Louis

Here's a simple question: when using a spot meter to do readings, how important is it to have an 18% grey card on hand. Using a spot meter requires pre-visualization and inference skills either way (i.e., you have to know how much to open up when shooting a certain skin tone and how much to close down when shooting a different skin tone), so how important is it to actually have an 18% grey card on hand? It seems to me that it's not completely necessary, but I haven't tried this theory out yet.

If you have a good relationship with the producer, that in and of itself is a very good reason to take the job as far as i'm concerned. 9 minutes (I assume you mean about 9 pages) is definately a lot, but with two cameras, you should be able to pull it off with a good crew. In such a small location, there can't be too many set-ups per scene, right? And I'm assuming that you'll be doing a lot of handheld work, like 24? That should make things go by quicker as well. The last feature I worked on was also a 2 camera shoot, but we were shooting in a very large location (a casino), and we still managed to have three days in a row where we finished over 60 set-ups per day (including one day with 69). I'd say take it, but that's just me. Good luck.

I like the idea of shooting with the actors back-lit by the sun, but then wouldn't that REALLY make the background blown out? Would you suggest I find an exposure somewhere in between the foreground and the background, or will the background be fine left alone?

I plan on shooting a short soon that takes place exclusively in a park, in and around a park bench, and I want it to look bright and warm, but very natural. My basic plan is to cover the action with a large frame of diffusion, and go from there, but I have a few concerns: 1. To make it look most natural (I'm going for a very gentle middle-of-the-day look), what time of the day would be best to shoot this? 2. Any advice on maintaining consistency over several hours? 3. Any advice on keeping the background from completely blowing out, keeping in mind that the horizon line will not be completely straight, so I think that ND grads would be out of the question. I plan on shooting on Kodak 7245 over-exposed by 2/3 of a stop, because I want as little grain as possible and I want the colors to be pretty bright, but I'm concerned about the contrast making it easier for the background to blow out completely. I'm willing to use a different stock, possibly Fuji's 64T for a softer look, but I still want no grain and bright colors. Any help is much appreciated.

Yeah, it was great. I thought it did a fantastic job of putting him in his historical context, explaining where he got his early inspiration. The clips of "Festival" that they showed made my mouth water, because I can't find that movie anywhere and I've wanted to see it for years now. I think it's gonna be on DVD soon though.

Just watched this movie, and enjoyed it tremendously. My question is: when I looked closely at the movement on screen, there seems to be a slight hint of the shutter blur you get when you watch something shot on video, but according to the imdb, it was shot on film (and it looks like it of course). Did anyone else notice motion blur like that, or am I crazy (or possibly both)?

That's great, congratulations. I actually also used to work at Office Depot, and I quit to work on a feature as a camera PA, and I got a bump up to 2nd for a day and was paid, and I'm sure I'll get more work out of it when I have time. I guess Richard is right about Office Depot.

For someone who was born and raised in the Valley (save your pity), I'm mainly into music from the South. I love bluegrass, blues, jazz, and a lot of early country (Hank Williams, Jimmie Rodgers, the Carter Family). These artists, as well as Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan, are on my "Always" list. Lately, I've been listening a lot to Paul McCartney's solo albums (Ram is amazing) and also been getting into hip-hop (both of these at the same time, if you can believe that).

Have you ever shot with it before? Is it difficult to take the film out of the camera and flip it in the dark, or can this be done in the light (Probably not). Any other special circumstances to be aware of?

For my recent birthday, a friend of mine gave me an old Brownie 8mm home movie camera, and I have no idea how to use it. Does anyone still shoot regular 8mm? Are there any advantages to shooting regular 8, or is just a completely obsolete format, especially if super 8 is also an option? Any information would be helpful.

I'm shooting a short coming up that will originate on film (regular 16mm) and end up on video, but i also want to shoot some flashbacks on super 8, and I want the super 8 shots to really stand out. My question is: If I just shoot super 8 normally and regular 16 normally, how much of a difference will there really be between the two when they are seen on a regular-sized TV screen? Would I have to push-process ths super 8 to make it stand apart better, or should I just shoot it normally?

Take a brief look at the "Film Stock and Processing" forum, and I think you'll find some news that you will enjoy.

Frankly, I'm shocked that this discussion is still going on. I really don't mean to jump on this bandwagon, but Landon, seriously: You are getting advice from several professional filmmakers, as well as someone YOUR VERY AGE who went through the SAME EXACT PROCESS that you are going through right now (Daniel), and it was semi-documented in this VERY FORUM. Confidence is one of the greatest strengths a filmmaker can have, and I honestly wish I had as much confidence in myself as you clearly have in yourself, but you would be much better off making a short film before you jump head-first into a feature. We're talking about the possibility of your career being over before it begins, and seriously, is it worth making a feature film unless you are absolutely, positively sure that you know what you are doing? Just a thought... And as for the "metal cages" you are talking about for lights: I hope you're not talking about scrims, which are used to cut down light output by pre-determined increments. And I've seen people burn little yellow cage imprints onto their fingers from touching one for a split-second. So there's that...

Usually a few months after stocks come out, Pro 8 in Burbank usually comes out with an 8mm equivalent. Back in June, they came out with super 8 versions of both of the new Fuji stocks (500T and 500D), as well as Kodak's 7205, '12, '17, and '18.

Also, since a lot of interns do free work for school credit, that makes it legal, as David pointed out. The only feature I ever worked on as an intern, they realized that I didn't need school credit for the movie, and they paid me, probably for the sake of not breaking the law (although they paid me very little). But you're right, a lot of people on less reputable productions do free work for no credit.

I'm glad sombody finally mentioned Wally Pfister. Although his sensibilities are more commercial, he has a really elegant style that I feel really contributes positively to Christopher Nolan's films, making them that much better.

Have you seen any samples of footage shot on 01 yet? In what ways is it different from 45?

Just saw the movie this weekend, and was really impressed with it. Does anyone know if the DP cross-processed any of it, especially some of the exteriors in Africa? I noticed there was a credit for a DI at the end, so is it possible that they just shot high contrast negative and gave it that cross-processed look, or did they do it the old-fashioned way? Just wondering.

Yeah, when I worked on the 2nd unit of a feature a few weeks ago, we were told by the scripty to use X followed by the scene number to let the editor know that the insert shot was for that scene. We would still use the letters after the number to designate which set-up it was, but X always was at the beginning. For example, the 3rd insert set-up for scene 37 would be slated as X37C.

I'm a huge fan of really slow speed films, and I'm having trouble deciding on one for an upcoming student short. I can't really afford to do more than 1 test toll, so I can't compare and contrast film stocks, and I can't decide between the Fuji F-64D and the Kodak's EXR 50D 7245. I'm sure they are both very sharp and the grain on both is very tight, but are there any other characteristics that make one more ideal in certain situations than the other? Just wondering.

David- Have you shot with the new Fuji 400-T yet? If so, how does it's color rendition and sharpness compare to the older Fuji 400-T? I hope Fuji isn't trying to make its stocks exactly like Kodak's.

Negative is actually more expensive than reversal, both when it comes to raw stock and processing, because you only have to pay for the print, whereas with negative you have to pay for processing the negative AND making prints. Also, reversal film actually gives you a contrastier image with more heavily saturated colors, and its latitude isn't as good as negative. The Aviator didn't shoot on reversal film at all, but a few movies recently have shot on reversal film that was cross-processed and treated like negative film, like the 1st raid sequence in Three Kings and most of Oliver Stone's U-Turn. All this information is kind of moot, however, because he didn't ask about the difference between negative and reversal, but rather about the difference between negative and intermediate film. This kind of post is impossible to do without coming across like a jerk, but I just wanted to let you know.

But if you print 1-perf super 16 dailies on regular 2-perf 16mm print stock, wouldn't you experience some image loss? I thought I heard somewhere that they have s16 print stock specifically for viewing dailies on s16 projectors, which are built for the sole purpose of screening s16 dailies without sound. Is that true?

That was a lot more simple than I thought it would be. Thank you. And since people are humoring me and my silly thirst for knowledge, here's another question: Is there such a thing as super 16 print stock? Because when I shot my last short on super 16, the lab printed it on 2-perf 16mm negative, which I can only assume is not super 16. I just assumed there was no such thing as s16 print stock, until I recently read that some s16 features employ special s16 projectors to view dailies on sometimes. Is this true, or is there in fact no such thing as s16 print stock?

I've been reading a lot about aspect ratio lately, trying to understand the ins and outs, and here is a question that I don't understand (the information I have may be incorrect, so bear with me): According to my info, the frame size for standard Academy aspect ratio is .864" x .630", an aspect ratio of 1.37:1 (actually about 1.371). Likewise, standard 16mm (not super 16) has a frame size of .404" x .295", which is also 1.37:1 (actually 1.369). My question: if these two formats are so close in aspect ratio, pretty much the same actually, why are people forced to shoot super 16 if they want to blow up to 35, when regular 16 has the same aspect ratio as the format that they want to blow up to? Is the extra negative space on super 16 really worth the extra cropping that needs to be done, or is there something I'm missing? I'm guessing there's something I'm missing. Any help would be appreciated.