Jonathan Benny

Muybridge was most definitely a photographer (ie: more than a passing interest) - in particular landscapes. The bet was made between two other gentlement and Muybridge was brought in to settle it. Here is some info on Muybridge if you are interested: http://www.acmi.net.au/AIC/MUYBRIDGE_BIO.html AJB

Muybridge is the name. Are you sure it was the photographer (Muybridge) who was actually in the bet? I believe he was brought in just to prove it for a bet between two others. AJB

Indeed. This came up as a result of discovering on another thread that the "matrix" effect ("timeslice", "flo-mo" etc.) has been patented. That the actual RESULT of the technique has been patented. AJB

should shots, angles, manipulations of camers/film/video/filters, etc. be protected in a legal sense? And I'm talking about the actual result of techniques, not the techniques themselves. Can we, as directors and cinematographers lay legal claim to individual shots that we feel no one else has accomplished or invented yet? I can see patenting a specific process using specific equipment - but the result of such a process? AJB

These were done by Tim Macmillan in the early 80s. cube.mov jump.mov AJB

Here is an interesting timeline on the development of one such system: http://www.timeslicefilms.com/chronology_f.html Be sure to click on the "complete" link under the timeline to see the full story from beginning to end. Those early art-school experiments are quite fascinating. AJB

I found the sterile fashion in which the killings were portrayed to be appropriate to the story and the character. In fact, I felt that the vacancy of any weight behind the killer's actions was exactly what made the film's approach to the killings unique and more importantly, believable. In my opinion, had Fincher treated those scenes and the killer's character with anything other than a sterile approach, it would have caused the moments and the film to become nothing special and probably overcooked. The look of the film was also entirely appropriate, in my opinion. The look itself was somewhat sterile and was very difficult to grab a hold of. Right from the top, after the helicopter shot, when Fincher takes the camera across the houses in a neighborhood, I felt a certain uneasiness as a result of an image quality that was not predictably sharp (even if this was a result of the inevitable shortcomings of shooting digital). Even with the slightly lengthy final lap, I thought it was one of the best films about the subject matter of serial killers/investigations in years. AJB

I've seen many cinematography students get very bogged down early on with concerns over story rather than being given the freedom to experiment. There's no question that cinematography can and should be story-driven in many cases. But I feel that most students benefit from being allowed early on to test boundaries without constraints. Otherwise they tend to second-guess themselves trying to do what they've seen already done in story-driven films because professors put too much pressure to "tell a story" early on. Later on in their studies, they can start looking at how to apply the things they have learned through experimentation in a more controlled fashion- ie: as influenced by story elements and characters. So I feel its the opposite of your approach: First allow the students to explore their forms and themselves, and then slowly bring them towards an understanding of how to apply what they have learned in a more constrained story setting. AJB

Not the same thing. Pulling is a process that takes place in the lab. Underexposing usually takes place in the camera. Pulling will result in underexposure if no compensation has been made for the process and there are no other factors that could naturally compensate (ie: combining with bleach bypass). AJB

As David pointed out, the natural light in this space should work wonders for you. I personally wouldn't bring in any more light. I would use negative fill and bounce depending on where I was pointing and what the blocking required. In some situations, perhaps a couple of kinos (short 4s perhaps), but very little. Particularly on close ups, where I might want to bring out certain characteristics, I would bring in mid-sized neg fill (perhaps 2 4x4 floppies) not too close to the actor, but bringing it in just as it starts to effect. Sometimes in this situation it can be interesting to bring down the keying effect from the windows on the actor (in a closeup) and let the background stay brighter. Or vice-versa - there are many combinations of how to manipulate the natural light - but the main thing is to keep things interesting and not necessarily be tempted to fill everything in. In this type of location, it essential (in my opinion) to allow faces to have contrast in them and a nice way to achieve this in such a location is through negative fill. The director and actors need to work with you to come up with optimum blocking to allow for this (within reason). Depending on the actual size of the location, giving the entire room a long cutter - skirting it across so that the ambient light is "forced" downwards rather than all over the place can be interesting as well. It can also be nice on occasion to bring hard light through the windows and accent the bg. But this requires units. I watched the clip. The only thing I'd like to say is that cinematography is only one of many elements that can make a film good or bad. I think that holds true with the clip you uploaded as well. AJB

Yes, you can. A good colorist will be able to pull interesting and desirable crushed blacks, lower-saturation results from a normally processed negative like 77 (ie: not bleach bypassed). And there are more options available in terms of how radical you want the effect to be from scene to scene. You also get very desirable results from transferring a bleach-bypassed negative, but you don't have as much control in terms of "working" the look (but on the other hand, even a very elaborate session doesn't quite get you to the same place a bbneg gets you). The key is to anticipate how your colors, shadow-detail and highlites will be affected by this post-process by discussion with your colorist and having him/her run a test through a basic setup of the look. You can then approach your lighting with the understanding of what you are going to be doing with the look down the road rather than just shooting "normally" and applying an effect. ie: you don't want to blow your look because you've placed, or underlit an important element in a part of the frame which would otherwise want to be crushed into nothingness. So if you're not experienced with shooting bleach-bypassed neg or creating the look in post, when it comes to doing affected transfers like the one you are describing, nothing beats discussing the look with a colorist beforehand and taking that information onto the set. AJB

Based on your posted examples, my feeling is this has less to do with choice of stock/aperture setting/colorists and more about how and when to intentionally flare the lens relative to your subject's position. AJB

I think its possible that they are stating that they do not want an HD product shot at 60i. They want it shot at 24p. "Regular HD" to them probably means HD shot at 60i. Just a possability, AJB

I've never cut the two together, but personally I feel from my experience with both stocks that they would not cut together well if you are going to print. You would have better results for intercutability with a transfer I feel - but even then, 77 was unique and I would only do this between scenes rather than between shots in the same scene. And commit to using a particular stock for particular scene set/location/theme etc. I too liked 77, but it was a very specific look - soft, low-con - I used to like to fight against its tendancy by building "too much" contrast into the scene and allowing the stock to smooth it out. Do clip tests of each roll before shooting. AJB Yes it is. AJB

Sounds fine. If prod design can make it work, LCD is always requested. If the playback material is video-originated, it was always shot interlaced but I've never heard of a problem with shooting progressive-shot material played back on LCD. Plasma is not as friendly in this situation. AJB

Rating a particular film stock is usually based on other decisions and factors that are made beforehand (not just a desire to overexpose). Do you want a generally denser neg? Or do you want a generally thinner neg? Are you bleach-bypassing the neg (ie: are you going to "underexpose"?). Are you going for a milky look? A contrasty look? grain etc? Am I going to print or transfer? What filters am I using on the camera? What are we going to show the audience and how do we want them to see it? Rating a stock is the final step after a number of other decisions. My last two projects on film I rated 5218 at 1000. That is, I underexposed the film a stop (a choice that falls outside of your definition of "rating"). AJB

Thomas, 60p, while it does capture more information per second, it actually captures too much information per second to give that pleasing film-look that many look for. Film's standard framerate, as you know, is 24fps. If I was to shoot something at 60fps and transfer it to video at 60fps, from a motion standpoint, it would look like video. So, in terms of application in drama and documentary we don't condiser a lower framerate (ie 24p) to be a factor in determining whether or not a format is hi-def. The framerate will result in motion characterstics independent of the spatial resolution. Testing video with a static chart is important to understand how the format can resolve detail. If you were to move the camera during the test, you would not be able to effectively get results. Testing video using a camera in motion, using various shutterspeeds, panning speeds, framerates is fundamental in understanding how the "temporal resolution" of the camera is manifesting and whether or not it is creating a desired effect. The two together give important information. AJB

My first experience with a 16mm camera was the Arri S. I bought one to make a film and then I sold it to pay for the processing costs. The first stock I ran through it was Agfa black and white stock. I think Annie's post pretty much outlines why film can be so magical and impressive a medium. I've owned quite a few film cameras since then but now I am only left with one, a Bolex 16Pro100 which I haven't run film through in a while, but that I just love looking at every now and then. AJB

The disk with two 90 degree openings is turning at half the speed of what a shutter with a 180 degree opening would, therefore the same shutterspeed. Each frame is only exposed once and the film is advanced between each 90 degree opening. AJB

This is all getting very, very worrisome. AJB

One must wonder if this technique was used for Showscan (60fps) transferred to video (if at all?). AJB

Jake, I respectfully disagree. As David points out, it is an issue related to the sampling of the image per second. In both cases, you are getting 60 samples per second and therefore, that "real" look of video you are referring to would apply in both cases. Having progressive images is not enough to create that "movie look" you are talking about (see 60p video, for example). What you need are progressive images that run at a frequency slow enough to create that look. Thats why if you put 60p video next to 24p video, you'll immediately see the difference. The 24p will have the "movie look" (in terms of motion only!) and the 60p video will still have that "real" look of video. AJB

Have you ever experienced this? The scenario you are describing sounds like a mistake was made, not a decision based on a vision with the director and with the producer's approval. AJB

Actually, shooting 60fps and playing it back at 60fps is the whole point and completely relevant to your question. You're original question was : "has anyone tried to shoot film at 60fps and then transfer that into 60i interlaced video" and you indicated in your question that you did not want a slow-motion effect, rather, you wanted to transfer the film at 60fps. If you shoot your film at 30fps and play back at 30fps, you will get an entirely different look than if you shoot at 60fps and play back at 60fps. I think you answered your own question with: "it might look smoother or something but enn...." Thats exactly it. AJB

Sometimes those limitations might be the objective if one is to achieve a particular desired look. There are no surprises when exposing a negative "skewed" if the goals are clearly thought out and a strong vision is in place based on the screenplay and discussions with the director. AJB