Steve Zimmerman

I assume you could use something like these iris's for spotlights. http://tinyurl.com/3ywx5q

Thanks for posting the stills! It does look a little grainy. It definitely has a faster dropoff to shadows than Vision 2.

I am dying to see some clips of Vivid 160T! It would be awesome if you could post a small clip? I miss the more punchy EXR stocks. How does it compare? I know low contrast is great for safe, bland video transfers, but I'm hoping that this is a start for more choice in color film stocks.

Husband and wife directing pair Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris directed Little Miss Sunshine and a lot of famous music videos. On the Sunshine DVD, they talk about having to tell their kids they're not really fighting when they have disagreements at home when planning a new project. They work out their differences before shooting.

Thanks for the nice comments. About the ending: The student swindles the blind piano teacher, paying him with one dollar bills. He gives this to the land lady/property manager. The land lady's cold exterior melts for a moment and accepts the payment as rent. At the end he instictively reaches for the piano keys as he did earlier, forgetting it was not there anymore. He walks away only to come back and reach for the keys again. The music you hear is the end credits music. One could interpret different things about the meaning of the ending, but that's what is actually happening. I was only a consultant of sorts on Journeyman, I supplied a couple ideas. I was going to be DP, but the director John Ford made it very simply with just himself, the actors and the camera, without any lights. I was DP for another short from another director (Matt Serrins) on the site. That 16mm footage was given a supervised high def transfer. I haven't seen any of that yet, the director is now attending grad film school in the LA area. I'm in Charleston, South Carolina. He was still polishing the edit last I heard. When a clip is online I will try to post a link on here.

You should try updating quicktime. Sorry we don't have it in any other format. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/

No Problem. :) Keep in mind it is a best light transfer. We did not have time to go to the out of town lab for a supervised transfer, and unfortunately, we did not give any transfer notes to the colorist. Luckily, the colorist had good taste and graded the negative basically the way I wanted it, by reducing some of blue of the daylight HMI's and Kino's, desaturating the skin tones, leaving a little of the blue in there. It gives a nice color unity to the image. You could always ask the lab to filter out all the blue, or leave it all in, etc. Steve Z.

Here is our short: "He Can Hear It", we shot it without the 85 filter. I was the DP. Super 16mm 200asa Vision2. Camera was ARRI SRIII with telephoto 35mm format super speed Zeiss lenses. The director wanted a Lance Acord, naturalistic, soft light, no shadows look. I usually light more contrasty so it was a nice change. I underexposed one stop at all times indoors (rated at 400asa). Since the character was blind, the lighting motivation was that he rarely had any lights on, so most of the lighting came from 2 575 HMI's through the windows. I used a Kino Flo for back and kicker lights at times. We never used a matte box, so there's some cool flares and hazing of the image at times. Outdoors, I metered for the sunlit areas, letting the shadows go darker. This was from a best-light transfer, so you can see where the one scene with tungsten light was over-corrected orange. Overall, I was very happy with the look and it came out just the way I wanted it to. Here's the link: click on "He Can Hear It" http://www.twelvebosses.com/

Here is our short: "He Can Hear It", we shot it without the 85 filter. I was the DP. Super 16mm 200asa Vision2. Camera was ARRI SRIII with telephoto 35mm format super speed Zeiss lenses. The director wanted a Lance Acord, naturalistic, soft light, no shadows look. I usually light more contrasty so it was a nice change. I underexposed one stop at all times indoors (rated at 400asa). Since the character was blind, the lighting motivation was that he rarely had any lights on, so most of the lighting came from 2 575 HMI's through the windows. I used a Kino Flo for back and kicker lights at times. We never used a matte box, so there's some cool flares and hazing of the image at times. Outdoors, I metered for the sunlit areas, letting the shadows go darker. This was from a best-light transfer, so you can see where the one scene with tungsten light was over-corrected orange. Overall, I was very happy with the look and it came out just the way I wanted it to. Here's the link: click on "He Can Hear It" http://www.twelvebosses.com/

Thanks David for answering my question. B)

Thanks for starting this topic :lol: I've always been curious about the prospect of shooting with real (2x squeeze) anamorphic lenses on HD and Digital cinema cameras. I thought these had sensors that were usually the size of a super 35 frame, so they did not cover the vertical height of the slightly tall square of the anamorphic frame. I figured you had to crop the sides of the image which would be too wide (over 3:1) when unsqueezed. The lenses would be made more telephoto in the process as well. Are there any HD/Digital cameras being made whose sensor covers the whole 4 perf 35 frame? Genesis. Red, Viper, Phantom 65 (I assume would)? I hope they will make full frame sensors for a long time in the future for the sake of all those 2X lenses out there. The reason I'm asking is I have a set of Lomo PL mount anamorphics and would love to keep using them if I ever got my hands on something like a future Red-like camera.

http://www.vantagefilm.com/ got to: Equipment>Filters>select link for Slide Diopters. These are diopters in a holder that takes up two slots of a 6.6"x6.6" matte box. Someone should adapt this idea, and make a holder that would sandwich around 138mm filters so you could put your own filters in there.

Stephen Morton custom made me an optical/mechanical adapter to use a russian Konvas desqueezer on an ARRI 35-3 or ARRI 35 BL-3. It uses two prisms. It looks a little hazy, but I can see an accurate unsqueezed image. Arri desqueezers seem to be very rare and I could not afford one if one did come available. He said ARRI 435's can be adapted to use the Konvas desqueezers much more easily. http://www.cinemods.com/

Hello all, I just got a 50mm Lomo anamorphic Square front lens Bas 4-15. It seems to have 2 or three scales on it. There is a scale that starts at 1.6 meters. Another scale starts at 0.5m. --Then there is a raised metal square with a red line on it, it's scale starts at 1.1 meters. I know there is a two diopter set that screw onto the front (which I have on order from Rafcamera). I assume the 0.5 mark is for the diopter marked 0.5m. There is also a 1-2.5m diopter. Does that use the raised red mark? Anybody personal experiences with these lenses? I plan to finally do a test soon. I guess this rules out any of those "Spielbergian" (first heard it on this site :lol: ) shots with this lens. It's native close focus (5ft, 4in) is much too far away for those wide shot to big closeup push-ins. I'll have to try that with my 75mm round front. You can get a head and neck closeup with it without diopters. It focuses more smoothly too. Thanks in advance, Steve Zimmerman

In Photoshop you can choose: Filter>Distort>Lens Correction. There are sliders to correct color fringing. Using Final Cut you can export a series of stills and process them as a group in Photoshop. There are other plug ins and software programs out there, but I don't know if they do batch processing and groups of stills like photoshop.

I've got a 35mm and a 50mm square front Lomo anamorphic lenses. The focus is a little stiff on mine too. One could argue that in anamorphic you don't want to rack focus too fast because of the focus breathing. --But I figure the lubrucant inside the lens is stiffening, these lenses are from the late 60's to the 70's so it has aged a good bit. ;) I called Bernie and he said he could look at them.

I'm a subscriber to that e-mail discussion :lol: I've learned a good amount of information from that list about Lomo lenses and Konvas cameras. I checked out the site and the lenses seem cheap enough to experiment with.

Do tele-extenders work with anamorphic primes?

Thanks for the responses. Part of the reasoning behind the question was basic curiosity about what was possible. I want to shoot anamorphic because it is the highest quality I can get with the cameras I have access to with the least money spent in post in case I do have a release print made. I also love the 2.4:1 format, asymetrical compositions, the unique bokeh, the smearing of the out of focus areas, 40% more negative area vs. S35, etc. --And to do something unique to stand out. S35 always looks like a cropped image to me. I guess If I really do want everything to be squared off I guess I should just shoot Super 35 for those individual shots. That should work fine since my final output at this point would probably just be HD video anyway. It was interesting how Sunshine was shot as a combination of Anamorphic and S35, too bad I missed it at the theaters.

I am understanding right what you mean about wanting to shoot macro. Thanks for the response. I guess I don't want to shoot THAT sort of macro shot. I know there is a lot of light loss using extention tubes, and I have a slower F=2.5 lens.

Thanks for the replies guys. :) I figured that I'd need to transfer in High Def and do it in post. --But I'll ask at the transfer house as well.

I am testing for an upcoming low budget short. no plans for film-out, just video projection. I have a 35mm anamorphic lens and it has a good amount of barrel distortion just like the picture below. I was wondering if it was possible to correct for lens distortion in the telecine suite, zooming in and cropping the excess. I fixed this shot below from The Untouchables in photoshop. I love lens distortions at times, but I like flat field wide angle shots too. It kind of depends on the mood of the scene. Is this possible without losing video resolution by zooming in on the fine grained film image, NOT a video image in post, or do I have to do an expensive Digital Intermediate? Thanks Steve Zimmerman

Hello, I own a round front 75mm Lomo anamorphic lens. I want to shoot some of those Lynch-style (when he was still shooting film) macro closeups. What is the filter diameter for this lens? Some of these diopters are special order and cannot be returned. :unsure: Would I be better off buying an oversized diopter and mounting it in a mattebox instead of a specific size? It would be cool to to use the diopters with my 35mm square front anamorphic lens too. What do you all think? http://www.geocities.com/kinor35/lenses/le...-35bas-23-2.htm Thanks, Steve Zimmerman

Film Editing Nutz and Bolts is a great book explaining the technique of using a flatbed editor and synchronizers. I edited my 20min 16mm student final that way. It took a long time, but I feel when editing real film and not just a computer file, you learn to respect the shots more and not just be intercutting willy nilly. I always like to have a long assembly edit and then trim and tighten up the ins and outs of shots second. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/096...kayetechsystems

Tony Scott's Man on Fire was all 5285. Domino used it also, but also used a lot of cross-processed 5285. Both used digital intermediate to help with the high contrast issues. The low budget Buffalo 66 was shot on an old, video news film reversal 5239 160T. They had to flash and post-flash the negative to control the blown-out highlights. Source: New Cinematographers, Axel Ballinger.