Louis

Robert Richardson recently used a version of the 3-strip process for The Aviator by creating LUTs during the DI process that could be applied to whole scenes to make it look like three-strip (and sometimes two-strip) Technicolor. I guess the results speak for themselves.

Alessandro- If you're still out there, I was wondering if you could answer this question, or if not, refer me to someone who can: I just got my 136 the other day, and the motor runs fine after I put batteries in it, and everything else seems to be working just fine as well, except the exposure settings. The guy I bought it from said the automatic exposure is not working, which I'm ok with, because I plan on using manual exposure all the time anyway, but for some reason the dial that I see when I look through the viewfinder does not move when I change the exposure dial, it's just stuck on 1.8. Do you know of anyway to fix this, or do you know of any places I can take it to have it looked at? Thanks.

Yes, I saw Saw (it's not my fault it has a terrible title), and I didn't really catch anything weird about the lighting, but thinking about how it looked, I can completely see where you're coming from.

Yeah, that was the one I was thinking of.

If I may completely ignore any points of argument in your post and just refute one simple fact: there was a movie in the 1950s based on some Raymond Chandler book that was shot subjectively from the protagonist's POV. I saw some of it but I have forgotten what it was called. I have enjoyed reading this thread.

But that's what struck me as so strange when I saw The Upside of Anger. I enjoyed the film in spite of the cinematography, and usually when I watch films it's the other way around.

Is it cheaper to get them put on HD or DVD than making regular 1-light dailies? Is the negative printed fiirst, then transfered to HD/DVD without making an actual print first, or how does it work?

So I've been reading American Cinematographer, and I've heard something called "digital dailies". What exactly is that? Is it something you have to decide on doing while shooting, or can you get them after you shoot, but before you make negatives? Is it more or less expensive than regular 1-light dailies? I dunno, I'm starting from scratch with this post stuff.

I'd also like to find out how 24fps in 35mm translates to 24fps in super 8. Does it look about the same? How about 18fps, 36fps, etc?

I'm just starting out on 8mm, and I just had some basic questions about the differences between super 8 and other formats. Does super 8 stock come in tungsten/daylight balanced, or is that done automatically? How is the loading process done generally? What is the latitude like (closer to 16/35mm, or closer to video)? Any other general information like this would be greatly appreciated.

Alessandro- That is WAY more information than I was ever expcting. Thank you very, very much.

I just bought a Nizo "epezial 136"(i think is what it says) on eBay, and I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts about this specific camera? I've heard good things about the Nizo brand in general, but does anyone know anything about this particular model? Any information at all would be helpful.

Do these agents represent DPs only, or do they also represent other types of people as well?

I was reading an article in AC magazine the other day, and the DP in the article happened to mention that his agent persuaded him to take a certain job. This is the first I've heard of a DP having an agent. Is this a fairly common practice, or is it only for the DPs who do huge Hollywood movies all the time and can afford one?

Agreed. On the last shoot I did we shot on Kodak 7277 320T (super 16) in some pretty low light situations, and the lens was wide open (f/2) the whole time, and there was hardly any noticeable grain, and on the few shots where we decided to open up a bit, it looked even clearer, to the point where it ellicited a "wow" from the director. I was really pleased with the process.

Was 8mm or Super 8 ever regularly used on TV? If so, which shows?

A friend of mine told me something a long time ago, and it sounded like a lie at the time, and the more I learn about cinematography, the more it sounds like a lie, so I figured I would just ask people who know more than I do: Is Malcolm in the Middle shot on 8mm or Super 8? That's what I was told, but it doesn't seem like that's possible.

Let me preface everything I say here with the following disclaimer: My experience with this stuff is extremely limited. That being said, the cheapest way that I have found to shoot on 16mm, which can look pretty great if done right, is to get a Krasnogorsk-3 camera. They're really popular in film schools apparantly and you can find them on eBay for pretty cheap (under $200). The only drawback is the motor: it runs on a hand crank motor that you have to hand crank before every shot and it runs for 30 seconds before you have to wind it again. If you're just screwing around though, and you want your own camera, that's a good way to go. I've never had experience with it myself, but a friend of mine has, and he says that, besides the motor, they're pretty good cameras. As far as film, if you shoot reversal, it doesn't cost all that much. B&W reversal film from Kodak costs under $20 per 100ft roll (about 3 minutes) if you have a student ID, and developing it costs about that much as well. I don't imagine color reversal film could be much more. Negative costs about $30 per 100ft roll as well, but then you have to make negatives and a work print, and the cheapest I've found for doing that sort of thing is 10 cents/foot for negative and 18 cents/foot for prints. Not too bad. My favorite thing about 16mm as a learning tool is that Kodak makes a lot of the same stocks in both 35mm and 16mm, so once you get familiar with a certain 16mm stock, you will already be familiar with it's 35mm equivalent as well. Anyway, I hope I've been helpful and I haven't given you any information you already have.

Ok, the movie that I saw was called The Upside of Anger with Joan Allen, shot by Richard Greatrex, BSC. I looked up some of his past credits, and he has done some great work in the past, even including an Oscar nomination for Shakespeare in Love. The lighting in this movie however just seemed bizarre. There were scenes shot outdoors in the snow and it looked like all he did was shoot uncorrected Tungsten film, because the whole frame was overwhelmingly blue. It was obviously an artistic choice, and I can almost see why he would try that, but it didn't work for me at all. He also didn't correct any windows, and so every scene that had a window in the background (and there were a lot, including scenes with a big glass balcony door in the background) was really blue and sometimes overexposed, to the point where it was kind of distracting. Again, it seems like it was an artistic choice, but it didn't work for me. There are other examples where I felt that the lighting was strange and unmotivated, but it's been a while since I saw it and I can't remember any specific examples. Basically, this was a really small movie, and I felt that the cinematography should have been less intrusive, because the movie was really a character study and the cinematography hurt the movie more than helped it I felt.

I guess there really isn't such a thing as bad cinematography, but this cinematography in this certain movie didn't work for me at all. Can anyone think of a movie that they have seen where they thought the cinemtaography didn't work for them? (Maybe that should've been my question from the beginning).

This may not be the most popular subjct ever brought up in this forum, but I think it's important, when learning a specific craft, to be able to differentiate good from bad work, so here's a question: Can anyone remember seeing a movie where they thought the cinematography was bad? Not just average, but noticeably bad? This my be tough for the working DPs here, because they may know a lot of other working DPs personally and that might make it hard to mention, but I was just curious. I bring this up because I just saw a certain movie shot by someone (a BSC member no less), and I thought it was pretty terribly shot. The lighting was really strange and unmotivated (even in locations where there was plenty of motivational light) and the color was really bizarre. There were scenes that took place outdoors that didn't look like they were balanced at all, like they shot with tungsten film without a filter. It might just be me and my relatively untrained eye, but I thought it was pretty bad.

re-reading my question, i need to clarify something: i know that there is a relationship between wattage and foot-candles (obviously the higher the wattage of a light the brighter it is), but i was wondering if there was a specific, mathematical relationship between wattage(/voltage/amperes) and foot-candles, one that would help a DP decide what kind of a light to use to get a proper exposure.

this may sound like a really silly question, but I'm still pretty new to all this, and I figured it couldn't hurt to ask: is there a relationship of any kind between the wattage(/amperes/voltage) of a light source and the amount of foot-candles it emits? for instance, if you know your ASA, your shutter speed, and the f-stop you wanna use, is there a way to determine what kind of light (1K, 2K, etc.) would give you a proper exposure? I figure there must be something, but I am not aware of it.

hi. does anyone happen to know what the color temperature of a car headlight is? i know that they use halogen bulbs, which tend to be around 2800K (i think), but i'm not sure if the wattage of headlights change this at all, or if i just have the number wrong completely.

hey everyone. i have a shoot coming up where we plan on shooting in areas where we plan on creating a light haze atmosphere with a fog machine, nothing too thick, but where there is enough fog to create a smoky atmosphere and you can see the lines of the lights. my question is: how does this kind of atmosphere effct exposure? do i have to compensate at all for the fog, or will everything be ok if i simply trust my light meter? thanks.