Joe Zakko

Jesus, I'm sorry David, I stopped replying for what it's worth.

I agree but I think continuing to reply is just because I'm fascinated by this personality type and what it would take to get him to acknowledge he's wrong. 

The man has literally called me an unhinged psycho multiple times in this conversation, I don't understand certain people on the internet.

You're a prince David, thank you for your efforts.

Honestly I'm embarrassed I got heated with an internet troll on a kubrick subreddit, thanks so much for the response David.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubrick/comments/eer8bn/very_accomplished_rear_projection_in_eyes_wide/fc1w2nz/?context=10000

someone online claimed that Eyes Wide Shut is the first film in the history of cinema to underexpose and push 2 stops the entire film.

Is that right?  Can anyone confirm it's accurate or alternately cite an earlier film that did the same?

I'm looking for a way to shoot with a 4 or 5mm focal length on my bolex. A proper c-mount switar would be ideal but it appears 10mm is as wide as those go. A lens with an adapter would be an option, one of those filter-adapter-attachment thingies would be a worst-scase scenario but I'm open to anything.

well I already bought the cinestill since it was touted as being the same film just reappropriated for stills, at this point I'm just confused as to why it's rated at 800 if it's supposedly a 500 speed film and how should I expose it? Should I just assume it's virtually identical to 7219 and rate it at 500? If I do that, should I tell the lab to process it as 500?

500T

should I rate it at 500 or 800?

i'm shooting a short and I want to cheaply do a test and take my slr to test certain lighting conditions. Does anybody know which still film that's available that has the most similar color palette to kodak's 16mm color negative? There might be no perfect substitute, but I really can't afford to shoot a test roll.

Thanks in advance

Thanks for the input. Yeah, the imdb says 1.85, but it also listed elswit as dp for The Master until that was cleared up. Kinda a pity, I've always been a fan of P.T.A.'s ongoing 'collaboration' with the anamorphic format. Wonder if he's framing for 1.85 for good.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRLG2ASCEAE05-I.png:large

The above picture just surfaced from the set of PTA's Inherent Vice. Any eagle-eyed panavision experts can tell us a little about what they're shooting with? Are they shooting with anamorphic lenses, and if so, are they preserving the 2.35 aspect ratio or matting down to 1.85? (due to the angle, I can't quite tell the aspect ratio of the image on that tiny monitor)

Tarantino shot Death Proof, who knows, maybe that's why it was so much weaker than anything else he's done.

Yeah, I posted this elsewhere, and they said it was a long lens in the field of view. Turns out, I purchased my 100mm lens after marking the groundglass, so I never noticed that it was in the frame. Pretty embarrassing, but I'm glad I figured that out. Thanks for the replies.

Wow, that's embarrassing. The ground glass was marked before i bought my 100mm lens, didn't even think about it. Thanks a lot.

Be a light leak nazi. Make sure the filter holder is always in place, tape up the door, make sure that you're covering up the viewfinder completely with your eye and if you can't, switch the viewfinder shut (not sure if all bolexes have that option). Light leaks are awesome the first couple of rolls, then you realize it's incredibly distracting. Also, this applies for any film camera, always reshoot the last shot you did before the roll ran out. One last thing, always remember to plan around the 30 second time limit. You're not shooting the next russian ark on your bolex.

Hi, i already posted this in the lens forum, but it might apply here too. I shot a short on my bolex this past summer. Shots using my 10mm kern palliard lens had something in the bottom right corner. It's dark, but reflects light when hit directly. Not sure what it is. Luckily, i composed for 2.35:1, so it doesn't show in the short, but i really hope there's not something wrong with my lens. Anybody have any ideas what it is, i'd really appreciate it.

here are a few shots where you can see it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGo_cE8YPcc

shot a short on my bolex this past summer. shots using my 10mm kern palliard lens had something in the bottom right corner. It's dark, but reflects light when hit directly. Not sure what it is. luckily, i composed for 2.35:1, but i really hope there's not something wrong with my lens. Anybody have any ideas what it is, i'd really appreciate it.

here are a few shots where you can see it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGo_cE8YPcc

Then you never read post #2 in this thread...

I just didn't understand post #2, but I get it now, thanks.

I see, I just assumed the adjustments you made to the groundglass would be equal top and bottom, thanks for the explanation

This is for them to crop it down for me? Why can't I just tell them that I want it cropped to 2.40:1? Is it because of possible imprecision when masking the ground glass?

Thanks a lot, yeah I worded it a little oddly in the question. All I needed was where to get to the groundglass on that camera. I actually have never heard of a framing chart. I did essentially the same thing with my bolex, except I picked a movie in that aspect ratio that I had downloaded on my computer, measured it to make sure it wasn't slightly cropped for some reason (a lot of torrents are) and picked a bright shot from the film to contrast with my dark background. I also used black gaffer's tape so I could focus better on the image while shooting.

Thanks again.

I'm going to take a course next week in New York for six weeks and I'm shooting entirely on an Arri 16-S. I own a bolex and have adjusted the ground glass to compose for 2.40:1. I would like to do the same for the arriflex when I shoot, what different ways are there to compose for that aspect ratio? How do I do it? I have never worked with that camera before, so I currently don't know the parts. Also, since it's not my camera, I need something that's not permanent.

Thanks for the help.

 

How would you feel if you were taken out of the credits, and the director on a film you shot started saying in interviews: "oh yeah, I was the DP on this film, and I did the camerawork as well", and then WON AN ACADEMY AWARD FOR CINEMATOGRAPHY FOR THE FILM!!!

 

That's a closer approximation to what happened here, and I think in that case, I'm pretty sure you would think it was a big deal.

 

That's not at all a closer approximation. That would be a close approximation if Portman won an oscar for dancing. Whether there was deception or not is immaterial in regards to her deserving the oscar. She didn't win for dancing, she won for a terrific performance.

You're making an assumption. Do you know this for a fact? Either way the word is "Scene." Spell it any way you want.

I said "I'm assuming english isn't his first language," so yes, I am making an assumption. And I'm not the one misspelling it, so I'm not sure what 'spell it any way you want' exactly means.