Louis

So are you saying that with 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture, the aspect ratio is 1.33? Or is it 1.37?

It's not always the best source for this type of information, but the IMDb says that it was shot with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. If I'm not mistaken, full frame for standard 35mm is 1.37:1, so there is no way that 1.33:1 could be the original aspect ratio. I could be wrong though.

Hello. I will be shooting a short film this semester for film school and I have a choice between shooting with either an Eclair ACL and a CP-16, and I just read in the Professional Cameraman's Handbook that the shutter angles of each are not 180 (170 for the CP16 and 175 for the Eclair). My question is: is this common among 16mm cameras, and will that exposure difference be noticeable? The only light meters I have available to me are based on 180 degree angles, and I realize that it's only about 1/6 of a stop difference, but on a smaller format projected on a big screen, will that be a problem?

I have a Sekonic L-508, which is the little brother of your 608, and unless it's the cine edition of the meter, then you can't actually change the shutter angle on it. The only thing you can do is adjust the ISO on the meter to compensate for the shutter angle difference, since all readings are based on 180 degrees, and even when you do this, you probably won't be able to get it exact.

I am currently a student at Cal State Northridge, and it's program is smaller than USCs but building very slowly in reputation and quality of equipment. We get gigantic donations from the HFPA and other organizations every year, and we just got a brand new state-of-the-art AVID system to go along with our 20 or so other AVIDs. I really like the program here because it's much more hands-on than the programs at the bigger schools (from what I hear and read), and the teachers are very dedicated. Just my two cents.

It was basically a box, but when you look at it from the top, it looks like a traingle, and all three surfaces of the box are extremely reflective. I don't remember exactly the strength of light that they used, but the distance they had to cover was roughly 30-40 feet, so I believe they used 1Ks. If you need to cover a larger distance obviously you would need stronger lights.

Since you're shooting outdoors on a sunny day, the contrast may be too much for reversal film, so I'd say you go with the slower speed negative stock and worry about the color saturation in post. You can either saturate the picture in printing, or, since you want the video to be played on TV anyway, you can saturate the color more after you transfer to video on either Final Cut Pro or in a more professional DI suite if you have the budget. Also, as far as exposure goes, take a reading on your subject in the foreground, and if the background is especially bright, underexpose your subject by a stop to a stop and a half. You'll have plenty of information to work with in post this way.

Well, on the feature I just worked on, there was a scene similar to this. The grips had this triangular box with mirrored surfaces on it, and they hung it from a C-stand with string. Then they pointed two lights at it, one gelled to look bright red and one gelled to look bright blue, at just the right angle, and they simply rotated the box at just the right pace to make it look like there was a police car just out of frame. I don't know where you could get such a box, but you could probably make your own for pretty cheap, or have someone help you. Hope that helps.

That's funny, I have had very limited experience in small town theaters, but the one time I went to a smaller town theater it was much better than I was used to. I was in Santa Barbara and I saw Mr. and Mrs. Smith for the 2nd time. The first time I saw it was in Northridge at the Winnetka 21, where I think they underpower most if not all of their projector bulbs, and their prints are always really weak, with really milky blacks, and there was 20 minutes of commercials, and everyone was talking around me. In Santa Barbara, I saw the same movie, but there was exactly 1 commercial before the movie, the print was gorgeous, and the audience was respectfully quiet. I almost moved to Santa Barbara right then and there!

Hi everyone. I've been looking into buying a copy of the Professional Cameraman's Handbook, but I've noticed that the most recent edition was published in 1994. I really don't want to shell out the dough for the book if there's going to be a new edition in the near future, so does anyone happen to know if the writers plan on releasing a 5th edition anytime soon?

I think it would help if we knew exactly what kind of light meter you are using, but based on the information you have here, I can suggest this: set the shutter speed on the light meter to 1/45, which is close to 1/48, which I'll assume is your operating shutter speed, because it's standard when shooting at 24fps. (The difference between 1/45 and 1/48 is about 0.06 of a stop). Then, set your film speed to 1/3 of a stop slower to compensate, since your shutter angle is narrower than the standard shutter angle of 180 (if you're shooting with k40, set the light meter's film speed to 32, 1/3 of a stop slower). Now, since I'm pretty much an amateur myself, so this may be completely off, but if I were in your shoes and I had no other information at my disposal, I would at least try this method.

Since no one else has mentioned it, I guess I better: AC online has an online-only article on the look of "The Devil's Rejects" at this address: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug05/devils/index.html A quote: "As Parmet recalls, ?Lions Gate said to Rob and me, you have a choice, shoot this in Super 35[mm] or 16. If you shoot it in Super 35, you have to do an optical internegative; if you shoot it in Super 16, you can do a DI (digital intermediate). ... "Parmet set about testing a variety of 16mm stocks, ultimately settling on Kodak Vision2 500T 7218 for interiors and Vision2 100T 7212 for exteriors." I guess that settles that.

I really don't know what light was used, but it was the same light as was used on all the rest of my dailies, as I got one-light dailies. I think I'll check the negative one day to see if the detail is on the negative.

I watched the shot on a projected work print, printed on 3383, which as far as I know (which is what the lab told me), is the only 16mm print film. If 16mm latitude and 35mm latitude are the same (as I thought was the case, especially with 7218, which is what I shot on), then why wouldn't I be able to see detail? The only explanation I can think of is that I metered incorrectly, and it was actually more than two stops under. Are there any other possibilites? Do I have some information wrong?

I read an article in AC last month about a certain DP shooting tests for a short film by buying stock samples that she could use in a still camera. Does anyone know anything about this practice? It seems like a much cheaper way to shoot tests for films, although I guess it wouldn't quite look the same because of the different processing that still film goes through. Either way, I'd be curious to find out more about this new method. It would be a great way to use your favorite film stocks to just take pictures, and it would also be a great way to try out new film stocks in an inexpensive way.

Here's another question from a relative newcomer to 16mm: I know that with 35mm film (both still and motion picture), you can underexpose an area of your negative by 3 stops (or sometimes even a little more, depending on the film stock) and still see some detail. Does 16mm film have similar latitude? The reason I ask is that I just shot a movie and I lit a person's face with just one light, and the right side of his face read 2 stops under. That sounded fine, so I shot it, exposing for the bright side of his face, and when I got it back, there was no detail at all on one side of his face, even though it read only two stops darker than the other side of his face, which looked normal. Does this sound correct to anyone?

After seeing "Tell Them Who You Are", I learned that Haskell Wexler, one of the all-time greats, is color-blind. I hope that helps.

I'm not sure if that was the problem. I mean, would using different kinds of diffusion make Dakota Fanning's face at the beginning look like it had less contrast and less detail than the rest of the scene around her? That's what it looked like to me anyway. It's something that I seem to see only in movies that have used a DI, so I do think that you're right about the DI, and if so, I think that maybe the ENR process that Kaminski used created too much contrast, and after the resolution loss from the DI, he was left with very little detail in Dakota Fanning's face toward the beginning. Is that possible?

Speaking of cheap 16mm cameras, does anyone have any thoughts about the K-3? They're all over eBay for less than $200 for a whole kit, and I'm sure they work well enough, but has anyone here actually used one? I'd like to read about any experiences.

I thought there was a problem with the visuals, and only the people here can help me pinpoint it: It seemed to me that throughout the movie, there was a really weird, blurry, featureless glow around certain areas of the frame, particularly faces, as if a really bad DI job was done. This was mainly towards the beginning. Having now read the AC article and finding out that Kaminski didn't even use a DI, I'm clueless as to what it could be. I saw the movie at a theater that has shown me bad prints before, but most of the movie looked just fine. Maybe a problem with just the first reel? Besides this one problem, it was obviously very well shot and well lit. It just kind of confused me.

Recently, I decided it might be a good idea to purchase a light kit to practice lighting with, (you can't learn if you don't practice, right?) and I was just wondering if anyone had any suggestions as far as affordable light kits a semi-beginner like myself will be able to learn from.

I am currently looking to get out of the retail business and into something more film-related, and I was wondering if anyone had any advice as far as where to begin. I'm not necessarily looking for a job on productions, since I don't really feel I have the knowledge for it yet, but I'm just looking for a job that I can get with few qualifications that will teach me a lot, either about equipment or something else that is useful. I was planning on looking into jobs at rental houses, but if anyone has any other suggestions, they would be much appreciated. How did some of you other guys start amassing your knowledge?

I just got back from seeing Cinderella Man, and I thought it was, with a few minor exceptions, the best looking film I've seen this year. My question is: Most of the movie has this beautiful, pale, sepia-ish tone to it, and I was wondering if that was done in camera or during the DI. I read the AC article on it, and it mentions that it used a DI to fix a few minor mistakes, but no mention of the coloring done. My guess is that the final color was acheived in post, but even still, is there a filter that one can use to get that effect, or even close to it?

Here's a question I've been wondering about for a while: How come motion picture film comes in Tungsten balanced or Daylight balanced, while still film does not. Still film can generate accurate color rendering under any lighting, so what makes motion picture film different?

I know this thread has been up for a while, but I just saw this movie at the Arclight here in L.A. and was moved to right something about it. This movie was very funny and, more importantly, tremendously moving. I think everyone should see it, not just people interested in cinematography. Does anyone know if it's gonna get an actual release or will it just be playing in random theaters from time to time?