GeorgeSelinsky

I went to a pretty well known film school (NYU) and attitudes were very variable. Some kids would hire a Panavision and get some well known DP, others would go to the opposite extreme and be as cheap as Roger Corman - having no bones about it. One thing I noticed that got me to laugh was how some film students would rank on NYU's equipment. One kid shot a subway scene (as a test - he went all the way to DC to do it) and when it was obvious that he had no fill light (which his DP was planning to rent for the actual shoot) he said "Yeah, NYU's lenses man, they suck". Knowing he was shooting with Zeiss Superspeeds, I wanted to smack him. I remember how one DP came aboard a project and did a terrific job on it, using NYU's intermediate equipment package (an Arri light kit, a 1K, and an inkie). Everyone in the class was like "huh?". He just looked at them plain and smiled, and I knew he wasn't lying. The feature I'm shooting now is being shot on equipment on the level of NYU's basic intro course, Sight and Sound (save for the tripod which is meant for still photography and doesn't work well). Sure, I could have used a sync motor yesterday and a bunch of gells to shoot a flourescent interior yesterday, but it was either loose a great location and opportunity, or endure some flicker and get an interesting sequence. Some of my classmates would have called me stupid (and my cinematography teacher will smack me in the head when he sees this), but others would applaud. All I have to do now is say it was intentional ;) - G.

To add to what Bob said, say it is easier to get your film picked up by a distributor if its on 35, and that you'll probably make more on the sale. - G.

If that's your editing bench you're either shooting and cutting reversal original, or you are going to end up paying a lot of money for a print. Neither of which I suggest... As for rent versus buy: rent for continuous blocks of filming (like 1 month), buy if you're going to make it on weekends for a long time. Had a K-3. Sure, you could make a feature with it if you want to post dub all your sound (and kill your arm winding that thing up). I am post dubbing the dialog for mine. Not fun but it works for what I need.

Any of you boys want a cheap entry into 70mm, this is what I found on my last ebay scout... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...0&category=4691 Wow, 2 1/4" square format cinematography :o Probaby could get someone to modify the pulldown claw and motor to do 5 perf, and I'm sure 65mm shortends are cheap as hell - who the heck ever buys them?? :D - G.

As opposed to 16mm or video? This is one of the most debated topics on film/cinematography websites and usegroups. Searching the Google archives will reveal plenty of arguments in favor of or against. For video versus 35, check out the topic "Is the A-Minima now Dead? (Is 16mm Dead too?)" under the "16mm only" category in this forum - I outlaid my arguments for 35mm there, as did others. It's probably the most up to date discussion. The most important attitude here has to be that if you're making a movie you're going to have to spend anyway, so it's really a question of spend now or spend later. Spend now brings better results than spend later in this area, hands down. Of course, then there's the question "can you" and "will you get a return on the increased image quality" for your specific situation, as others have already suggested. - G.

I own an Eyemo, the spider turret model that accepts the 400ft mag. I have the zoom finder for it, which gives me a very small image (I modified it to a 1.85 matte with tape - that was absolute hell to accomplish). I don't frankly enjoy shooting with it, it's a chore - I'd choose my Arri IIc for handheld work in practically all instances (just today I stole a shot from a school campus exterior with my Arri - dodging campus security in the process). I only use the Eyemo out of dire necessity, like my Arriflex is in repair or something. Adding the 400ft mag and mounting a stock B&H electric motor on it to me is the kiss of death. It feels like you've mounted some big power tool on a tripod, not a camera. Before I got it I thought it would be like a Bolex, but it's got about twice the metal in it, plus it's much more clunky and hard to balance for handheld shooting. It doesn't have that smooth Swiss engineering (not to mention the nice leather cover if we're to talk aesthetics - but those things peel off anyway). I don't envy the news operators that shot with it. If I had nothing better to do with my time I'd make a plastic shell and replace the metal shell with it, so it would weigh much less. In all fairness I never tried the single port reflex variety, some of which have built in electric motors. But those babies are expensive. There's one very expensive MP camera outfit in Texas that has ritually been putting out a reflex Eyemo on ebay - for four thousand dollars as a minimal price (I called them up once and they told me they use Ebay as an advertizing space to get attention). The Eyemo was really the first handheld motion picture camera (at least that I'm aware of), and it's a wonder in a way. But it would have been a much better camera if it was designed in the sixties, by a company like Bolex or Cinema Products (I was never a fan of B&H's equipment design). Then again, it would never have made it to crash camera status in that case either - it would probably cost three times the price. That said, I think that Eyemos are overpriced for what they are. The 16mm version of that camera sells for one third if not one fourth the price, and the only difference in many cases is the film gauge. I've used Bausch and Lomb and Bell and Howell (General Scientific Corp) lenses on it. They're okay, but I like my Cooke Ser II's better (sans the flare they're prone to). Here's me with mine (for some reason it doesn't display the graphic, just cut and paste the URL) - G.

I couldn't agree more. I think as the others here have suggested, there is an important challenge to being able to adapt. In my opinion some of the most succesful DP's have been the ones who've worked in very low budget situations for an extensive period of time. I think a DP should be particularly proud if they are able to shoot with lower quality equipment and get solid results. Otherwise what are you going to do, turn around and say "We can't film, I don't have enough X, Y, Z"? On the movie I'm shooting now (my own film both as director and DP) I have situations where I know I need more, but I simply make do. Just last night I was filming a scene that had to take place outside in an alleyway, we got a nice big yellow Hummer (friend of my coproducer's) and I had to film two characters talking inside of it. I had a fifty watt tungsten work light that works off of 12V cigarette lighters, which was my key for the interior of the car (I had hung a 1K outside for my exterior key). I tried to plug the 12V light into the Hummer's cig lighter (it actually has three in a row!), and then suddenly the cigarette socket plug cracked. I had a bad situation. It was cold as hell outside and I had no crew. I had to work fast. I got my coproducer to turn his parked car around so it faced the Hummer. I cut the wire on the 12V worklight, stripped both + and -, hung it outside the window, and using jumper cables as an extension cord I got the light to work off my coproducer's car battery. To me, that cheap little 50 W light did the job, even though it was not a reliable or flexible piece of equipment. I was wide open and pushing my film one stop, but I got the shot, and I think it will look just fine. Most people in the big buiz use the best they can get because it not only can produce better results in some circumstances but because it also saves time, which is a prescious commodity. By that I mean it's not only better but usually also more reliable. When you're paying like $20,000 per shooting day, delays due to equipment faults cost a LOT more than they do on my set. But a light is a light. I have cheap open face Lowell DP lights and they do the job as fine as a more costly Mole Richardson fresnel in many cases (and they're lighter, too). A silver fill card can do a lot (esp. for exterior shoots). And I've had cases where I couldn't use certain equipment even if I wanted to. I've also had situations that seemed incorrectible but with some thought were corrected via editing. For instance, someone here mentioned lighting continuity with the sun. I had a situation where I didn't plan carefully and the sun just disappeared behind a tall building, totally screwing up the scene. Fortunately I realized that if I did a dissolve and changed location I could continue the scene elsewhere and establish a new space. It worked in that given situation. Of course, there are situations where you simply have to put your foot down and say "Sorry, this is going to suck. I am wasting film and time". If I am underexposing 3 stops and there is no way to bring more light, I am not going to get an image worth the time and money - period. Time to move on to another location. I think the best conclusion one can ultimately make here is that "it's not the wand, it's the magician". Sure, you can't be expected to part ocean waters (i.e. shoot an unlit chase scene at night in a suburban town with 50 ASA film), but you can get not only good but very beautiful images with very, very little. Sometimes even nothing other than a camera, a lens, your subject, and whatever Mr. Sunshine provides.

There was a discussion about this in the 2003 forum, if I'm right. Maybe the 2002 if I'm mistaken on the first one. The Konvas is the cheapest reflex 35mm camera out there, the only thing cheaper than that is the clunky Eyemo, which is non reflex (save for the few reflex conversions out there, which put the camera at an above $1000 range). There are several Konvasses out there. The 2M is considered the more flexible one I think. You're limited to the glass available to the Konvas's mount (or mounts). I have filmed with a Konvas once this summer, it was a nice camera. I wish I had more time to play with it. I hear the mags are a bitch to load (someone did this for me). There are a lot of anamorphic lenses and accessories for it, don't know what quality it is. I think follow focus attachments may exist as well, but I haven't seen any with it thusfar. - G.

Mitch kindly advised me on this matter last year. I heard there is a Cine 60 blimp that's supposed to be much better and newer, and I once saw it on Ebay. Was tempted to bid on it but the blimp was in half disassembled shape. The owner even claimed you could handhold it in that blimp. I am shooting a feature film on an Arri IIc right now, but MOS. I am post syncing all my dialog. The IIc is a good camera, does the job for me. - G.

Me personally, Arri SR I, II, etc. That to me is the most totally awesome 16/S16 camera in existance. If I had to choose and shoot with only one 16mm camera for the rest of my life, the SR would be it. - G.

That's actually very nice John, that Super 8 site of Kodak's has gotten better. I still maintain the points I made in my last post and I hope that the people at EKC will take that into consideration. As for me, I have my regular theses about the necessities for a solid Super 8 revival. They probably will require third party innovation to succeed though: 1) A perforator/slitter that will cut bulk rolls of 35mm stock into Super 8 size, which can be hand or motor operated by enthusiasts, coupled with an easy to reload cartridge. I could cut up any Kodak color negative stock, any still stock, it would open a new world of opportunities. 2) A good Super 8 home processing tank (better than that plastic Lomo junk that buckles film), along with a decent little home small batch processing manual (remember H-7?). I'm sick of sending out my film to goodness knows were to get it processed, and overpaying to top it off (esp. in the case of B&W). The PK-59 mailers only handle Kodachrome 40, and unless I have a film that takes place in all daylight, I wouldn't be using much of that, nor would most other people. 3) More home telecine devices like "the Workprinter". I keep waiting for someone to rip the CCD's from a flatbed scanner and use them in conjunction with a continuous film movement. The flatbed scanners of today have some pretty good CCD's. I can then use Vision 200 without booking telecine time (and nobody does contact prints in Super 8, and if they did, I can imagine it would be expensive). If I had time on my hands and money I'd set up my own company and do this. - G.

The point here from a marketing perspective is to illustrate that even on very low budgets one can shoot film and do a good enough job. I understand the desire for industry level accreditation, it certainly helps push the sell, but I think that even if a film shot on Super 8 is self distributed (I think that's what the filmmaker who made his film here did), that in itself is an interesting story. The DV format wasn't winning awards at festivals when articles appeared about its use in feature film production. That helped make the buzz, I believe, in the format's adoption by more and more people, and eventually there were award winners. I like the Super 8 format, even though I personally have no designs on shooting a feature with it right now, I think it could use a bit more of a boost by showing how people can achieve something interesting with it, doing a lot with a little. If the format gets more attention that way, it will encourage others to try more - and before you know it, you will get some award winners. Showing a bit of the micro-budget world is interesting, and I think the point here is not free publicity (I mean, I doubt someone will get distribution thanks to an article in a Kodak magazine - a critical review is much more important), but encouragement. Just my two c's. - G.

There was someone else who actually made a film and distributed it here from last year or the year before, I even saw posted stills from it. He shot on K-40 and would talk about his experiences with S8 sound. - G.

Hi Mitch, Thanks for the advice as always... I blackened the gate as best I could with a sharpie (it was pretty blackened already, just one corner right by the ground glass was a bit unblackened). I did another test, I opened the shutter (with the lenses all in the port) and I can still see something through the viewfinder, a reflection that comes from viewfinder right and tapers off to the left (there is quite a reflection off the two most right of the four bars). Is this normal? As I pan the camera with the shutter closed towards my window I can see this reflection (which looks like an image) move. This seems to me quite abnormal. Any insight as to what this could be? Also, this reflection is greater when the camera has a 50mm lens than a 25mm. Thanks again for being so helpful, - G.

I was wondering, who was it that did a feature in Super 8 on this forum? I was just curious 1) how are you doing right now, and 2) was there a webpage you had up for your movie? Also, I don't know if Kodak does this but it would be nice to profile filmmakers who make feature movies in Super 8. Although I haven't completely searched Kodak's archives to make an informed opinion, I haven't really seen any guerilla productions highlighted in their publications - yet I really would think that's a good idea. I understand they may not be thrilled about promoting the use of short ends, for example, and the cinematography in some of the films may not be top notch (I am not referring to the Super 8 filmmaker I speak of above, btw), but it is really in my opinion excellent "shoot film" propaganda. Thanks, - G.

I remember some poor individual purchased a Cineflex magazine and could not get it to work with his Arriflex. Here is an ebay auction for a Cineflex mag that has been adapted to the Arri's, it has a description of how this was done: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...p;category=4691 (note, I am not endorsing this auction)

Contrasty, finer grained than the Ektachrome films (at least the pre-Tgrain ones), and a natural to slighly saturated color reproduction. If we're to compare it with the current lower con Vision look, it would be more saturated. It had its own color pallete which looks different from Ektachrome and color negative. Lots of home movies were shot in Kodachrome, 16mm (usually the fifty ft mag cameras) and Super 8/Regular 8. Kodachrome is also more archivally stable than Ektachrome. The film does not have dye couplers - the dyes are added in the processing chemistry, which makes it a very involved process (therefore it's difficult to get the film developed, fewer places have a Kodachrome rig). For many years Kodachrome was not a 'professional film' (at least for still photography), so it required testing by the batch to look for color shifts. You'd shoot a grey card and then pop in different CC filters until it looked neutral to your eye. Kodak only recently added its cine Kodachrome films to its professional catalog. When I once saw a student at NYU with a roll of 16mm K-40 I was like "They still make that?" - I never knew it still existed because it wasn't in their professional MP product brochures, while the Ektachromes were. We actually wanted to shoot a test but at the time Qualex wanted like $40 to develop 100 ft. That precluded that.

I don't know if Kodak still makes their Type A K40 for still 35mm photography. I remember they used to. Speaking of still photography, the absence of K25 does suck - although I must confess I'd hardly find a practical application for it these days. I always did want to shoot a comparison test of K-25 in 16mm against 7245 and check the grain (including overexposing 7245 a stop, maybe even pulling it). - G.

If it wasn't for short ends, I would not be shooting in 35mm at its catalog price of around $0.60 a foot.

There are two approaches we are taking here, 1) Theoretical, as far as filmmakers en masse are concerned, and 2) Practical, as it applies to you specifically. I think the second question is much more important than the first, because it really always comes down to that. Theory is fun to debate, but it's not as important in the greater scheme of things. If your tests are satisfactory to you, by all means that's enough of a green light for you continue exploring this option, and weigh all factors that we've outlied here carefully. A feature film is, of course, a serious undertaking, unlike a short, and you can't change horses midstream really. Once you make a choice you pretty much have to stick with it. I myself and others here have given you enough warnings about the negative aspects you will encounter. They relate to both functionality and the business end of film - not just the aesthetic end of things, which is pretty easy to argue. Our job as DP's extends to producing good, useable images. The job of a director and producer is to settle on what is "good enough", especially in situations where you are limited (which is the case on a low budget, first time film). Sometimes people like me don't have the time or resources to make something look as nice as it could look - the idea is you do the best you can in the given situation, so long as the final result will "work". What "works" of course, is up to you and the director to determine, through testing and experience. That is the angle that I'm taking it from. If given your production circumstances, your story, and your aspirations for a certain end result, the choice of digital video will satisfy you, you should by all means accept it and hope that the audience (as well as the business end of production) agrees in retrospect that you "chose wisely" - to quote the guardian of the grail... - G.

I have once again come upon the temptation of renting a 35mm sync camera for a complicated shoot. I really just need the bare bones minimum for one day, an Arri BL 1 with a reasonably fast f2 lens and sticks will do the trick. I could even use my Cookes on it, so I don't have to rent the glass too. My Arri IIc would be there as a backup or even a B-unit camera, as we have a lot of extras to film. This is for this coming Sunday in NYC. I have no insurance, and am on a killerly small hat in hand budget. I don't think any of the rental houses will be able to help us - they all carry BL-3's and nothing less than that, I guess it doesn't make any money for them to carry the older stuff. Back when I was in film school I remember there were places that could do deals with students, individual camera owners that would lease out their gear, but this was 16mm, and as they say in Russian "that was long ago and not true anyway". Does anyone have any connections for the tristate area? Thanks in advance for any assistance. - G.

From Dwaynes... "In Lab Service Time: One Week Cost: $25.00 per 100ft roll" Owch. That's almost twice the price per foot for negative 16mm processing, and you can't get short ends in Kodachrome in 16mm. Ah, good old Kodachrome. Nostalgia. I kept wondering what would happen if I discovered a dumped box of 1500 100 ft spools of reasonably fresh Kodachrome 25 with processing included what would I do? Would I damn the torpedoes, grab my Bolex, get a fast set of c-mount lenses, test them for color shifts and glue on compensation filter gels, write a story and schedule a shoot on every sunny day in the daze of a New York summer? Why not, dammit... - G.

Hello folks, I have a problem. My Arriflex IIc (with Cooke Speed Panchro II and III lenses) had a shutter flare problem that was very clear on longer lenses, especially at more open apertures. I get a wavering flare on my video transfer that seems to come from nowhere. It tends to happen near light sources and open sky, but sometimes it has no logic, just comes from a certain part of the frame. I sent my camera to Visual Products and they supposedly painted up my shutter edges. It wasn't a perfect paint job when I examined it, I had to retouch the camera myself with a sharpie. Is there any other potential source of this problem? I do keep my eye in the finder, but maybe I don't keep it firmly in enough? I really have no clue, is there a possible light leak from the viewfinder or camera door? The film doesn't seem fogged at all. I can't really see this on the negative as it's a very fine wavering to and fro. Is there a chance that this flicker flare is being exaggerated by the 2:3 pulldown, and that it might not be as bad on a print? I have quite a few shots that are pas acceptable as far as I'm concerned, some other shots I will have to live with, I'm afraid. Thanks for any help in advance as always! - George.

As Tim said, this man has spent a lot of effort making beautiful images. But you can light the hell out of video and make it look as good as possible, but it will always 1) require more work, 2) never have the same range or resolution, esp. on a large screen, 3) will still have to be output to film at high cost, 4) still carry the stigma associated with the format of origination. That won't change, unless you point a machine gun at the film festival programmers and aquisition executives - they'll swear that VHS-C in EP mode has more resolution than Imax in that case :ph34r: I mean, that screen is awesome for closeups and medium shots, but you have to rig it, make room for it, have two stands for it. Not something I'd bother with. And I'm sure at a certain angle you get glare off of it. And yes, it's probably not free either. If you have the time and resources (not to mention expeirence which also helps) to do such a job, by all means godspeed to you. Just to top it off, that girl isn't as sexy as my leading actress, just my opinion <_<

An example of a setup shot with a DV camera... and the same setup shot on film (off Kodak Gold 400 still film, scanned on a flatbed from a Kodak print) same lighting.