Jonathan Benny

The motion characteristics of 60fps transferred at 60fps is totally different than 30fps transferred at 30fps. From a motion standpoint, the difference between the two is as noticeable as shooting, say 30p vs 60i on video. Very noticeable - possibly more noticeable than the difference between 24 and 30. AJB

You know, I wonder if there are people that actually do that. There just might be people that actually do that... AJB

My parents supported me unconditionally throughout my life and they love my daughter unconditionally as well. That doesn't mean there weren't times when we had our disagreements. But parenting is parenting. As time goes on and as they grow older, there will be a natural transition where I am sure I will support them more and more as they need and I would do so unconditionally to the best of my abilities. AJB

Telecine costs, in terms of transfer time, are not reduced by shooting 2-perf. AJB

Presumably anything of an experimental nature. AJB

I don't think theres a surefire way. But most good acs will know the lens, how it sees things relative to the camera position and where it is focussed. With this information, they can get pretty damn close. Its just a matter of practice and experience. But you know, more important than the ac nailing the slate-position on the first try, is the ability for the operator and the ac to communicate very quickly and efficiently to getting into the right position if it has been missed. This is particularly important in cases where the camera tends to change its starting frame at the last minute before rolling. Knowing what the opening frame is is important to getting the slate in the right position. That is, don't be too concerned about finding the right spot in space where the slate should go. Concentrate more on where the lens is, and what the object that the lens is pointing at is (and where it is) and you will eventually, intuitively find the right spot for the slate if you draw a straight line between the two and you know what lens is being used. AJB

No, I think it was a statement on the necessity (or apparent lack of) of correcting the mistake. Intermittent movement, the stopping of the film in place for exposure (x) times a second is part of what made the motion picture on film possible. So yes, those old hand-cranked cameras also had intermittent movements that stopped the film in place (x) times a second. AJB

Its not about what "your eye" sees. Its about what the film is doing. I think when it comes to film and/or digital technology, we should strive not to round corners when it comes to explaining how the technologies function. That "your eye" isn't going to detect the stopping of the film doesn't really address the problem with stating that it is continuous through the camera. The fact is the film does stop in place for exposure. Perhaps to you, that information is either obvious or useless. But to others, there might be value to the information. The very fact that "your eye" cannot see that the film is static at the point of exposure is the very reason why it needs to be explained to someone who refers to the movement of the film in a camera as continuous. We should place equal value on what the eye sees and what the film is actually doing/behaving. I believe its the basis of taking good pictures. AJB

His question was "what would I now rate the asa at?". Its important to know how to do this because when you get into more sophisticated filter combinations that are mixed into other factors it can be nice to be able to simply dial in a new EI number into the meter for a given scene. For example: If I'm shooting on 5217 with an 85, 1/4 coral, I'm bleach bypassing the neg (so I'm going to underexpose by 1 stop based on the tests), and I'm shooting at 48fps: what would the asa be that I would want to program into the meter? For me, over a number of setups, it is easier to simply calculate the resulting "asa" before I start shooting and use that on the meter for the whole scene/setup. Its not complicated at all. In situations, where, say we want to slide in an ND filter at the last minute or change frame rates at the last minute, then yes, I would simply make the compensation on the lens and not worry about the meter. But in most cases, certainly, it makes sense to program your meter with "320" asa as opposed to "500" asa if you're shooting exterior on 5218 with an 85 - and if you like to give another 1/3 of a stop (like I do), then you put "250" into the meter. The issue is how do you come up with the number "250"? That was the question I was answering. Nobody said anything about your system being wrong. But the question was related to asa numbers. Another big reason for using ASA numbers rather than doing the compensation at the last minute is if I am going for a specific stop on the lens for dof purposes or continuity, its a lot easier to target a particular stop based on all filter factors and other compensations already programmed into the meter. By the way: the answer to my example is: 100 AJB

It has "cinegamma" settings comparable more to the SDX900. From what I understand, there are three cinegamma settings on the HDX where there are 2 filmlook settings on the SDX. Like the SDX, you can go into the menu system and create the look you want by tweeking different elements. AJB

True. But very rare. The filter factor is too great for most applications. AJB

Sounds great. 4-perf Super 35 full aperture is 1.33 (divide .980 by .735) All 4-perf super 35 formats fall within those dimensions. And the cropping is both vertical and horizontal. AJB

The quick answer to your questions are: If you are rating the stock at 400 tungsten balance (implies interior) then when you go outside and put an 85 on the lens, you need to compensate another 2/3rds of a stop which would bring you to 250ASA. If you started with 200T, then you take away 1/3 of a stop to get 160 (for that viewing system), then, another 2/3rds for that 85 you are using outside which will bring you to 100ASA. I'm not sure how your camera works. If you have a built in switch that says "daylight", then it probably has the filter built in internally. You're doing manual exposure, so you would still have to manually change the setting on your own light meter. The meter in the camera might automatically make the compensation on its own. Check that. Now: you can easily answer these questions yourself if you do the following: Memorize the sequence of the following numbers. 25, 32, 40, 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000 These are the sequence of ASA. They run in 1/3 stop increments. 80 is 1/3 stop slower than 100. 200 is 1 stop faster than 100. When you want to figure out where to set your meter when you are making compensations do the following: Read what the recommended EI (ASA) rating of the film is. Lets take 5218 as an example. 5218 has a rec ei of 500 (asa) and is TUNGSTEN balanced. If you go outside, unless you are going for a particular effect, you will need to put an 85 filter on the lens (assuming it is not built into your camera) because DAYLIGHT will record abnormally bluish. An 85 filter absorbs the equiv of 2/3rds of a stop of light. Now go back to that sequence of numbers. When making compensations you go to a LOWER number to compensate for light that has been lost as a result of a filter. So, if the 85 absorbs 2/3rds of a stop, and each number on that asa scale represents 1/3rd of a stop. Where are you going to end up if you started at 500? The answer is 320. Then, if you need to do another 1/3rd of a stop for your camera's viewing system. Where do you end up? The answer is 250. Just start with the original rating of the film and work from there. Input your final ASA rating, after compensations, into your meter and it will then give you the compensated stop when you take a reading. Make sure that you know whether the negative is daylight balanced or tungsten balanced (in your case, Vision2 500 is tungsten balanced). If you were using a daylight balanced film, like 01, you would not need an 85 filter outside, but then, inside, if you were using tunsgsten lights, things would look "too" orange. Make sure that your viewing system in fact absorbs 1/3rd of a stop of light and whether or not the camera has its own built in 85 filter that can be engaged when shooting outdoors. AJB

Different opacity for a given area within the largest frame. For example, the option to have the 1.85 area at full and the surrounding picture element at 50%. It might also be interesting to have it be capable of generating basic grid patterns. For Super 35: the option to create common headroom between 1.85 and 2.4 (2.35) Programmable settings for custom framelines and positions would be nice. Good luck with it. AJB

Try placing soft sources at chest level or below, off camera from the same direction the light(s) appears in the frame, and flagged so that no spill hits the walls, only the talent. Allowing your talent to move in and out of these soft sources can create nice results depending on the mood you are going for. You don't have to lock yourself down to just the practicals in the frame. You can assume that other practicals exist in the scene that the audience never sees, and create soft sources from those. AJB

I don't think one can categorize it into pro vs non-pro. The use of 35mm/DSLR vs Medium format is less of a pro vs non-pro issue and more of a Type of Photography issue. For certain types of photography, 35mm is definitely a professional format in the stills industry. If you put all professional photographers together from all different types of photography, I wonder if it is true statistically that most use medium format. AJB

I would do some tests and become familiar with how the image (on the particular camera you'll be using) responds to various exposures vs zebra indications and start from there. Everyone has a different way of using zebras (if at all). I wouldn't just decide to dial 320 into a meter - you need to know what you're doing/getting out there so that you can deliver quality results. Take some time to do tests and see what happens with the zebra settings/readings vs exposure/resulting image etc. Take the camera out for a day, roll some tests, take notes based on different settings, watch the tape on a good crt monitor at home or in the office and refer to your notes. I think you'll find that the zebra indicator is simply a starting point from which you then make judgements by eye. AJB

My preference with digital is to shoot in color, do as much correction in post before removing the color, then remove the color, then do any final tweaks to the black and white image at the end. Manipulating the image in the color space allows for more control in achieving a desirable black and white image. On film shoot black and white negative. AJB

How did you come to such a decision? Are you sure you didn't mean "535"? AJB

On set it should be discussed like this: (at least on my set) If we want to do another "take", it means the exact same angle or movement from the camera of the same action in front of the camera (unless I'm unhappy with the shot/blocking from the first take and I want something minor adjusted in which case I will instruct that the first "take" be disregarded). If I want to move the camera to another position to cover the same scene from another angle, I will call for the camera to move to the next angle or the next "shot" (setup) (not the next "take"). To me, the word "take" in this context can only mean one thing: that the same shot is being done again for whatever reason. "Sequence" can have a number of meanings. It can refer to a number of shots/moments that run together and create a smaller arc within the larger arc of the story. AJB

I think you're confusing the word "shot" or "angle" with "take". A "take" is usually one instance or attempt at getting a shot/angle of a portion of the scene. You can do several "takes" of one shot. A "shot/angle" is a position/perspective from which the camera/audience is going to see that particular scene. You can do a scene in many shots or just one shot. And you can do several takes of a shot or just one take of a shot. So in the situation he's presenting, he's not editing together the takes (even though you can edit _between_ takes) as much as editing together different shots. When you shoot a scene in "one take" it usually means that the take of that particular shot/angle was so good that you don't need to do another (at least you would hope so) - it doesn't have anything to do with how many angles or shots the scene has. When you shoot a scene in one shot (a "oner"), then you have found a way to cover the action of the entire scene in such a way that you don't need or want to do coverage (ie- more shots). AJB

The film in most motion picture cameras does not continuously move. The camera stops the film in place and holds it there until the frame is exposed, then moves it along to the next frame (much like what one does manually with an SLR - except for the shutter system). AJB

Isn't what he does with the format far more important than the format itself? AJB

Its not really about making arty films. Its about making sure that there is an attempt to support/finance films that make statements about or represent elements in society or are an unhindered expression of emotion or thought that comes from within the society. Its actually what culture is all about. Its very important that these films get made. These films are very necessary as expressions of culture for future generations - and I don't think there's a problem with allocating public funds for that purpose. Now, the question of whether these films are good or bad is another issue. Thats more an issue related to how these projects are chosen rather than whether these types of projects should be funded. AJB

I was referring to the experience in the moment of watching the film. That by nature, my mind first will attempt to find answers to what is going on at the moment, in context of what has already happened and what the moment seems to "plan" for the future, and then, if I find that the experience I am having watching the film does not necessitate such a mental operation, then usually, if the film is good, it will become an emotional experience - during the film - not afterwards (thats the "experience" part). The contemplation/analysis etc. afterwards goes without saying but it falls into a totally different intellectual area than what goes on while watching the film (for me at least). I won't start watching a film with the assumption that I should think or feel a certain way or that I should apply a certain method of thinking (unless I am familiar with the artist's body of work). It just so happens that when I start watching a film, if it is good, I will be given the signals by the filmmaker as to how I should proceed - and that, to me is primarily a thing that starts in the mind and ends in the heart. Of course, after watching a certain amount of films by a certain filmmaker one can enter the situation with expectations and those expectations will in turn affect how one chooses to proceed. But again, those expectations as a result of knowing the artist's work is something that resides in the mind. AJB