GeorgeSelinsky

I concur with Mitch 100%. I think that this forum was always great because it was a controlled and comfy environment that was unlike the Usenet, which is anarchy land and has some real lunatics posting. Anyone who's heard of Eric James Neimi ("EJN", who has annoyed people so much that they began writing rather gruesome stories about him on misc.writing.screenplays ) or Matrixx Entertainment knows what I'm talking about, not to mention the countless trolls and poor Robert Morein who keeps getting his posts forged under his and his deceased mother's name by some lifeless immature moron with a permanent axe to grind. I must say however that the Usenet is also a very valuable resource as well - I often search Google groups together with this forum's archives. I enjoy it when people like John Pytlak come by, and wish others came along as well, i.e. camera manufacterer reps and lab reps. It really rounds out the forum and puts a human face on the companies we depend on for products and services. - G.

I found this article that talks about wire work, but this seems to be written by someone getting started in the business. I naturally don't advise anyone to try what is in this link, presented for info purposes only... - G.

I was wondering where can I learn more about wire work? I want to educate myself on how these stunts are done so if I get the right people to do it I know what to anticipate, as well as how to handle the digital end of it. I also was interested if anyone had any suggestions for wire stunt people in NY? I am a non union shoot, and I have no production insurance, does that pose a problem? Thanks in advance, - G.

I am personally disappointed how many in the still photography world have switched to originating in digital (and I'm not talking snapshooters here, who can use whatever they want). It's really strange because film is so much cheaper to shoot for still work than for movie. I have played with several expensive digital cameras and although the quality is impressive, I still think that my Nikon loaded with film rules. But for most commercial purposes "nobody knows the difference". That is what will eventually get people to switch to digital for MP work too, it's already happening. - G.

<!--QuoteBegin-Rob Belics+Feb 24 2004, 07:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rob Belics @ Feb 24 2004, 07:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Along those same lines, I'd like to know why everyone seems to use 500. Is it because of the new Vision2 and light reducing capabilities (being 500 and good stock)? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm using the Vision 500 (5279). I used the 320 T in 16mm and found it too grainy for my taste. The lowered contrast sort of brings it out more. That's okay for 35mm perhaps. As Dave said, using 500 lets you use less light. I push my film almost regularly. I have a tiny lighting package and I like to be able to augment my light with natural room light sometimes, so I really benefit from every stop of speed I can get. It's amusing when the amateurs who are on my set wonder why I need "so much light" :angry: John Seale told us once at a workshop that he uses 500 asa everywhere. I was a bit surprised at first, because my teacher used to insist upon using 48 everywhere you could (and I started doing that myself, along with 45). But I discovered that the Vision stock was less grainy than the 5298 that was around then, and I was also used to using 16mm so the grain was a greater issue than with 35. I haven't regretted shooting it ever since. I like it and I think that unless someone threw me a whole stash of ends of a slower stock for free, I will continue using 79. I've also shot some 18 and it's very nice. The color is a bit different and grain a tad finer. The contrast is also a bit lower. - G.

There is definitely something to be said about the difficulty of recalling a performance. My more professional actors have complained about that, and I understand them. But with the right amount of work we're able to get it all back. You just have to get into it again, which takes some time and repetition. I also think one of the mistakes that I started with was having them dub dailies versus a cut scene. Cut scenes have more flow to them, they play better so the actor can play better (although looser cuts are important so they can see the beginning of a word). When just dubbing dailies its all too easy to forget what the scene is about and where it's going. I know that some sound recordists are excellent and real miracle makers, but there's usually a compromise somewhere when you need to deal with noise. I don't think even the best recordist could have gotten useable sound in many of our cases. I think one of the nicest things about shooting MOS is the ability to use any camera you want. You could film with a DeVry Lunchbox if you were crazy enough to (the thought has crossed my mind, as a half serious joke...) Richard Lester did use a Mitchell too for AHDN, but an MOS one - from the pictures I saw. I think it was a Mark II. He did shoot a lot of sync too, and that was done with the blimped Arri I believe. The MOS scenes in the train were all done with the Arri II, using a flat base motor. He had to have the big mag dubbers (which he used for reference) in the next car of the train! - G.

The film I am doing would have entailed major delays if we had been shooting sync, I would say at least three quarters of the time. I remember once we only got a location when a band was rehearsing right next to us. There were other cases where people were walking in and out, where cleaning crews would be working, where bars and restaurants were open for business and playing their music on the speakers, where cars were honking during rush hour (hope they weren't disgruntled teamsters <_< - "Hey guys, we have no truck, just a Volkswagen and Toyota!"), the elevated subway rushing over, etc. All of this is impractical if you need sync - so we'd either have to live with bad sound or get different locations. We also had cases where actors forgot their lines or needed live direction. Sync would have made it much tougher to correct these problems. Then there's the issue of "how about adding a critical line of dialog here". It's impossible to match ADR dialog and sync dialog, it's like trying to match a shot using a different lens. I think a lot of people's experience watching MOS films comes from badly dubbed Kung Fu films, badly dubbed Italian movies (Fellini really didn't care so much about perfect sync, he had Anthony Quinn recite the alphabet or prayers when he played Zampano in La Strada), or worst of all, badly dubbed student films. Richard Lester's films feature some excellent ADR work (Hard Day's Night, Forum, etc), and this is without the benefit of computers. - G.

I am very skeptical about any noise cancellation technology. That might pass if you tried to blimp the camera somehow and keep a long piece of glass on it, with the mic just above the frameline, and filming in an outdoor environment, but not in most circumstances. I've tried NR on my tracks just for fun, and you can certainly minimize camera chatter but it's always going to be around somewhere, and the dialog will always be colored because of that. Camera noise is a complicated beast, you have to hit several frequencies and finding them is not easy. Then there's also the issue of fluctuating camera speed, which is an issue with variable speed motors. In silent situations 22 fps and 26 fps can pass for 24 fps. When you start matching your "sync" audio to that, that's when everyone knows you're running off speed! The only MOS camera that you could sort of dampen the noise from was the Eyemo's grunty spring motor, who's noise is easier to mask than the spring on a Bolex (with its high pitched wine). But attach a motor on the Eyemo and it sounds like a dentist's drill going off while a Tommy gun is chattering in the midst! I've shot with a Konvas before and man, that thing was louder than my IIc. It sounded like a sewing machine. I don't know if the guy maintained it well. Speaking of the Konvas, I could have easily shot this feature with the Konvas - thusfar I haven't had any need for anything that the Arri II could and the Konvas could not do (save for the 1:85 ground glass that my Arri came with). I was just too scared to buy the Konvas because I didn't know what the hell I'd do if it broke. I also figured that I might be able to buy various accessories later for the Arri more easily. Could have saved two or three thousand bucks and had a sync motor to top it off! But those Konvas mags are a bitch to load I hear. When I get out of the hole for this movie I might just grab a Konvas for fun - cheap way to learn anamorphic. Funny idea - do a webpage called "Cine camera noises", with sound samples. The CP-16's breaking noise has to make it in there - "Aiiigghhtt"! - G.

So like $10,000 a year? What is your day job to pay for all of this? Or is it someone else's money too? The money is a combination of my personal savings from past work, my occasional freelance gigs, and contributions from other members of our team, particularly my co-producer. Yes, I live at home with my parents during this interim and I'm not ashamed of that - I'm 27 :) Who did you say was doing your lab and telecine work? What are the transfers to? Beta-SP? Lab Link is doing the negative, Audio Plus Video is currently doing my film to tape. We transfer to mini DV. So are you cutting all the sound on Premiere? Picture and sound. I may do the mix using another program. At what point do you deal with the conversion of speed I am considering transferring the mixed audio to DAT with a direct digital transfer, running the DAT at 29.97 FPS while recording, then playing it back at 30 FPS timecode for the transfer to optical. Then do you make a low-con print and transfer for home video deliverables? I pray we'll raise enough money for a proper interpositive/internegative. The funds are going to be raised from investors for completion. - G.

We started a more or less regular pattern of photography at the end of August, 2001. I did two scenes earlier, one in May with my Eyemo, one in July on Hi8. We had a few breaks in the middle for various reasons. We are spending the money as it comes in, and through credit cards. The final tab is still hard to determine as the books are not yet complete. A shade under 30 thousand for photography (camera included) seems about right, plus post (most of which is going to be done by myself on my home setup, save for the music), and then comes matching, and printing picture and sound, and supervised transfers... Right now we have four more weeks of principal photography (by weeks I mean weeknights), and then it's pickups, sfx. I'm sure when the answer print comes round there will also be a few redo's. Here is my actress in my home "studio" looping her lines. Notice the curved hanger with stocking stretched over - that's my way of saving $50 on a pop filter B) I loop the picture in Premiere on the timeline. The condenser mic goes through a tube phantom power preamp and into the Soundblaster Live card.

When I pick up footage of crowds its usually at a pretty loud location. Nobody knew I was filming them the other night as long as they never saw me, it was really terrific in that regard. An advantage of having a loud camera is that people do know when you're rolling, you don't even have to tell them, it sort of automatically puts them into an acting mood. Anyway, that's my experience with it. - G.

and probably at a considerable markup. In video it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Adopt early and you're out a lot of money and stuck with potential problems that haven't yet reared their head thanks to rigorous field testing. If you go for the discontinued or out of date bargains, you get a good deal but your gear isn't going to be as competitive with the latest stuff. This is particularly a problem with a technology that changes as rapidly as it does. - G.

I never did get mine modded, it was an out of the box camera. I bought mine in Russia when the currency exchange was very efficient, back in the soviet days still. I paid $50 for the whole thing new. Then I took it apart like an idiot and never could reassemble it again. - G.

You must be referring to the Krasnogorsk 3, or the K-3 as it is so called. That's a 16mm camera (the Konvas is 35). I never enjoyed mine too much, I shot a bit with it and got some decent footage, but 1) the spring was very hard to wind, 2) the lens wasn't good, and 3) the camera jammed (I didn't have mine modified yet). Fun for experimentation and filmmaking 101, that's about it. - G.

When I went through a 700 dollar repair on my II (which I had purchased a year earlier), which was a result of a bad gate and dead tach, I only imagined how unfortunate it would be if I had a BL and that mag went bad on me somewhere. Just getting the parts would probably be quite an issue (unless it shares the BL3 and 4 parts, which must be quite costly as well). A day before yesterday I was maintaining my II mag and saw how relatively simple the mechanism was (my father was shocked when I told him that this magazine lists for one thousand dollars in most camera houses). I said "thank God, less things to go wrong". When you invest large sums of personal cash into equipment you really do have to factor in things like reliability and maintanance - camera techs are certainly not cheap labor (makes me wonder sometimes if I'm on the correct side of the business!). If I was renting, I'd let the rental house and insurance company worry about the problem - although if I went on some hard to reach distant location, I would certainly put a II on the pick sheet, just as a backup, even if I had a Panavision with me. I think one of the issues here was that we were simply talking about two different production enviroments and situations. Each situation has a more optimal method and tool to do the job. Like I said before, I don't feel it right to apply it to every situation. On another note, I do think that motion picture equipment is ridiculously expensive. I know that it's not stamped out on mass production machines, and each camera these days is personally given a full body massage before leaving the factory, but the fact that stock Eyemos are retailing for $1000, while their 16mm Filmo brothers (practically identical in all respects save for film gauge) usually go for under $200, says a lot about "whatever the market will bear".

Well, it seems that you are jumping to conclusions a bit too fast, and then commenting on those conclusions as if they were in fact statements of mine. The way I like to work is fast and mobile (by that I don't mean handheld camera all the time). Being that I am in a position where I have to make the most with the least money, and sometimes shoot in a verite environment (just the other day I was stealing crowd shots - most people thought I was "taping" the event), neither expensive cameras, nor sync sound suit this method of work. Neither do heavy cameras, which was the norm for sync shooting and which is still within a budget I could have tried to push for. I grew up when video was starting to enter the marketplace, and while I shot more Super 8 in the beginning than tape, I'm used to having a mobile camera - even if it sits on a tripod for the whole shoot. I haven't used the Moviecam you describe, nor could I afford to. Nor could anyone who shoots a low budget picture on a long schedule like I am. My personal wish? For there to be a way of shooting 35mm quality images on a small camera, that is within prosumer video range pricewise. This is nearly possible to do in 16mm now, especially with cameras like the Aaton Minima (it's 20,000 loaded). But it's not possible to really do that in 35mm. The Arri II is the closest I can get to that. On another subject I've shot sync before and I think that shooting MOS, while having disadvantages, can make sense and can produce more interesting results sometimes as I've discovered. It's a different way of working, and in my opinion its as legitimate of a choice as shooting sync. It's just that in America we're used to shooting sync, that's a given in most projects. To me, post looping dialog has the same motivations as shooting something in a studio versus on location, in other words in a place where you can have more control. There is a technique to looping, of course, which needs to be mastered, and it does take more time (which from a $$$ perspective, esp. when working with expensive talent, can be inefficient). But getting good sound and getting good picture are two separate disciplines, both of which demand good operators and both of which can sometimes be at cross purposes with each other. Combine that with the hectic environment of a shoot, and you have more issues that need to be dealt with. It's great that there has been a succesful marriage of these departments but its not a flawless thing, and it had its reprocussions on things like cameras for quite a long period in movie history (from the 1930's to the 1970's). - G.

Damn, one of my first lenses for still photography was a Minolta 28-70! It cost me a little over one or two hundred bucks if I recall. I even used it on my Bolex with the C-mount adaptor, although I was limited to closeup work with it. Too bad you can't attach these lenses to an Arri mount with an adaptor (unless, as with my Bolex, you're willing to put up with a limited focus range). Would save me thirteen grand :huh: - G.

If we're talking about shooting a sync sound film, which I'm not, then that would certainly apply. David, with all due respect to your experience and helpfulness, you have been putting words into my mouth in this thread and it's a bit annoying to have to defend myself from things I never argued in favor of. I mean, what's next, are you going to suggest that I think that the Arri IIc should be the only camera ever used for feature film production, and that shooting sync is for idiots? Come on now... Nobody's grasping at straws here at all. If I got a BL for free, versus having to pay for a IIc, I would obviously use the BL. If both were the same price (and in the same condition) I'd probably opt for the BL in case I had to do a sync project in the future, or use some accessory that wasn't available for the IIc. But this situation is unlikely to ever happen. Your experience with BL's is probably, I'm assuming, from cameras that are well maintained by rental houses. I seriously doubt that the 8 thousand dollar BL's Mitch was talking about are in the same shape as the ones you regularly shoot with (and they're certainly older). It's also certainly true, given equal workmanship and parts quality, anything with a more complicated mechanism is usually more likely prone to fail. It's fine with me if you like to work a certain way, I'm certainly not saying that what I am doing should be forced on other people, or that whoever deviates from what I'm doing is being foolish, etc. All I'm saying is that it is a doable option. Please feel free to refer back to my previous posts and show me where I'm saying otherwise... - G.

I never said anything about being a "better" filmmaker, it seems more than one person is misunderstanding me here. All I said was that a bigger camera affects style. If you have the personel and time, camera size/mass makes less of a difference. One of the reasons I like the Arri II is because it reminds me of the Nizo S40 that I started shooting film with. But I'll admit that my favorite camera to handhold was my Bolex (that over under grip is the best). I once held a BL on my shoulders, back in filmschool when we took a trip to a rental house. Sure I'd love to have one, but it's not one of those "gotta have" things as far as I'm concerned. The difference between an Arri BL and a II isn't as drastic I think as that between an Eyemo and a Panaflex (or even an Eyemo and a II, which was drastic enough for me to scrape together the money to buy a II). Yes, I've had situations where a larger orientable finder would have helped. But for five or ten thousand dollars, I'll gladly look through the finder sideways or upside down (which I have done) and do my best to judge the composition. Also, if I recall Mitch, you told me that the BL's mag has more moving parts than the entire Arri II with mag included. That means more things can go wrong. Not something I'd like to have happen to me, nor could afford to deal with at this stage of the game. If someone else is paying for it, I certainly will opt for the best they can reasonably afford, and if the thing breaks down the rental house/insurance is going to answer for it anyway. For most working DP's this is the situation, and that's fine. I never said anywhere that you should be shooting your 35mm projects on a II. But so many features, some of them using pretty daring visual techniques, were shot using the Arri II. A Hard Day's Night is one of them. No need for orientable finders, video taps, 100 fps, or anything like that. A significant portion of the film was post dubbed, might I add. - G.

Never did I say that one should sacrifice image quality for the sake of mobility, just where in my post(s) are you reading this? All I said is that camera size influences style, and perhaps I should have underlined that this is of particular importance to low/no budget filmmakers like myself. I also never made any argument for shooting a James Bond pic in a French New Wave style, don't know where you're reading that either... I'm not embarassed to admit that I haven't shot a lot with 35mm cameras. But it's a fact that until the BL came out, everyone used a BNC/R for sync shooting (or an Arri in a 120S blimp), and unless you're as big as the current governor of California, that no doubt influenced the way films were made. I don't see how it couldn't have. I am also not making an argument for looping, although what concerns performance looping actually opens more options sometimes - in my experience. To me there's hardly anything that appears more wasteful than when extra film is burned because of "bad sound". Besides, the entire Russian film industry has continually operated this way, a vast majority of their films are shot MOS (and looped in seven to ten days in most cases). The original performances are all captured in audio and used as a reference in dubbing. It's nice when you can afford to have a portable Aaton or Moviecam whenever you want it, but that's not entirely realistic. It's nice to have a crew that watches after your six figure priced gear but that doesn't always happen. The Arri II is a terrific camera, and one of the best innovations ever. It certainly has its limitations, as do all cameras, but it's a durable little mother which is quite ubiquitous and doesn't have the price tag that most other cameras have. Perhaps this is the photographer me talking who is used to owning their own equipment and being able to walk out at a given moment of inspiration and shoot, but that's the way I like to work. People who invest into their own XL-1's have the same privilege - orientable finder included at a nice price of under 4K. Nobody has the power to do that with a lightweight sync Aaton, which lists at over 65,000 dollars used. For that money I can shoot an entire 35mm feature. In warfare the most durable and popular rifle has been the AK-47, which is cheaper to make than the M-16, and is nearly as accurate and is considerably more durable. I know because I've shot both extensively. The same philosophy applies to cameras, in my view. Simple, inexpensive, but reliable. - G.

I think one category outside of convenience is style. Shooting with a huge camera doesn't invite the same kind of shooting sometimes as a smaller camera. The French New Wave would never have worked with those huge Mitchells. I frankly hate sync sound, because of that we have these hugeass blimped cameras. Obviously they've gotten smaller (and for 16mm, cameras like the SR are a pleasure to use), but the introduction of sync really majorly affected the visual style of movies. Naturally with a budget you have a crew and equipment to handle the issues of bigger cameras, but I hate the idea of moving a beast around to get a shot. I just laugh when I see Sean Connery being filmed for a James Bond film in the water, and I see this hugeass BNCR on a wooden raft on the water with two AC's. I always wonder btw, who was it that would move such a heavy camera, the grips or would the poor AC's have to drag that mother around and set it up? I can't help but think that there were moments that such a big camera slowed down certain shots, made directors cut or modify their shot lists, encouraged putting on a longer lens to do a CU instead of moving in, etc. Maybe I'm just spoiled as a still photographer or doc person. I do have to say though that I wanted to have a BNCR on the set one day just to get a picture with it and say I shot with it - those cameras do look awesome. - G.

Well, I can't say I shot thousands of feet of film in film school, since our alotments were small. We did have a cinematography class where we did quite a bit of shooting, at first on Plus X and then 7248 and some other stocks. We got to use studio lighting gear. We mostly shot on the Arri S. That was THE most fun class I ever took at NYU, I got up enthusiastically every morning early (not something I like to do) and couldn't wait to get started and shoot footage, watch rushes... But today I find that I can't experiment much. I can't afford film dailies so if I try something I won't really know what it will look like until I see my answer print. Video is obviously not very reliable for previewing final results. Sometimes I almost feel that I'm doing a documentary, I have enough cases where I can't control things as much as I'd like to, and just have to let some things go. But everytime I do let something go, I'm aware of that, and I understand the consequences and can then think whether or not they're acceptable. I think that's a very critical thing. - G.

Tonight I'm going to a Russian dinner dance function with my Arri, loaded with (hopefully) Vision 2 500 asa stock (to be pushed 1 stop), a Lowell V light, and a light stand, to steal some footage of Russian dancers and do a quick scene. Wish me luck <_< The thing about some film students is that they think the equipment the craftsman makes - which is not true. In most cases the students can't even take advantage of the features available on the latest and most expensive equipment, the results they achieve on it can usually be matched if not bettered by more primitive gear easily. What's the point of an HMI light if you don't know how to aim it and how far to place it, for example? What's the point of a t 1.4 lens if you can't focus correctly at an f5.6? Etc... - G.

I do confess that I'd love to have one of those old B&W tube cameras where the flare would turn the video black. I always thought that looked cool, reminded me of all the mid/late sixties live TV footage of rock bands. I wonder if there's any way to do that digitally now... - G.

We had pretty much the same. The basic 101 course which was MOS was an Arri S with Schneider primes, wild or constant speed motor (some kids tried to shoot sync with it, then sat at the flatbed splicing and dicing the mag stock to get it to match), and an Arri light kit. I opted instead to use my non reflex Bolex with its 25mm Switar and 12.5 mm Yvar (the latter was a coke bottle compared to the Zeiss, but it did the job), not wanting to bother with equipment check out and worrying about deadlines. But I also did stupid things like not use a tripod half the time (smack, smack...) Intermediate production ("color sync") got to use a CP-16R with an Angenieux 12-120. You got an inkie and a 1K mole plus the Arri kit. The advanced production class got to use SR's with the Zeiss Superspeed primes (you either got those or the T-2 zoom). You got a few more 1K's and I think you could also request a 2K and even a 5K (no gennie though). Right now I'm shooting with a IIc w/Cooke Ser II glass and a variable speed motor. It's good because I can slow the camera down when I need to (no light situations or stunts), and it's easier to handhold in a pinch with that motor stalk (versus the CS motor's flat base) which I am forced to do sometimes. I have 2 DP lights and 1 V light. My inkie disappeared :( I also got a bunch of 1K garage worklights for one scene - they're actually pretty neat. This for all intents and purposes is the same as the package we used at NYU's intro course, except its a 35mm rig. I really am also not an equipment whore. I naturally marvel at the latest cameras, they're totally awesome and I'd love nothing more than to have it all sitting under my bed, ready to use at a moment's notice. I also sure as hell wish I had a follow focus knob on my camera, and it still baffles me as to why this feature costs like $1500 as a minimum. Some of the more expensive features like that actually make more sense when you're operating on virtually zero crew. But I personally like to keep things as simple as possible, my philosophy is why spend when you can get virtually the same for less? I'm very charmed by older equipment, it's awesome to use a 40 year old camera and see that you can get such good results from it to this very day that rivals all the latest electronic gadgetry. The same is not true for video - I never saw a videographer get misty eyed over a tube camera and a "portable" U-matic rig :lol: It is true that in filmschools there are people who have dollars and they go absolutely crazy on getting the best gear. You're right, they usually aren't the DP's, but I've also seen DP students that go totally nuts and who's pick sheets are outright embarrasing for their level of experience. I remember one idiot got a spot meter and he didn't know how to set the ASA. He was shooting on 7248 and he set the light meter for 1600 asa. What an idiot, he didn't realize something was wrong when he was stopping down to an f-16 with nothing more than a few 1K's in a large loft. These guys always call every piece of equipment in film school "poop". When I saw an Arri S for NYU's intro course, I was like "Wow, this rocks! I used to pray that I could own this camera - I was shooting on a non-reflex Bolex all this time". I was equally impressed that we'd get to edit on a Steenbeck, which was another thing I'd look at in the catalogs and say "yeah, one of those would be neat...but I'll have to settle for a Moviola". Needless to say I was totally blown over by the lighting kits they had in the soundstage, which were basically old Mole richardson lights. - G.