Max Jacoby

In the new AC there is a very good article on DIs by Bill Pope (who did Spiderman in 4K). He gives an honest opinion on both the advantages and drawbacks.

I see what you mean. I was thinking of over/underexposure tests, where I expose the greyscale to key and then go from 5 stops under to something like 7 stops over in half stop increments. If then I have a one light print done from the greyscale, I can see what the different exposures look like.

Dirk, 'Troy' wasn't a DI was it?

I suppose you mean have the greyscale at the beginning of EACH exposure series timed and have these printing lights applied to the whole exposure series? At least this is how I do it when I test a filmstock for over/underexposure.

I think the biggest factor is the lighting style of each Dop. 2 features that I worked on over the last year shot on the same set. Obvioulsy the set was dressed differently and some architectural changes were made as well, but the space was the same and the light came from the same windows. On top of that the mod of the scene was the same (soft side-lighting). Well one Dop put up 2 18Ks through light gridcloth with 1 Kino-Flo for fill, while another one bounced lots of HMIs into bedsheets and used tons of flags. The first one took 30 minutes to light the scene, the second one 4 hours...

The film is shot on Double X (200 Asa, but rated 100 Asa) They used Arri Cameras (535 and 535B), as well as a Moviecam for Steadicam. Zeiss Superspeeds and Standard lenses. The January 1994 AC has an article on the film.

In what situations do you consider HD being faster to light than film? I for one wouldn't want to be stuck shooting sunlight exteriors with an HD camera.

I believe it is mentioned in the AC article on the movie. We used the 5218 for the interiors of the house (excluding the studio) and the courtyard (which was part of the interior set as well)

In the cinema the scenes shot on the 5263 obvioulsy looked a bit grainier than the ones shot on 5218, but I didn't find the grain objectionable. I will try to find out what happened to that scene.

I watched the film last night and I was a bit disappointed by the transfer as well. There was one scene in the studio in particular that looked very grainy. Although it was shot on 5263, I don't remember it looking that grainy in the cinema (or during rushes for that matter)

Thanks. I take that as a compliment, since I for one have never problems spotting HD transferred to film. Hell I can even spot whether a film went through a digital intermediate or not. So I must have some ability that your 'top dops' lack...

There are different ways to look at the 1/3 rule, but they all deal with composition. One is to mentally divide the frame into thirds both horizontally and vertically (9 "boxes") and place the desired subject on one of the intersections of the thirds. I think he means the rule that 1/3 of your depth of field will be in front of your point of focus and 2/3 behind it. That is however only a rule of thumb and does not always apply.

If they can't see the very obvious difference between film and hdcam, then I would hardly call them 'top dops'...

Also if you are shooting with LDS lenses on Arricams or the 435, you will have the depth of field displayed on your on-camera monitor. A little hint though: if you tend to rock and roll if you are not sure that you got your subject in focus, then I'd suggest you disable the option that the camera info be displayed on the video assist monitor as well. Otherwise your Director or Dop might start questioning you why the focus keeps on moving although the actor isn't...

That depends if your number of pixels in the sensor stays the same. If it does, then the pixels will be four times bigger, making them faster as well. If on the other hand you keep the pixel size the same, but put more of them on a bigger sensor, then the speed will remain the same, with the added drawback of less depth of field. Since you can put any PV mount lenses on this camera, you will have a huge choice of lenses, from sperical to anamophic. The speed goes from the 50mmT1.0 spherical and the 50mm T1.1 anamorphic upwards. What about PL mount lenses though? Can those easily be fitted to this camera or did Panavision try to monopolize the market again?

I always try to sit 2.7 image height from the screen. That way the vertical viewing angle is 21 degrees, which equals the vertical viewing angle of a 'normal' lens (40mm anamorphic, 50mm spherical 1.33, 32mm 1.85, etc...). I find that to be the most comfortable and neutral distance.

But I for one like that and will be sad to see it go. I also like the look of laserdiscs better than dvds. How horribly old-school-analog I am :ph34r:

Personally I don't mind grain, I like the texture it adds, if appropriate for the look of the film. Just take the films of Wong Kar Wai or 'Eyes Wide Shut' (which I think look stunning) But that is only for film projection, when transfered to video I see your point about it becoming distracting. Grain doesn't translate well into video and Mpeg encoding has even bigger problems with it.

Both 'Full Metal Jacket' and 'Eyes Wide Shut' were shot on Zeiss Superspeeds.

Jason, What are in your opinion the best looking films shot on hdcam that you have seen? I must admit I am a bit surprised by your statment, because I don't think anyone questions that Super16 has better latitude and color depth than hdcam. That leaves us with sharpness and grain. Recently at a lab where I was grading my film they showed me a reel of a film shot on Super16 Cinemascope and blown up to 35mm anamorphic and I must say I was extemely impressed by the sharpness of that. And that was shot on 74, not on the new Vision2 stocks. Only on wide shots could you notice that it didn't quite have the crispness of 35mm. It certainly looked sharper than any hdcam film I have seen so far. I know it's a bit of a crapshot to compare different formats through different films, but unfortunately I haven't yet seen a side by side comparison.

Are you serioulsy suggesting that 'top dops' can't see the difference between hdcam and film? I am talking about a step down the picture quality ladder, as you know very well. Picture as in 'image' not 'movie'.

I think you are missing the point here. This is not about resisting progress, but about making sure that newly developed tools offer an improvement over existing technology. Compared to film HD is a setp down the ladder and you know that very well.

My point all along. I don't think that DI is ready yet, despite what everyone says. But most films are still done photochemically so I don't think your argument is valid here. By the time the majority of films will be using DI, 4K will be the standard. Hopefully that will be good enough.

So what? Even if they can't consciously make out a difference doesn't mean that they don't feel this difference subconscioulsy. I think the audience deserves a bit respect than your statment implies. Here we go again... I am really sick and tired of peple always complaining about how bad film projection is. The vast majority of theatres I have been to offer a very good to excellent viewing experience. The root of bad projection is not that it is film that is being projected, but the projectionist is to blame. If you think that will go away with digital projection, think again.

Personally I don't find that to be true. All the 24P I have seen so far just looks soft to me. Although the image is very clean, when you try to focus on a specific part of the frame, there isn't enough detail. With film it's the opposite, although you have grain, if you look for details, it is there. That is true even for Super16 blowups. Just recently I was very impressed by the look of 'Troy', which was an excellent Super35 blowup.