GeorgeSelinsky

In that case I'd seriously consider a short, especially if you feel that you aren't up on your experience yet. Friends may be interested in being in a feature film - for the first half hour of shooting. Then they realize how much work this all is and it becomes more of a task than something fun. The feature I'm doing now is being done with a combo of natural and professional talent. Those who have no professional experience don't enjoy themselves unless they really begin to appreciate the process and find that they can do well (and they like you and strongly believe in what you're doing). That's why I try to keep their roles in cameos, and only keep the dedicateds together for the more serious roles. My film has a special meaning to a lot of the people who are in it (it talks about their community), so they have an extra motivator to keep them on the set. I strongly suggest you consider finding some professionals (at least in the lead roles) who will dedicate themselves to the project, and get some more money for niceties like meals and so on. Due to our short schedules we don't often bring food to the set, but I take out my actors sometimes, do them favors, etc. It's really important. Oh yes, forgot to mention that because we use a lot of naturals we have to adhere to their schedule, our feature film has taken over a year and a half to shoot! Good luck, - G.

Interesting point. When I was in Russian scout camp we'd have these high tech dudes who'd want to sneak up on the camp (it was a game - you had to steal the flag in the middle of the night), and they'd use red filters on their mag flashlights. We'd be up for night duty (a task we never enjoyed - try being woken up at 2 am and told to patrol the woods for an hour and a half) and when you saw a red flashlight it somehow psychologically made you less alert that a person was creeping up. The reduced intensity was a part of it (I mean, a 25 filter cuts at least 2 stops out), but the redness made it harder to detect them. Suckers stole our flag quite a few times that way, and to get it back you had to do some silly stunts of their invention in front of all the girls the next morning. Silly. - G.

Hey Phil, Congrats on the new acquisition - that's a pretty nice camera! There are a bunch of Super 8 heads out there on the net, one of the first places I'd check is the usenet's alt.movies.cinematography.super8 (you can access the Usenet through Google - select "groups" in the top menu bar). Check out this site also, very good. Then there's Mike Brantley's site Super 8 filmmaking which has a fairly active Super 8 forum on it, as well as a bunch of links to other Super 8 sites. There are some real Super 8 addicts out there. Some are heartbroken over the discontinuance of prestriped sound Super 8 film and go through the trouble of getting second party striped Kodachrome 40 in Germany (I actually have three carts of single system prestriped Super 8 K40 left in my freezer, but I can't possibly think of an application for them right now). Some buy expensive cameras like the Beaulieu and have them modified to take this special sound film. With such a dumpy frequency response (especially at 18 fps which is a more popular "standard" frame rate with Super 8 than the professional 24 fps), and with no easy way of transferring the sound to video in sync, I really feel it's a pointless exercise. It was fun back in the day, a bit of a novelty to have sync on film without a crew, but not a real serious professional tool (though it did better quality wise than the optical sound on film Auricons that were used for TV news for a while). As for the "notching" of Kodak's Vision 200T cartrige (which is what sets the film's exposure rating automatically) I have no idea what that is - I'm sure a search on Google groups aught to dig something up (there's a Super 8 guru, Martin Baumgarten, who knows a lot on the format). It may be notched for 160 asa film (Kodak always had a 40 asa and 160 asa film available in Super 8 - some old cameras, not yours, can't read the 160 asa notch). In that case you'll be fine, as overexposing color negative film a little isn't dangerous and even desireable in a format like S8. If in doubt, and you have a manual override - use it to be sure. Just for tradition you might want to run a roll of Kodachrome 40 through your camera first. You'll get a positive that you can project out of the processing envelope, and processing costs are most benign (here it's about $6.00, the famous PK59 mailer that sends your film out to Kodak Switzerland). To process the dreaded grainfest Ektachrome 125 or black and white we're talking 10 to 16 dollars easy. Back ten-twelve years ago when I was shooting the stuff it cost me $2.50 to get it outlabbed from my local supermarket. Boy have times changed... To process your Kodak Vision color negative film you'd need to get the negative developed (probably at least 10-15 bucks) and then set up a telecine session, where you pay a minimum half hour to hour (and no, they don't make workprints/positives off of Super 8 color negative - if they did it'd cost a lot). Not worth it in my opinion if you just want to do a trial run. Definitely check out the workprinter, if you're ticked at Rank transfer rates (which are high for Super 8) one of these babies is intriguing to consider. If the desire so pulls at you check out my site on processing your own film, http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky And yes, don't run it at a high (above 24 fps) speed unless it has film in it - that's a general movie camera rule. You can do some very fun stuff in Super 8. To me, the greatest thing about Super 8, aside from its portability and interesting look, is that it was the cheapest way to shoot film. Unfortunately that aspect of the format is disappearing, especially when compared to 16mm. It's now looked upon as a novelty format more than anything, which is why outfits like Pro8mm show up and push decently budgeted shows to go funky with a Super 8 sequence. To me that's a departure of what Super 8 was really about, which was getting your feet wet shooting film and having a good time without worrying about the pocketbook too much. That option is still there with the Kodachrome 40 and PK59 mailer, but who knows how much longer that will last. Enjoy! Oh yes, and while we're on the subject of the 70's (my favorite era for rock), why don't you put on a, goodness, was about to say record but those are going away too, a CD of Deep Purple when you're viewing your first dailies? One of Britain's finest. - G.

Haven't called that place in ages, I'm so used to buying everything from Raw Stock on 26th st! - G.

Too much ;) Seriously, 5:1 is just about going to make it. I find that it's too tight, I think 6:1 is more realistic. If this is a first time feature it's a catch 22 situation, you need a stronger shooting ratio but you are in the least likely position to afford one. Try looking into recans and short ends, esp. if you're shooting 35. You can save a huge chunk that way sometimes, esp. with 35mm film (sometimes goes as cheap as $0.11/ft). Good luck, - G.

I heard a few rumors that either 5279 or 5218 was to be offered in Super 8 from Kodak. I know "Pro" 8mm has them but they only sell with processing included, at quite a markup. I have a potential project where I'm considering these filmstocks, which is why I'm inquiring. - G.

I don't know what you shot on Super 8, but first of all for a feature film you have extended sequences and a schedule that requires you to be ready for varying lighting conditions. So you have to be a bit more cautious than if you just took a Super 8 camera to take some shots outside. Second, Super 8 also has a higher depth of field than Super 16, so focus errors are hard to really notice. I personally think that with the Vision 100 asa you'll probably do just fine in most circumstances. But I'd carry a few rolls of 250 with me as well, just to be safe. Believe me, if you gotta go into an overcast day you'll be happy you did (and btw, overcast days are the easiest days to maintain lighting continuity - no sun angle to worry about). I know, we're all spoiled by fast stocks, back in the day people shot asa 25 film and so on and so forth. But I feel it's important to be as flexible as possible in a low-low budget situation. - G.

Do you know if they make one for the Mitchell BNCR? :P I liked the use of the body mount in Pi, but in Requiem it really didn't look good on Jennifer Connely, you can almost see where the mount was and she really seemed to struggle with it. The camera was on her for quite a while, it may have even been more than one minute. - G.

Exposure, along with framing, focus, lenses, light (a real biggie), and camera movement are the principal elements of all cinematography/videography. It takes a lifetime to really master it all :blink: Just don't bite off more than you can chew. 20 minutes is really going to be a lot, just wait till you try. The advanced production class at NYU film school had you make one 30 minute film - and that is after two earlier production classes. Anyway, that's a director thing more than a DP thing, although for a beginning DP that kind of period of work is also not easy. Best way to learn - read up on your theory then go out and shoot as much as you can. - G.

An article on digital intermediates.

That sounds more like stealing story material, I doubt such a harsh judgement would be ruled in favor of most music infringements (at least I haven't heard of such precidents). But if you did a film where 50% of the soundtrack was Rolling Stones songs, which would have a net value in the millions if you legitimately licensed them, you better watch out. - G.

Performances and recordings ARE copyrighted, even if the music is in the public domain. If I assemble an orchestra of musicians, hire them and the conductor, pay for the copying of the music, hire a hall, have them rehearsed, and hire a recordist and his team to record them for a few hours, that doesn't mean you can take my recording and stick it into your movie, and not compensate me for the time, money, and effort it took me to do all of that. Otherwise I can also say that a film about Shakespeare can be pirated because the play is in the public domain. I once did play music, and believe me, if your orchestra recorded a piece of music you're going to know what it sounds like even with a different mix (after all, you don't have access to the original tracks, all you can do is EQ and alter the speed). Not everyone will get it but they can, and believe me people can and DO look for this stuff - especially hungry copyright attourneys. There are, for example, so many recordings of Cappricio Italien that were ever made. They don't all sound the same by a far shot - even if they have the same audio quality they are different in the way performed. If I was a conductor or producer who recorded Capprichio, and I heard someone use Cappricio Italien in a film, I would certainly have my ears perched. If I noticed that it's awfully similar to what I did, I'd certainly stay to the end of the credits and see who is credited with that recording. If it's nobody, then I'd start searching a little deeper. If it's another orchestra that the filmmaker simply fabricated, as a person of the music business I'd pretty quickly figure out if it's baloney or not. Even as a professional I'd likely just be interested in hearing that other recording for a comparison to my work, so I'd be likely to explore further either way. After all, I am a professional. Before you know it I get a video of your film and have my attourney give you a call, saying that I strongly suspect you have used my recording without authorization. If I am mistaken, my lawyer gets proof. If not, then we go to court. It's that simple. Of course, it's one of those "maybe" scenarios, but you'd be surprised how six degrees of separation can work sometimes. Ten, twenty years from now someone might be up on late night cable and that's that. Anyway, why take your chances? Besides, who cares if they don't find you? The producer is the one who's going to get in trouble! - G.

When you say "feature film project", do you mean a 90 minute length film? I don't intend to be offensive in any way, but if that's what you intend to do I'm sure you'll find it a bit above your heads at this point. That's really a major undertaking and commitment. I'm twenty seven going onto twenty eight, with previous experience in this field, and I've been directing and shooting a feature film on weekends and weekday evenings for over a year and a half, only now we're finishing up - finally. You might find it much simpler to do a 20 minute project, or something even shorter. With that out of the way, video likes softer lighting units than film. Lowell makes good cheap open face lights (i.e. the DP light). Put some nice diffusion material on them and they will do a good job for many video applications. Bouncing a harsh light against a white card (foam core) or a matte silver card is also a good idea. You can also use simple 200W and stronger white light bulbs for some things too. I've used hardware lights for some stuff, they're cheap but not very flexible. As for exposure control, you gotta do some reading of the manual on how to control it with your camera. You gotta watch out for hot white spots with video. Some cameras have a "zebra pattern" in the viewfinder that will show you overexposed areas that will burn out. I wouldn't run a three camera show because 1) your lighting job is tougher and the result is less interesting 2) shooting is more limited angle wise, and 3) you need three good camera operators. This only works in a TV studio, and I hate TV studio lighting. - G.

Don't think that you won't be getting any phone calls. Countries have copyright protection agreements with each other and it's not unlikely that there's someone in your country that is empowered to represent the copyright owner who's work is being used without permission. I really wouldn't take such a chance, even if your film isn't going to sell well. No distributor will touch your film if you don't have everything cleared, and if you lie to them then you will be held liable personally for the damages you carry (plus the errors and omissions insurance company, if they have already granted you a certificate, will not cover the legal fees if you lied to them about having everything cleared). If you are self distributing then you are risking it on your own. Regardless of how much they can sue you for, do you really want to bother hiring a lawyer and going to court? That's not cheap. Nor is it going to be nice when your litigation will eat all the profit you need to pay back your investors for the film's expenses (and it will certainly sink the producer's reputation). Just some food for thought. - G.

<!--QuoteBegin-John_P_Pytlak+Mar 10 2004, 11:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (John_P_Pytlak @ Mar 10 2004, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Smaller "niche" formats like 8mm or Super-8 are specialty items that are often much more labor intensive in manufacture or processing. If dedicated machines are used, you need to amortize the cost and maintenance of those machine across a smaller volume. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, but the 8mm format, which was introduced originally to save cost over shooting in 16mm, is no longer in that niche that it once occupied. Volume has gone down and naturally, goods and services will be more expensive. But when Super 8 prices nearly EQUAL 16mm, then the format totally looses its economic advantage. I think the format deserves a new approach, a more "do it yourself" avenue, as the consumers for Super 8 are different now than they were twenty-thirty years ago. I know Kodak is pretty much doing their share (and their prices for Super 8 film are very fair), I think the problem lies in third party innovation. Some of that is happening, like the "workprinter" device (http://www.moviestuff.tv), but it still needs more development. The 35->S8 splitter device and a better home processing tank would be of great benefit in my view. - G.

Pro 8mm unfortunately is a very expensive outfit. I understand they have overhead, business expenses, and they're not some charity. I just think it's a good idea to have an empowering tool like a 35->S8 splitter/reperf that Super 8 hobbyists can use. Super 8 users are used to things being cheap, from cameras to projectors to film to lab. Unfortunately, at least with the processing and video transfer, it's very costly and ineffective as of now, which is why I don't use it. Think of it this way, Super 8 uses up one quarter of the film that 16mm uses, but processing costs like $10 for 50 ft of film. I can get 100 feet of 16mm, four times that amount of film, processed for $11.00. Doesn't make economic sense, the replenisher consumption of the chemistry is one quarter. - G.

Modern B&W emulsions can survive pretty hot baths, I've seen processing specs go up to 90 degs F and even higher. I never intended to suggest that the rem-jet backing will naturally come off in a developer solution, I'm sure it was in the bath but I just did it on a one shot basis (I used HC-110 stock concentrate that was mixed in 1998! Still got some image). Anyway, it's just an interesting theoretical question. Maybe I'll play with it later. I was wondering if there was a way to get rid of the orange coupler mask by using some chemical additive, so this way you could cross process color negative into reversal without it. You could also increase the contrast in the first developer and then perhaps get a normal contrast color positive image from negative film. Interesting thought. - G.

I didn't mean to imply that shallow focus or longer lenses are a cure all for continuity. It can help in some instances make things seem less noticeable, but it won't really cure a problem, so I wouldn't make that a deciding factor in your choice. I'd rather gain a stop or two on the focus pulling latitude, unless your focus puller is an ace (although with 16mm you already gain a stop over 35 in depth of field by virtue of the format), and better brave the lighting drops. All the same it is true that grain is an influential factor with 16mm production, which is the main reason I'd give very strong consideration to a slower stock if I knew it wouldn't pose serious difficulties - focus pulling aside. I used to always shoot my 16mm projects at NYU on 7248, I'd always push for it from the director. I would however advise staying away from doing it all on 7245, as tempting as it might be with its near Kodachrome 25 grain. Something that slow gives you little leeway in case of a problem. - G.

My reasons for introducing E-6... First of all, E-6 is a pretty well known and established color process, and the chemistry is available for small and large volume processing. Secondly, to make it an easier possibility to introduce an E-6 reversal emulsion, and help perhaps faciliate the introduction of E-6 in Super 8 which screams for the newer reversal emulsions (and to me, Super 8 has always been about the reversal look). Introducing VNF Ektachrome in Super 8 really didn't do it any good IMHO, I knew that when it was announced, having shot enough of it in 16mm. I also keep waiting for the moment when someone will make a low cost 35->8 splitter/peforator, so people can simply buy those 100' spools of 35mm still Ektachrome (or any other emulsion of their choice) and slit it for repacking into cartridges. VNF-1 and especially RVNP were designed to get the film in and out of the bath ASAP, when it was needed for the news. I don't see that being a priority any longer. If all labs ran E-6, they would charge regular VNF-1 rates for all E-6 work. Kodak just recently switched the black and white reversal process, so I can't see the switch from VNF-1/RVNP to E-6 being that much more radical. - G.

Hey, that's how much it costs to process 16mm Kodachrome :) Seriously though, I think that it would make sense to reforumlate the RVNP/VNF emulsions to fit the E-6 process and just switch over all color reversal MP to E-6. From what I recall the VNF-1/RVNP process can be made to fit the E-6 standard by altering the SpGr of the color developer by 20%. That shouldn't really be a problem for reformulating the emulsions, all you could do is thicken up one color layer. - G.

Good point, wear very good polarized sun glasses when your eye is not in the finder. I often find that when filming in mountaneous areas you end up encountering a lot of shadowy areas, and cloud cover can knock quite a few f-stops out too - depending how thick it is. Then there's also the loosing of the light which comes faster. Also, if you're doing stuff like skiing/snowboarding, the follow focus is a bit more of a bitch for some shots, and while at 12 o clock high this isn't an issue with slower stocks, as lighting conditions worsen it becomes an issue I'd be concerned with - especially w/o a decent focus puller. So a faster stock may not be such a bad idea, and I personally prefer to keep one stock as much as possible to minimize short ending, which is why I suggested the '46. You can also expose it slower than its nominal 250 asa in many cases, with the fill from the snow I'd be less worried about excessive contrast. But I would also probably lean towards the new Vision 2 100 if I had a good feeling I could swing it, because with S 16 you really gotta fight for the grain. - G.

A very common concern :unsure: Simple as possible can work just fine, it's all about cutting the corners in the right versus wrong places. There are tradeoffs and you have to know what they are. Things like lighting do take time and crew to do, and from a practical perspective of course it's nice to have scenes where lighting is not necessary. But that might not mean that it won't be anyway. When you're depending on freebies you have to be flexible, and when Mr. Sunshine is providing the freebie you gotta play by his rules. A partly cloudy day is probably the worst weather when it comes to continuity. When you want to tell the audience that shot A was taken simultaneously with shot B, and in reality you took them maybe 10 minutes, maybe 20 minutes, maybe 45 minutes apart, an awful lot of clouds can come in and out (especially if its windy), and the more time passes, the more the angle of the sun changes. That means that your coverage and takes are more limited than if you had an exterior artificial light source as a suppliment, which at least keeps the main subject itself lit consistently. Also, what happens if day 3 was shot in the sun, but you had to break the scene into the next day for whatever reason? That means you'd better hope day 4 is going to be as sunny as day 3. If day 4 is cloudy, find something that can be done with cloud cover on that day and hope day 5 is sunny. But what happens if day 5 is sunny but you can't shoot at the same time of day all of the sudden, for whatever reason, and the angle of the sun is different? You can try to cheat your way out of things like this - sometimes - with closeups using a long lens and at a low depth of field maybe (stack up on those ND's), but that's a continuity headache - better have those polaroids (or now, digital stills) ready for comparison. I've shot a lot in the daylight and these are the problems you can come up with, which I particularly see a lot of in your situation. My suggestion is to try and avoid long and large scenes outdoors, where lighting continuity would be a problem, and have those scenes take place inside. The more episodic stuff is, the easier it is to keep it all together on one page. All in all, even the big budget shoots have problems with daytime continuity, it's a tough thing to control and schedule. Remember, your largest light source is beyond your control, so you gotta play by its rules - and when it comes to wide shots you can't out-HMI the sun (unless it's not there). Just some thoughts for you, from a one time skiier.

Shooting on snow simply means more fill available all around, which of course is nice. But I'd still take a silver card with me. It's indispensable. Silver cards (shiny and matte) are the cheapest way to light anything, as long as Mr. Sunshine, a bright sky, or another light source is there, and they're vital for good fill light. Certainly cheaper and more mobile than rigging an HMI with a silk outside. If you look at the silent movie sets you'll see that they used mirrors a lot. Problem of course is that the sun moves, so the person with the fill card will have to move too. Also, you're never going to get the same control as you would with an HMI/silk setup. But the silver card has worked for me a lot of times. Most precautions about shooting in the snow are aimed at point and shoot photographers who's auto electric eye P&S cameras are fooled by the snow into underexposure. Night exteriors are tough to shoot w/o light, because street lights as a general rule don't put out much. A city would go broke if they put a 5K light on every post, nor would the population like so many footcandles at their window during the night. Day for night is only okay if you want to simulate moon light. I tend to not like day for night, but that's my personal taste. The problem is that you can't show a street light or other practical light in a day for night setup - I mean, you'd have to set up a huge light that significantly overpowers the sun. So I strongly suggest you get some 2K's as a minimum, or pair up your 1K's, and shoot at night (or at dusk, provided you move quickly to keep continuity), unless you're going for moonlight. In that case a deep blue filter without exposure compensation might do the trick. 7218 is probably a very good bet for what you want to do. You may end up pushing it in some instances, such as your night scenes (and I'd test the grain level with a Super 16 project meant for blowup, before making pushing a working option). However, if your shoot plans to be exterior in the slopes and you know you will be in the daylight I'd consider 7246 Vision 250D, it would probably cut well with the '18 while offering a bit less grain (which would brighten your finder by a stop). Maybe you're willing to go with a larger grain difference like with the more fine grain Vision 2 100 (which is 64 in daylight, but you can always pull the filter to gain that extra speed in an emergency), or take your chances with the ultra fine grain 7245 EXR 50 D (which should be good for most daytime exteriors, but watch out if it gets overcast or when the sun goes behind a mountain - it gets darker faster in the mountains, remember). - G.

I was curious if anyone knew for fact what lenses were used to lens Kubrick's Clockwork Orange? I know that there was the use of a 16mm Anginieux zoom fitted with a CP 1.6X extender for some of the shots, and an ultrawide 9mm Cooke for some of the shots, but what was the standard package? To me the glass looks and flares similarly to my Cooke Ser II and III's. Incidentally, a lot of the film was supposedly shot on a blimped Arri IIc from the production stills I've seen. I don't think any BNCR's were involved. - G.

Speaking from a director's POV, it's a bit unusual to suddenly jump from tape to film unless you are doing this for artistic effect. Assuming this is a documentary style project, where mixed media is more common, not a narrative film - If I were to see a doc where most of the footage is tape and I see a switch to film, I'll probably assume this was footage that was shot for another project but bought for the purposes of this one. Such a shift might, of course, work out really cool from an aesthetic POV - that's up to you to decide. But if most of your film is shot on tape and then you include just a bit of 16mm footage, that's not going to help make the entire film more marketable because of the brief increase in image quality. Besides, I think with documentary projects film versus tape matters considerably less. - G.