Jonathan Bel

I've got some Fuji vivid short ends labeled from November 2010. They've been refrigerated and then frozen since then. I know I will certainly need to order fresh stock directly from Fuji while filming since I don't have enough to finish. would their be any obvious comparisons on screen to the new and the old after using both?

Hey Paul, that's great news. I guess there's a lot of factors to consider with career choices. I think one of the most important ones though, and I say this because it seems many people in the film/video industry are passionately blind to their "non-work" life and often forget what's really important. I don't think, even a big time filmmaker in hollywood can ever quench his discontentment with consistant work. After all work is work, it's paycheck but its always great if you can enjoy it at the same time. At the end of the day, relationships, loved ones and life outside of work should be the aspiration. Films come and go, gigs are short and sweet but people are never really satisfied with their work in the industry anyway. Many independants have pierced themselves with sorrows because they were slaves to their creative juices but in the end, money was wasted, glory was not achieved and the end product was forgotten. But when you have something infront of you, I say take it and let it happen. You can figure things out on your time off if you have something else in mind. Bigger cities with strong audio-visual communities are always better suited for guys like yourself so it's well to consider.

hey guys, I was just offered a staff position (today) as a Videographer/Editor for an award winning video production company here in my hometown. I wanted to get some advice on this, since being back working in news again, it's opened up more possible areas of interest for me, as compared to video production.

 

I am sort of torn on this one, since I don't wnat to go thru another exp' like I just had, but this is with a new company with new people...I am asking all the questions I didn't ask at my old job, but I have no idea of what it's really like to work there, except for knowing two ex-staff that recently left. I also know if I took the position, I'd be looking to leave to a bigger city within a yr or so....

 

In working at the TV station, I really enjoy shooting/editing video and am heavily thinking of going back into news, but not crazy about covering crime (hard news) or being on-call.....Am not looking for a perfect position (that doesn't exist) but a good place to call home.....pros and cons are everyhere, but always good to get some feedback.....thanks

terminology 101, lol. thanks Dave

No, "hot" as in bright.

I might do a screen test with some of the vivid8547 i have left and see what it gives me at different densities. when you said "hot source with filter", are we talking lights with higher temperature then rated for stock? if so, generally how much hotter. I noticed some of the fluorescents in the frames were as blown out white as the other scenes where it's obvious they were beaming HMI's through the windows. daylight tubes?

Yes, something like that -- Fog, ProMist, etc. Ernest Dickerson shot some of the first season I believe and I remember he used the Harrison Diffusion filter for some of "Malcolm X", and that's also a very misty filter. Generally you'd use a light filter and a hot source in the frame to get more halation but less softening. If you can use a heavier filter, then the light doesn't need to be as hot to get halation but now you have more softening.

I was watching some episodes from the first season of law and order shot back in the 90's and I noticed in most, if not all the scenes, the luminous sources had coronas or halo-like glows while everything else in the scenes including the actors were sharp and unaffected. Would this be created with the use of a low density pro-mist filter, something like 1/4?

I'd like to replicate the look if I knew how.

The 3 pin XlR I have has a variable speed controller box linked in the middle and then it plugs into my motor. The XLR usually plugs into my 18vdc battery belt. Is there any pigtail adapter I can get for this?

If I get a connector like this, wire the positive/negative and link to power supply? will that work?

hmmm,

 

Wont a car charger be about 13.6 Volts ? - that cinema products motor needs apparently needs 16-24 Volts ...

Yes it's me again with my Arri 2C.

So I just looked into a 0-30v variable 5 amp DC power supply. My motor is a 16-24v CRA-6A Xtal cine products crystal, 2 amp.

Anyway, what it boils down to here is finding a way to connect the XLR cable to the power supply. It's a 3 pin.

Here are some pictures. Any bright minds?

thanks for clearing that up Dom, I'll print that. Thanks Phil. Found out I'll be able to get 2 extra battery belts on set which is a relief. Nothing like telling the actors to take a hike because of "NiCad failure".

Try posting it on Ebay and then share the link here (although i don't think the admin likes "for sale" posts) Usually those shopping for film cameras want to see macro close-ups of the claw/aperture, lenses and overall camera accessories to see what condition the gear's in before making a decision.

Add to that a price with the option to purchase. If you make a proper appraisal and set a fair price, you shouldn't have any trouble selling it. It should be tested before and if required, pay to get it serviced before shipping it out because the buyer shouldn't have to worry about it, at least for a long while.

All the best.

I don't know exactly how to check the voltage, I just plug my battery into the motor.

It's on 16.8. The motor is a 24fps constant speed. Not sure what that draws out precisely.

It has an "overnight" charger and there's no light indicating when it's fully "charged". Plugs into the battery on a 5 pin XLR, plugs into the wall, hit a button, light turns red. I just assume a 8 hour charge will do the job and the battery will re-stabilize itself after unplugging it but I have no way of knowing when and when not to charge. Common sense tells you to recharge when the frame rate drops but i don't know how much motor time this battery "should" giving me anyway. I may have left it plugged into the wall for 10-12 hours at times which may have shortened the life span in past.

I used this camera for tests in the past so it was subject to shallow discharge and recharge. I would shoot a few rolls and soon find it sinking to 22fps, and lower and lower. Remove the magazine the and tachometer needle went back up.

So how do you know when you've reached 1.1 volts or in my case 15.4 volts? And for how long to charge at that rate? I contacted cine 60 for specifics of my charger but they weren't very helpful unless your inquiring about buying one of their products.

My pack is being re-celled now at a battery store, getting it back next week.

At what voltage is the frame rate dipping?

 

What's the camera supply voltage meant to be?

 

Unless your battery voltage is too low for the camera or you're dropping voltage over the cable or connections, I would have thought by the time the frame rate dips the battery should be ready to recharge. It doesn't need to be drained completely flat, in fact that will shorten its life. The battery capacity will give you an idea of how long it should run for - if it's 8 Amp-hours for example it should supply 2 Amps for about 4 hours, before the voltage drops 10-15% below its nominal level and may start to affect the appliance (at least while the cells are relatively new).

 

You generally don't want to discharge a NiCad battery much more than about 15% below the nominal voltage (each 1.2V cell down to 1.0V), 10% below is roughly the recommended discharge limit for maximum longevity (down to 1.1V per cell). In your case (16.8V) you'll get the longest life out of the cells if you recharge when the battery hits 15.4V, and avoid draining it below 14V (measured under load). With modern NiCads it's not too bad if the battery is regularly being only partially discharged before charging again, as long as every month or two the cells are exercised with a full discharge/charge cycle (down to 1.0V per cell).

 

A very occasional deep discharge down to 0.5V per cell can be useful to rebalance and recondition the cells but it should be a very low discharge rate, otherwise you risk cell reversal and internal shorting.

 

All of which is to say, if you use bulbs to fully discharge your battery belt, monitor it with a voltmeter to avoid draining it below 14V.

I just recelled a cine 60 battery pack and this time around I'd like preserve the memory of the nicad cells for some time.

What's the easiest way to fully discharge a battery belt or pack after the frame rate dips without leaving it plugged into the motor and abusing the movement and waiting for it to fully run out of juice.

This is for a 2A camera. 16.8vlts

does anyone know or have an idea what he's using in the clip? some of the other clips show him plugged into a generator.

I'm throwing this out there for anyone who has used and/or still uses the Arri 2C/B or A. I recently caught a video of deaf filmmaker Robert Hoskin shooting with this camera. Seems he uses it exclusively. Anyway, I noticed he had a long cable running from his motor to what looks to be a outlet inside a restaurant. There is some type of regulator box between the cable and the power source. (in the other clips he's running his cable into a small generator)

here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Silencebound#p/u/20/J9tHfQYAVFU

I've always used a belt to power my camera but I'd love to know if I can power it indoors with a special cable to a wall outlet. Is this possible?

I know many of us have had discussions about this, more specifically on the future state of film and it's manufacturing. I want to start a conversation about film usage, not a film v.s digital broohaha. My wish isn't to stir up film buffs because I am a strict film user myself. I just want to have a healthy discussion about it.

When I heard roger deakins recently say that he doesn't expect or see a reason to ever use film again after his experiance with the alexa, and the fact that studios want all theatre chains to convert to digital projectors, I started asking myself how far off it would be before the whole film process would become regarded as a "unnecessary costly expenditure" and consequently become a "no option" for bigwig filmmakers. Some say not for another decade, some say a century, but it's not possible for anyone to know the timing or it even ever happening. There are many factors to all of this.

My question is to anyone out there. How bad would it need to be for kodak and fuji to bring film manufacturing to a halt? I don't know how massive or how complex the making of the stuff is for them and how their revenues look at the moment. Could they ever operate a smaller production if the numbers dropped drastically or would they have to stop completely? would the prices go through the roof or come down?

And this is for anyone in hollywood. How digital has lala land become at this point? I know almost all features are still shooting 35mm all over the globe, but more and more, dropping the celluloid for the new gyzmos to save money and avoid the "film process inconveniences". Not that that has improved the quality of films in any way.

So to go back to the topic title, would it be unwise to invest in a very expensive film camera package at this point in time or in a few years? Nothing seems to indicate there is, film is still the only real reliable "perfected technology" for cinema.

any comments?

I don't know about most DP's working today, I would assume most of them would prefer to work on "film" projects because, truthfully, most of them are technical junkie artists and film offers them sweat and adrenaline. There's more pressure working with film which keeps them on their toes helps them master "the perfect shot". I think many of them have had to familiarize themselves with certain high end digital cameras for the sake of getting work and testing the medium.

I find working on projects that are being shot on digital less and less enticing and frankly I don't really like the idea of being on those sets much anymore. As I like being on the camera crew when I'm away from my screenwriting habits, loading film, doing scratch tests etc, and I just feel unmotivated sitting there now. I can't seem to take it seriously because I know what its going to look like when projected. When you point a film camera at your subjects, your pointing a loaded gun. It keeps the actors a little tense, everyone knows the next roll of 400 feet or whatever is going to cost a few hundred bucks. So you have a sense of solidarity.

Everything that seems to take away from film is the talk of money and that's the first mistake. But again, this is an independent sector complaint because a lot of Indy warriors try to pay for their films out of their pockets instead of approaching investors. Any well planned production can come up with enough film stock to shoot the thing.

Sure, it's the story and the amount of creative genius that goes into the art department and performances that inspires me, but I can't seem to feel like it's all a waste of effort if your not capturing it on a purely fine tuned, time tested, graceful medium that is the industry standard for a reason. I have been asked to sit and watch long digital films at "crew preview screenings" and always find myself grinding in my chair and having difficulty keeping my eye line in sync with the screen. But I guess it's true that people in the industry "never look at films the same again". I really don't spend my time worrying about it, but at times, I have to remind people where they put their efforts, it should be considered with film from the start.

People like James Cameron are riding on careers with wonderful movies that were all shot on celluloid. Cameron is a known technical gear head and it seems strange how he snubs film, something that he used during his entire career. I know a lot of directors have had the unfortunate mishaps of losing a "million dollar shot" during a bad lab accident or a "dropped mag". But they dealt with it anyway and made their films. Many times, what they re-shot did actually cut better in the final film. But when I hear this used as a con to film, it just as easy to say a digital camera can short circuit and breakdown. Anyway, issues like that are rare these days if your work with pros.

Digital development maybe considered infant compared to film technology, but I can't imagine a tangible medium with a electronic one ever being one and the same. You keep hearing centrists who say it doesn't matter, it's all about the story. I think they're not being honest. But it does matter. Just as a storyteller around a campfire depends on the smooth articulation of his voice to make the story fun and captivating, a story being captured needs to enchant the watcher.

3d is not the revolution, it only represents a tiny percentage of movies. Most films wouldn't work well with it. I actually took my glasses off during avatar because I lost the beautiful saturated colors with them on. I found it a little silly. I only like it with Imax films, like roller coasters rides and so on. Avatar was really an experimental film if you think about it.

Anyway, as this rant continues, I want to emphasize that when your making movies, your not thinking how great it's going to be to be able to do as many retakes as possible without loading a camera or how great it is that you can rent a camera that imitates film closely. Your just thinking on all the cons and fears of potential film disasters instead of doing what the pros do. You should be thinking, this movie is going to look beautiful, project beautifully and I'm going to budget to get it into the cinema.

People don;t have to be intimidated by handling film or treat like a fragile vase. I made a darkroom out of my closet and began processing black and white 35mm film to get comfortable handling the stuff. You know your medium, it ups your confidence. If you mess up your exposure, do it again and again. Go on IMDB and look up your favorite movies. Hit the tech specs and voila. 35mm, super 16mm, 65mm, anamorphic, spherical, etc. Keep your digital camera for your home movies.

No I don't work for Kodak.

Digital is still in its infant stages, I think it is still too early to compare it to something that has been in development for over a hundred years. I have all of those Kodak 35mm and 16mm interview DVDs and much of what they say about digital no longer holds true and these DVDs are only a few years old. I also don't think the whiny kids who don't want to load film from a can is the only problem when considering digital. It is also extra time on a production and it adds more variables that can go wrong, especially when the film (that could potentially have a million dollar shot on it) can very easily be dealt with by ACs that don't have a lot of experience or a great skill level. There is the other issues of how much you can shoot, cost of it, the expense to deal with film in post.

 

If you have to fight to shoot film for creative or financial reasons, then that is another story where one does have to compare the pros and cons of formats, but I feel you seem overly hateful towards digital. I'm sure you will eventually see impressive results from digital cinematography.

The main allure to celluloid film is the condensation/diffuse look it offers to a otherwise harsh reality. Think of smoke, people in the industry use it to "fix" harsh scenes which need to seem less "dressed" , in miniature work to hide give-away detail or for effect in general. Thus, "fix it with smoke".

In the same way, film is a diffuser. Well, with the newer stocks, not so much. Vision 3 stock is ultra sharp and thats why I try to stick to vision 2, or vision 1 if I can get my hands on it. You know what I'm referring to. It's smoother on the eye. The whole point here is we can all agree that life just seems more beautiful without harsh detail.

Personally I can't stand digital photography. Tried getting on the wagon but its just too ugly. It's too conspicuous. It presents no challenge. Essentially, there's no process. If your hungry, you can cook for yourself, get creative, buy the ingrediants and be part of the process. Or you can order in. Thats sort of like what I attribute film to. It's a work of chemistry genius and those who want to see it dissapear are uneducated fools.

Truth is I have not seen anything impressive about digital cinematography. Zilch. It seems like a bunch of civil rights fanatics are shoving it down the industry's throat, making it seem like 35mm is endangered and being manafactured in someone's basement. Meanwhile, every hollywood picture showing up in theatres is a 35mm print. It's like an independant filmmaker "low budget" street drug. Its main attraction is saving production costs and a solution for the whiny kids who dont want to load film from a can. theres no creative benefit whatsoever. getting a little tired of it all it to be honest.

You wont see better movies because of it. I haven't. seems like an easy access for hacks. film seperates the serious endeavors from the simple.

thats my rant for the day

Nice acquisition. I managed to bargain 12 000 feet for about 1200$, myself, not bad. Keep in mind the processing costs, which will likely be the "above the line" if your making a lengthy short. Determine your post-production route (optical workflow, D.I) and if you want to finish to film or DVD. This will make it easier to budget. Figure out what gear your going to use with it. Choose the right script and don't jump the gun, not with 35mm. Think long and hard, plan it the best you can and it will be a very rewarding experiance.

Don't be afraid to fail, those who take iniative will invitably fail. But they learn and atleast they try and some come out looking pretty good. You have something people want. Actors, crew, there's always someone willing to be part of a serious filmmaker's project. But I can't stress it enough, pick the right script. If your a director, this is your focus.

All the best.

Sorry I know the question seemed slightly juvenile, I'm aware there is no application process. I was just curious as to the degree of formality that goes into hiring a director for a studio project. The studio system and it's protocols are mystifying to me, especially because there is so much money at stake. When they tie an individual to a multi-million dollar endeavor, the question arises as to how much paperwork and forms have to be filled out. I've met producers who have done the application thing in the independent sector but it was more aimed at getting background information from outsiders and getting things neat and proper for legal.

I assume you are new to the business and young, therefore I will not make fun of you for this statement :) But taken at face value, it's funny, sorry.

 

Anyway, no, there is no such thing as an application form to direct a studio movie. I see very little data out there to support the idea that the studios use new graduates of any film school as directors. Of course there are thousands of twenty-somethings out there who may believe that a studio chief will see their amazing student film and hire them as a big time studio director. Statistically speaking....not gonna happen.

 

Yes, there are many factors involved in getting to direct any large scale film financed by the studios. If you can figure them all out let us know, there is no one prescribed course that everyone follows. Many roads up the mountain as they say.

 

The vast majority of directors these days push their own projects forward with themselves attached as director. This is a process that can take years.

 

I do know of one guy that came to the attention of the right people via a short film he made, and was given the job of directing a large scale studio movie. He just wrapped production on his second big studio film. So that's one person I know who went that route.

 

As for the big film schools like USC, yes, they produce a good number of successful people in film. They also have a lot of graduates "flipping burgers" like many other film schools.

 

R,

I guess I never really thought about what the studio hiring process is for new directors (apart from the already influential and famous ones). So there's a hot script floating around. Then what? Does the producer go through a list of names? With so much aspiring hacks in line, how do they filter out or select the right candidate? I assume there are many factors involved.

Do they stalk the Tisch and USC graduates just hobbling out of school? Do they choose relatively uneducated talent with strong portfolios?

Just curious if studios actually have application forms along with minimum requirements or is it really just an arbitrary decision.

Thanks fellas.

I bought a load of stock a while back and a lot it came in 1000 ft rolls. I only got 400ft and 200ft mags so I'm looking to unwind the film in many small cans.

It's 35mm.

Whats the best way to go about it without scratching the emulsion and avoiding the uneven spiral effect. (be specific if you mention machines)

thanks

Jon

This is great, thank you all. Sorry for the late reply. Film tools aparently sells the grease.

Anyone ever maintain this camera by themselves? I can't tell if it needs oil/grease or not but I want to be sure before I shoot my film. There are some instructions in my manual for the internal gears. But there's also a little oil knob on the claw itself, not sure where all the targets are. I want to avoid sending it out to Visual products if I can do it myself.

Thanks

Thank you for the strategy John, this is the method I might take.

thanks Adrian, John young for your replies also,

Jonathan

If you really can't do sound on location, the "Spaghetti Western" approach is the way to go:

 

Shoot with the unblimped Arri, have your actors give the best normal performance they can. Record scratch tracks for reference if possible. Note very carefully if they decide to change any words. Don't waste time on location trying to do sound without picture.

 

When you're done shooting, have your actors record the dialogue, while watching picture. If you can get the use of an ADR stage, that would be the best. Otherwise, rig up some way to do it to video transfers of your picture -- maybe just a microphone and a computer. Your shoot will go a lot quicker this way, and the dialogue recording session for a short will be just a few hours.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Hey John,

I have a sound guy. When I said blimping was out of the question, I was referring to the actual blimp housing designed for these cameras as they are virtually extinct. Creative blimping is always a option but I don't know how far I could get away with it in a quiet kitchen dialogue scene. There are many shots in the short with action scenes where the camera is at a distance. In these sequences, I can surely pull it off. But a strategy for the quiet scenes...

The other concern is the crystal sync situation.

I may go ahead and do a test scene as you suggested. Know of any clips online showing successful dubbing?

It can be done! (See, Robert Rodriquez)

 

But I have some questions: You have a boom operator/sound guy? Why is blimping it out of the question? Can you not just throw a blanket over the camera to cut down on sound? Obviously this may not work if you are shooting handheld epic battle sequences, BUT if you ARE shooting lots of action, the camera sound may not make it through the mic. If you do have a mic, what kind is it? I would test. Fire up the Arri, throw on some headphones and have some one talk. See how much camera sound comes through.