less D.O.F and a slight diffusion effect. It seemed to me that using the pro-35 and super-speeds allowed me to retain a bit more information in the highlights than using the digiprimes. I know this is unprovable and somewhat implausable but again, I only know what I felt like I was seeing on HD monitors (I used the same exact monitor on-set for both shoots). I had the DCC switched ON for both shoots so that cannot be the explaination for the extra information in the highlights (internal menu settings were also indentical on both shoots).The digiprimes were excellent lenses but produced a slightly too harsh image for my likeing (even when used in conjunction with a 1/8 black promist), but again that's just me. Also, to compare the lenses based on these two shoots is slightly unfair as one shoot (pro-35) was well organized and afforded me adequate time for lighting, while the one with digi-primes was rushed and I was given a ridiculously small amount of time to light each scene, and as we all know good lighting makes a massive difference to image quality, especially for video. Neither of my shoots included green screen work, and I would assume whoever is doing your greenscreen work would preffer keying from an image shot with Digiprimes, so that's another concern you will have to take into account. I also found from testing on the pro-35 that I preffered the look of the image when at a 1.6 on the superspeeds as opposed to all the way open-1.3 (seemed to have slightly better sharpness and contrast). Good luck making your choice. Cheers. Tomas.

Hello everyone, Another good saying to bare in mind when considering the newest camera "revolution" (HDV for example) is: "if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is". This is of course simplistic, however I don't think there will be a day any time soon when there is a "prosumer" (or any other) camcorder that can rival the true HD cameras like the F900, and if by some miracle there was, it would probably cost way more than $5,000USD. And by the way, good post Peter! I agree. Tomas.

Hello Mike, Although it's true that Paul wheeler works for Panavision (he promotes their equipment on almost every page) his book about HD (as well as his last book "Digital Cinematography") are extremely informative and I would recomend them any day! They are particularly well written, in a way which allows them to be used as quick reference material, once read thoroughly, and helpful to have with you on a shoot if you are just getting familiarized with these kinds of cameras. His books aren't rammed with lot's of technical info. but have the most important practical information you will need once you're on set ( Setting-up monitors, back focusing, Camera menus etc..). I have them both and strongly recomend them to you as well. Tomas.

Hello everyone, Just an update on the shoot with the 2.35/16:9 D.P/Editor battle, which wrapped on monday- The first shot of the first day was a wide shot of a car under a bridge in downtown LA (Magic hour, Very nice composition, lot's of diagonal and horizontal lines in the surroundings). Even though I had grudgingly agreed to shoot 1.85, just for the hell of it I showed the director what the shot would look like in regular 16:9 mode then switched the camera to VISAT2 and showed him again. To my great surprise he instantly told me we HAD to shoot 2.35 and that he would make sure the Editor didn't bother me about it again. VICTORY!!! this is one battle that I am proud to have won on behalf of all cinematographers against all the un-imaginative people out there who try to stifle our creativity due to their own insecurities. This proved to be the case, as later-on in the shoot the editor told me he only was worried about 2.35 because he had never edited a 2.35 project and didn't know how to deal with this aspect ratio on his editing software. I reassured him it was all going to be O.K. and thought to myself that it was lucky I didn't take Nchopp's advice, even though it was very tempting at times.hehe.

Anyone? Has anyone at all used the acv-235? or know were I can get/see one in L.A.?

Thanks for your reply David, Although it seems that the Editor has prevailed and the Director is too scared to shoot scope now. It seems a shame as the director actually suggested shooting in scope himself, it was not something I pushed on him. Although I do think shots of downtown LA exteriors (our intended location) usually lend themselves to an aspect ratio with more lateral information rather than vertical, I am not going to argue this point to the death with various members of the crew (who really shouldn't be involved in D.P/Director discussions anyway), we shoot on friday so if he wants 1.85 then that's what he'll get. I think I'm going to start a new topic about people ( editors for example) meddling in D.P. issues and see what experiences other people on the forum have had and how they have dealt with them. Thanks again for the helpful replies. Tomas.

Thank you both very much for your replies, David, I will definately make two different HD versions as you suggested. This should solve any problems for festivals that use DLP projectors. However, I believe there are various festivals that only allow D.Beta versions for projection, do you think that festival organizers would be hesitant to screen a letterboxed 2.35 image at their festivals? are you aware of any prejudices against 2.35 letterboxing on submissions for entry (which would presumably be watched on 4:3 T.V sets). I understand that these are somewhat hypothetical questions as Perhaps no-one on this forum actually selects for festivals, but I wonder if any one is aware of, or has had any experiences with any prejudices against 2.35 letterboxing. Thank you very much. Tomas.

Hello everyone, I am currently prepping a shoot on the F900, I believe the project lends itself to being shot in the 2:35:1 aspect ratio, as does the director, I was planning to use the in-camera scope setting (I know this crops the image wasting some of the resolution, but I do not have an anamorphic adaptor so have little choice if we want to shoot 2:35). The issue has arisen where the editor of the project has chimed in on the issue, and is scaring the director with horror stories about not being able to show his film at festivals if we shoot in 2:35. I tried to tell the director that digital projectors can project 2:35 as easily as they would a 1:85 project, but I think he has some reservations now due to the editor's meddlings. My question to everyone is whether you think that there is even a remote posibility that any festivals will a) have any problem screening a 2:35 image (surely not?) and B) whether (as the editor claimed) festival screeners would be prejudice against the project because if viewed on a 4:3 television a large portion of the screen would be covered by the letterbox (surely festival screeners can appreciate a nicely framed 2:35 image even letterboxed on a 4:3 television??) any ideas of experiences anyone has had would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Tomas.

Has anyone used the ACV-235? I recently used the pro.35 with Ziess super speeds on the F900 and loved it, But as we shot 2:35:1 I was annoyed that we had to loose so much resolution by cropping the image. The idea of using the 235 adaptor is intriguing, however my experiences with anamorphic adaptors on DV have been disapointing. I would like to hear of any tests anyone has done with this adaptor. Specifically if it affected focus as many DV adaptors do. Cheers.

In my opinion the mini 35 adaptor is definately the way to go if you want to shoot mini DV, The XL2 is a good camera, it has higher reolution at 16x9 than the next best 24p mini-DV camera which is the DVX100a, this is due to the "native" 16x9 chip in the XL2. The XL2 also has slightly more extensive menus (Than the DVX) in the camera which allow you to manipulate the image more effectively on set. I have used both cameras many times and have always been frustrated by the terrible optics of the lenses, and the relative production unfriendlyness that the lenses have e.g. It is almost impossible to measure and set marks for focus pulls on either camera's lenses. The mini-35 adaptor allows you to not only have the D.O.F (depth of field) of film but it also allows you to work with accurate focus marks. The important thing to remember about any P.L. adaptor is that some of the early models had problems as the ground glass only spun, as opposed to oscilating as the newer versions do, the newer versions, which I have used on both HD and Mini-DV with Ziess super-speeds and Panavision lenses respectively, yielded incredible results!!! I was surprised to find that not only did the adaptor have the advertised benefits ( Shallow D.O.F etc.) but it even gave me more lattitude in my Highlights, which as we all know is a godsend when shooting on DV and even HD. People have many varying opinions about the P.L. adaptors, "the extra glass decreases the purity of your optics" etc. I would suggest that the ground glass of the adaptor doesn't decrease your optics any more than a 1/8-1/4 black promist would. Which many people use on DV in order to soften the tell tale harsh video highlights. In regards to the sony HDV camera, the question remains whether they have actually found a way to compress the image so much (onto what is basically a mini-DV tape) without loosing information and creating artifacts. I haven't had a chance to test the camera yet so cannot say myself, but perhaps someone else on the forum has and would share their thoughts, I would love to hear anyone's experiences with it.