Byron Karl

This looks consistent with my past hand-developing results. I think the density fluctuation is part of the "look." I assume if you let it "stand develop," then the frames might get a more consistent development.

Apologies in advance, if this is too simple a response or not specific to your question. Basically, with still 35mm color negative scanning you have three steps: 1) Capturing the image 2) Inverting the negative and 3) Editing the image. For your concern about the Epson scan matching an ArriScan, I would focus on step 2. Using the Lightroom plug-in Negative Lab Pro to handle the negative inversion step (#2) might give you something closer to what you expect Vision 3 looks like scans on ArriScan. Negative Lab Pro lets you select a Noritsu or Frontier type scanner emulation, which might get you to a better starting point. My experience is, I currently use an Epson V600 & Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED and have compared negative scans using Epson Scan, Silverfast, VueScan, Nikon Scan and Negative Lab Pro. Frustratingly, the images all come out different, based on the app used. I have yet to figure out a suitable workflow, years later, as my preferences change and each has a different look. But I don't know if this is right answer for you. I had experience shooting EXR stocks in the late 90's and then had a great experience with the first generation of Vision (specifically the "expression" line). That said, I do not care for the look of Vision 3/Portra and have never tried for it.

I shot film titles on S-8, for a recent project. For the still title cards I photographed a series of backlit cells. But, I had trouble with the end credits scroll and reverted to shooting motion graphics off a 2K screen. It worked fine and there wasn't any "roll bar" like you used to see off a TV. Maybe in your case, designing motion graphics and then filming a screen works fine. To further your "primitive" animation idea, you could also try exporting the motion graphics frame by frame and then printing those images. I did a test of this, shooting each page single frame and it took a much bigger effort than I had time for.

Hey Søren, this exact topic (hand developing Tri-X reversal into negative) was covered last week in this thread: Might not help you, as you end up with a negative image that wouldn't be great to project. You can scan it, but the density fluctuation of DIY processing throws off a scanner's ability to see the sprockets for registration. My only success was using an old-school scanner that used pin registration.

Oh and I rated it at 125iso, so 2/3 stop overexposed. Developed using the times for 400iso Tri-X negative.

Hi Phil, I had the same exact question a couple years back and came across some old, photocopied "zines" covering DIY/underground filmmaking, that detailed "The Bucket Method" of hand developing Tri-X reversal into negative. Which basically says unspool your film into a bucket and develop/fix/rinse as you normally would for still photography. If you google that term, you might find similar info. In short, just follow the same photo darkroom procedure/times used to develop Tri-X negative. So using HC-110 (1:31) it'd be 6mins, etc. The only thing you might do additionally is a good presoak and prerinse of a few minutes. That said, the major issues I encountered were 1) density fluctuation from inconsistent agitation and 2) damage to the negative from being jostled around. But, I guess that's the appeal of hand developing. For 16mm, I believe you can buy some Russian made darkroom developing tanks, which might give you cleaner results. Google "Russian Lomo tank." And you are correct! The contrast is extreme in going this method. However, I was doing a project shooting analog film titles and was trying to capture the feel of title print stock, which is very low ISO and has extreme contrast. Some test footage I took to figure out the process is below:

Yeah. I gotta admit I don't understand the idea of the outer diffusion baffle covering the whole fixture, other than to convert it to a softbox. The inner diffusion baffle is just a small circle of a few inches, like a disc. Just to block the direct light source, kinda like a beauty dish idea. But I'm wondering if it's transparent and does that effect things? Maybe you mount reflective material on it? I understand how the pro units work, I was just wondering if anything sets these budget parabolic reflectors apart from just using softboxes. If there's a whole line of them from different manufactures, I'm assuming there is some big difference I'm not yet seeing.

I'm wondering if the rear facing light of the Zeppelin (w/ arm extender) makes all the difference to the end look? Specifically, if it looks dramatically different to the parabolic shaped softboxes that have forward facing bulbs. I do understand I could pick up the silver parabolic umbrella, but the shape of those umbrellas looks nothing like the "blimp" look of the actual parabolic reflector lights. I know a lot of people on message boards call that the poor-man's Briese, but maybe that's more a reaction to the word "parabolic" as opposed to the quality of light. Because they are shaped nothing alike.

Is there a budget Parabolic Reflector Light that works similarly to the big boys (Briese / Broncolor / B2Pro)? The Westcott Zeppelin seems to offer focusable light and a rear facing lamp, so I'm guessing it is closest. But I was curious if the cheaper models are also in the same ballpark, in terms of soft light that dazzles? Namely: Apurture Light Dome Fotodiox EZ-Pro Deep Godox Portable P120L It seems like the above budget models have a parabolic shape and utilize two layers of diffusion. But, they don't seem to be focusable and the internal light source points towards the subject, as opposed to bouncing off the rear of the unit Anyone have experience using these?

Thanks for the tips! I dropped by the set of Blueberry Nights and saw that Khondji was using plastic shower curtains as diffusion. So, it works! Thanks for calling out LiteMat. I was just going to get some cheap LED panals off of Amazon, thinking the CRI was all the same. That said, I've never encountered these "still photo looking" LEDs, like the Aputure Light Storm series. Are they just as useful? My issue is, I can't see how I can easily fit a softbox on to a square LED panel. Whereas this seems to connect to a lot of light modifiers already in place for still photography (but it gives a continuous light).

The last time I did anykind of beauty light, was shooting bounced tungsten soft light through a 4x4 frame of silk, in a studio setting. That said, I'm helping someone putting together a small lighting package for making YouTube beauty videos (make-up demonstrations) out of their house, so I'm outta my element here. She would like to purchase the equipment, so ideally I'm looking at units that cost $200-$1,000. So my questions are about: 1) what source to use and 2) what kind of modifier will work best in small bedroom setup. My preference for skin tones is tungsten, but the room has a window with daylight and tungsten could get hot. How do CFL and LED panel fixtures compare? Is one preferred over the other? Looks like a ton of softboxes (Chimera style) use mutli-socket CFL fixtures. But, I've read CFL's have a bad green spike, irrespective of stated CRI. Aside from that, for whittling this down to a single source light, positioned on axis with subject and slightly above camera, what's a popular modifier: Diffused LED panel light, softbox, umbrella bounce? I was looking into getting a small parabolic silver umbrella, but then I realized this is more suited for still photography, as I couldn't find one that easily accepted hot lights as opposed to speed lights. From what little research I've done, most of the videos in this format employ some kind of ugly ring-light that make the subjects look like deer in headlights - or a 90s rap video. I'm hoping to do something better, with a soft light that gives a little shape. Any suggestions?

I've hand processed some super-8 Tri-X using D76, so that it results in being a negative image. And now I need to scan 1-2 rolls of this, but I'm having trouble locating a place. I can't use sprocket-less systems like a ScanStation or RetroScan, because the negative density is so variable and those systems lock onto the sprockets to line up the images properly. My image ends up shaking and jumping around too much on those systems. The irregular developing really messes up those transfers. However, all the places that use older (sprocket) style methods of capture, charge an astronomical minimum fee. Is there anywhere I can send 1-2 rolls of cross-processed S-8 tri-x and have them transfer it frame-by-frame for less than $100 bucks???

Watching La La Land, I was distracted by the visible "smearing" that occurred when the camera movement was quick. It was most noticeable in the opening sequence. Everything looked sharp, but then when the camera did a quick pan or crane the whole image went out of focus, in a sort of blur. Surely this can't be someone ignorant of shutter angles, or panning speeds. Is it possible the projection could have introduced this issue? It kept popping up whenever there seemed to be an adventurous camera move. Also, I did notice tons of soft focus on tracking shots that would loose the subject and then snap back in focus. Wondering if something was just off, as this film seems like the kind that would catch issues like that. Let me know if I'm the only one noticing this and I'll chalk it up to the theater.

I'm about to shoot some single frame stuff using a Bauer 715xl and I just realized... I'm not really sure what the shutter speed should be. Normally, I set it at 1/50 as it has a 200-degree shutter and runs at 24fps. However, I'm just assuming that's also the right shutter speed for single frame exposures. Looking over the manual, it seems to only mention TTL metering. No info of shutter speeds. Because of the stock and what I'm shooting, I'm going to be using a light meter and setting the exposure manually. And looking around, I just can't find any confirmation of what shutter speed to use for single frame stuff. Might not be unique to my camera, but a general S8 issue. So please let me know any info that you have. As I have to shoot this week, I don't really have time to do any tests. On a separate note - do I need to compensate for light loss to the viewfinder, when shooting manually with a light meter?

Out of curiosity, what did you do that in? If not After Effects? It looks really solid. The colorist label sounds a little overreaching if you're sending your resume along to CO3. But if we're talking about being hired on a low-budget feature or spot, then it fits. Desktop colorist is now actually something that the low-end market hires. In other words, people that aren't finishing at a name post house still want to tweak their images. Let us know how your reel works out.

Great amount of After Effects, but I'm not sure if you did that or if someone put your reel together. So it might be better to say "Editor, Motion Graphics, Colorist" rather than film, doc, etc... Essentially people want to know about your skillset when they hire you. The classifications you use now don't really help as doc people want doc editors, etc... Not having a specialization doesn't really help sell you. Also, it's my experience with reels that you want to show whole scenes. The flashy overview makes it seem like these are all specs. You can do a montage of logos of brands you've worked with, but then you still need to actually show them.

I'd add Agnes Godard to the list of great '99 achievements, with Beau Travail.

This looks like it can't hurt.... http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/...or_of_spid.html

I think it's fitting that there isn't much talk about the cinematography on this one. I found it to be irritating and relying on cliches of what "good cinematography" is. Sort of like watching a mash-up of perfume commercials and student films made by Terrence Malick admirers. For candle-lit interiors the faces of the subjects always seemed brightly lit, despite there not being an explainable source. You'd have some candles in the background that are dim and around 2,000K and then the characters are lit with this huge, bright white light source - out of nowhere. I remember also being annoyed that for daytime interiors, the faces inside were brightly lit from a direction that didn't match any sources either. Not to mention how bland and flat I found the overall lighting to be. Every wall is just evenly lit and there is no contrast in any of the wide shots of the rooms. It's all rather 2 dimensional.

The way Khondji is noted for exploring the "toe" part of the curve in his shadowy projects, I feel Daviau's work in Fearless really tests the "shoulder." There are shots in Fearless that take place almost entirely in that exposure zone and there's still gradations of different bright tones. Mentioning that point, your comment about his next shoot seems disappointing. His stuff doesn't really seem fit for clipped highlights.

I think David makes a good point about gaming... I read recently that one of the only areas to show any growth this recession, is the gaming industry. Which is why so many ads are now built into gaming, as this is where high-paying audiences are flocking. So it wouldn't be unexpected to hear that the movie "industry" wants to follow this trend and adopt production methods that put them in line with a "gaming experience." I think in many ways, this Avatar film is a movie that co-opts many aspects of a video game experience. And I assume it does so in a way that could appeal to that market. The earlier point that streaming is more used than Blu-Ray is a good point. No one should buy a Blu-Ray player, when streams are going to take over HD distribution... However Blu-Ray is bundled as part of a gaming platform, so those ARE the people that would be into watching 3-D Blu-Rays...

By that same logic, the picture is disposable after its theatrical run, as seeing on TV won't convey the same impact as in 3-D. Hence the term "gimmick." To the guys that are talking about the CGI foliage... It sounds like you're impressed with screensavers.

I feel like digital being used in place of motion picture film has been around now for a decade, to generally favorable critical response. It seems like those that have a strong opinion against using digital cameras on large film productions, or question the merit of such a decision, are savvy to this specific conversation. On the whole, I think most newspaper critics and mainstream media outlets have favorably reported on the new developments in the way films are shot. However, I feel now that I'm reading stuff in the mainstream reviews of movies that I have never seen in print before. When Public Enemies came out, a large portion of reviews for the film mentioned the look and how unsuited the digital feel was. Similarly, the press on Avatar is scathing. I have read numerous reviews directly comparing it to a video game. I don't think anything much has changed in terms of the quality offered by the above two choices. Except, whereas you'd be hard pressed to find a review critical of the Star Wars prequels from 10 years ago, it's now somehow acceptable to call the Emperor out on his new wardrobe. Anything that can be said of Avatar, would have applied equally to Jar-Jar Binks or the extended CGI sequences in the Spiderman movies. Maybe it used to be the case that if new technology came out then the young embraced it and the older generation that didn't came across as stagnant or whatever. So maybe that's a reason for why so many have been hesitant to point out that in many regards the new developments neither exceed nor match the visual looks we've seen. And as to whether we should withhold an opinion of Avatar until it's screened in IMAX 3-D, I'll say that I saw Captain Eo about 20 years ago using that approach. So the best angle that format could add, would be to compare it to a theme park attraction. When it comes out on DVD, what will be point of watching it then? Do you think digital now no longer gets a free ride and has to stand on it's own?

That's it essentially. The Director either tells the DP what to shoot and is responsible for dictating the coverage. Or the Director works with the Editor to piece it together. If you have any concerns or ideas, you need to speak to the Director. The equivalent of you talking to an Editor, would be if the Director was unhappy with a DPs lighting and just went over and talked to the Gaffer. If the Director has no idea how to direct a scene and relies on a DP for coverage, then it's something you just need to figure out yourself, based on what you perceive to be the Director's intentions.

I doubt there's any common overlap between DP and Editor. Mainly because, the Producer had hired the Editor and the Director is there guiding the edit. A DP would be an unnecessary distraction, in that the footage is either there or it isn't. In terms of piecing it together, that's the Editor and the Director's role and a DP's input wouldn't be appreciated. Having worked with DP's in the edit process before, it's not welcome. Because often the problem is a scene isn't working and someone from the production side will often take the argument that it was shot fine. When it clearly wasn't. So now, you have two sides arguing to persuade the Director.