Guest User

---

Gunleik, What exactly did you offer in your package? Just the camera, or also accessories and lenses? What I'd like to know is that could they have gotten everything from you, or would they have to go to a rental house to fill out the package?

Me too.

In the end it comes down to which lenses you like best: Panavision's Primos and their many anamorphic lenses or the Cookes/Zeiss/Hawks/Elites that you can put on an Arri.

Is that what you were told in your acting days? ;)

So do you want to bet that film will be around longer than the amazing Epic?

Yep I think so too. Do you think Tom will do another bet with us Stephen? ;)

Sorry I'm a bit late in joining this debate. In my experience I would be very hesitant to go below a 12:1 ratio. Because once you factor in waste, blown takes (either by actors or technical glitches like focus, timing, etc...), shots that invariably run longer than anticipated, the time it takes to slate, etc... 12:1 gives you only about a 10:1 effective shooting ratio. So if you start already with only 10:1 you really only have about 8:1 which I don't think is enough for most films. Yes you can rehearse to try to keep the shooting ratio low, but actors are not athletes or trained monkeys that get better the more you practice with them. You don't want to force them to do the same thing over and over again, because the acting will invariably get stale. I've found it incredibly beneficial to let the actors do different versions of a scene (either through different directions, or losing dialogue or even swapping dialogue around where that can be done). For one that keeps their performance fresh, but most importantly, it gives you options in the editing. Because you don't know until you're actually cutting the film what works and what doesn't. This has been confirmed by friends who have more directing experience than I have: the take you like best on the day is hardly ever the one you choose in the edit. When you're shooting you have a tendency to look for something very specific (mostly something technical, like timing of camera and actors) and once you have that, you think that's your best take. But it's only when you watch the rushes, that you really see what you've got and you can pick a take. So it is best for the film if you give yourself options, and that you can only really do if your shooting ratio is high enough.

I think unless you are working on the project as Dop, it's very hard for individual owners to compete with rental companies. After all rental places have a wider selection of gear, like Stephen says, but more importantly, they provide peace of mind: if anything breaks down they'll get you a replacement straight away.

Fair enough for FF35 size sensors, but I don't think people are going to take that 168x56mm sensor and start shooting movies with it ;)

Well actually the focus-puller pushes the button most of the time :P

There are 2 perf movements for both the Arricam LT and ST, as well as the 435. Best talk to any rental companies to see if they have them, they are relatively new. Panavision have some 2 perf Cameras as well.

I think we actually mentioned this shot already in an early discussion of the trailer.

That's what I love about anamorphic, you can really play with the out-of-focus parts and use them for your compositions. As soon as you go very close to someone, you still have more than half of the frame to put in out-of-focus elements. And Im not just talking about pretty background, but important picture information.

Perfectly round out-of-focus highlights are the most natural obviously, but as soon as you start stopping down, you'll start seeing the shape of the iris. So the more iris blades, the more circular the out-of-focus highlights appear. The Hawks and their 15 iris blades are the only lenses that I know of that you can stop down and not see the shape of the iris. Cooke S4s give the ugliest out-of-focus highlights on the other hand. 8 sides that are not stright, but bend slightly inwards.