Dole Ames

Cynical douche.

Great, thank you guys so much. I'll definitely be sure to be more meticulous about this in the future, it's just that we're working with a tiny crew and some people don't know the basics. Such a relief to know that we won't have to reshoot!

I'm a student working on my first short being shot on film (shooting on Super16) with an Arri 16 SR3. I had a mag that had about 350ft exposed and 50ft unexposed which I accidentally forgot to mark and left sitting on a table. Someone in the crew went over to the mag and opened up the load side with the 50 unexposed feet. I don't care about losing the 50 feet, but I'm wondering if opening up the load side would at all affect the 350 feet that had already been exposed and was in the take-up side, or are they completely separate? I'm still very new to this and just want to make sure that I don't have to reshoot my 350 feet. Thanks if anyone can help.

Thanks for the response. I guess that's what I get for being someone with no 35mm experience at all...so shooting without an 85 and correcting in post will look almost the same as using an 85, just with a slight bluish hue (if originally you shoot tungsten outdoors)? And the opposite is also true then? That's good to know. Thanks a lot, David.

Hi everyone, I have a couple of questions and I'm not sure exactly where they'd fit so I'm going to ask them here... 1) In the ASC edition featuring There Will Be Blood, when asked why he doesn't use DI, Anderson said, "But at the moment I don’t really like DIs, and I’m not sure what the advantage to the process is if you’re shooting anamorphic." Can someone possibly explain how shooting anamorphic could affect a DI? I don't know much about the process but assumed that it mainly affected color and lighting so I don't really know how shooting anamorphic would not fit into that... 2) In the same article, Robert Elswit stated that "Paul actually thinks using an 85 filter is bad! I’ve often explained to him that the stocks are designed to work with an 85, but he thinks that’s somehow interfering with the alchemy of Kodak. This time, though, he let me use an 85 when it was appropriate." I'm still new to cinematography, but I thought that not using an 85 when you're shooting tungsten under daylight or vice versa was a death wish. I'm a big fan of Anderson and Elswit's work and I'm wondering if anyone has noticed any specific cases in any of Anderson's movies where an 85 was obviously not being used? I always thought that it would severely affect the lighting and the image but I've always thought that each scene in his films looked fine, and he seems to be someone adverse to messing with the image too much with special filters/DI/etc. I also thought that it was a given that an 85 is always used in the necessary situation. Is it a common thing to not use one? Thanks for answering.