Byron Karl

Well you would just be doing a freeze frame, which would look like that and not a static shot. You might be better off looking for someone that has experience with Apple Shake, which has much more powerful motion ramping that any editing program.

The quality of your image is related to what you set the bit-rate as. Meaning, a higher bit rate gives you better quality. If you look at DVDSP, you can adjust the bit-rate under encoding preferences. Older DVDs have playback issues with bit-rates over 9MBs so set your high value below that and your average value to about 2MBs lower than your high (you set two bit-rates). The trade off is running time. If you have a longer running time, you need to use a lower bit rate. For the best control, use Apple Compressor.

It just seems like everything else that is digital, whether it's editing or sound recording/mixing. It can be a great tool, but it's accessibility opens the door to a lack of craft, a drop in standards and know-nothings taking over as "professionals." Just to be clear. You can't hold the camera accountable for the actions of dilettantes. However, I can see where this response is coming from. But it's two separate arguments. I'd like to hear more about the camera's performance and less about its perceived social impact.

I think this is best attempted by starting out on a smaller scale. For example lace curtains and an open faced light in place of using a big light through trees. Plus getting a curtain to undulate is a lot more convincing than shaking a tree or wobbling a big light.

Your DVD is in a compressed format. You need something like Cinematize which will read your DVD and export to whatever format you want. If you're a little savvy you can use something free that does the same thing.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I agree that video is good tool and better suited for somethings. However, I also figure it has replaced a lot of the "intermediate level" film work (music videos, shorts, low-budget spots). Which for DP's that aren't shooting 35mm yet, is an important area to gain experience. I actually sort of feel video is much harder, is that it's smaller latitude and harsh clipping needs more control to look professional. Having shot projects for 5 years for low/free, I was more asking what the next step is in getting to the "next level?" I know tons of music videos, commercials and what not happen around town and I was wondering if there is some association that might be beneficial to join? Or some resource? Thanks for the comments, as they sort of confirm that there really isn't any process to advancement in NYC, other than personal connections. As everyone I know on the low-budget end is going video, they don't seem to lead to any real connections for future film work.

I saw the documentary and it wasn't really that interesting. It doesn't really go much into details. As for the book, it's mainly a coffee table piece. There is a collection of outtakes from that Tarkovsky film that he shot, that have commentary and illuminate the approach. You should track those down.

Robert's comment just reminded of something I wanted to ask about. Has anyone discussed / heard of something called "Alchemist?" David Lynch mentioned using "Alchemist" on Inland Empire to "upres" the image from his PD-150 to something akin to Hi-Def resolution. I think he mentioned something about how it fills in the missing information when "upresing."

I graduated from a film program about 6 years ago, where I DP'd a number of projects and a thesis film and then moved out to NYC with the idea shooting some shorts, music videos, anything to bulk up my experience. Recently, it seems like most of the smaller film stuff out there has migrated to a video format, and whereas the area film programs used to be reliable for 16mm and even 35mm short projects looking for a DP, I see that less and less. The problem is that, I feel with video comes a video mentality of "there's no need for lights or a tripod." And the bulk of the work that new DP can cut their teeth on, has entered an "everyman" category where most people in 5mins could figure out how to shoot it on DV. I feel that when shooting with film on a low-budget, I've been able get by with existing/minimal light and not much in the way to finishing and have it still come across as stylized. However with low-budget video I feel it sort of all looks the same, without a controlled environment. Meaning, popping in some photofloods and a minimal kit of a few lights. I've done some things on 16mm and a few on S-8mm trimmed stocks, but recently it seems like everything that I am able to throw my name in the hat to shoot has gone the way of video. Which is somewhat infuriating, when you read people talk about how they started out shooting industrials, music videos, etc on 16mm. So I've sort of hit a lull, in that I don't feel it's beneficial to my experience to be shooting any more projects that involve two-kinos and lowell kit. Meaning, I haven't really added anything I've shot in the last year to my reel. Maybe I'm an aesthetics snob, but I'm working for free/cheap on these things because I have an interest in creating visuals that match an idea that's been conceived, not just to get "coverage" of a performance. Now I'm also open to the idea that I haven't been looking in the right areas of NYC or approaching things in the wrong way. If anyone local has any comments to correct my viewpoint, I'd appreciate it. So how does one move on to the next level of networking in NYC, I suppose is my first question (beyond craigslist and mandy, in other words)? I did some recent extension courses to keep in touch with people, but it seems like everyone is shooting a DV feature on that level. Are there other opportunities I could be looking at? Are things better in LA? I feel like NYC is a hotbed of commercial activity, but I have no idea how to prepare for that step. I've also tried my hand at working in the assisting capacity (2nd AC or 1st when there was no 2nd) and I feel that sort of environment is more about technical fetishizing, than I am interested in. It's like at a recent David Lynch Q&A and after 3 hours of Inland Empire, the the questions were 100% about what camera he used and why. I sort of feel that is comparable to showing up to a book reading at Barnes and Noble and asking someone why they chose the font that they did.

Thanks Rick. That's really funny, because I was shooting on 10th and A, a block away. Good to know that there is a place that rents on the weekend.

Does anyone know of a place where you can rent some C-stands in NYC, that's open on weekends? It seems most places aren't open on the weekend and I don't have the time on Friday. It's not a huge amount of equipment, just a few stands.

Would adding a 1/4 minus green gel to the lights normalize the green bias of cross-processing? Thanks for all the information on this topic. Byron

Well I don't know how many are involved in music videos, but from what I'm hearing from record exec people, they are specificially asking that the majority be in close-up as they are trying to showcase the video on ipods/online and even phones where the screen size is not up to par. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear this concerning any project that has a non-theatrical release.

What is the prefered procedure if you want to minimize grain and are over-exposing by 1-stop 1) to process normal and correct for over-exposure in telecine/printing or 2) to pull process by -1 stop What would the appreciable difference be between the above methods?

Hi, Does anyone have any experience shooting with print film? I am interested in using 2393 with only telecine. Any feedback on exposure and lattitude would great.

Yes, it looked excessive. I was wondering if you had any experience using those propane rigs that are placed right under a lens, to create heat shimmer? Do those give excessive results as well?

Hi David, quick question What was your technique for getting the heat shimmer in the opening shot?

I'd like to hear as well, how the 6080 compares to the Bauer s715 which seems to use the same lens and have similiar features.... Obviously the 6080 is quiet, but is the image comperable? Has anyone tried both?

I agree that Kodak is sticking by Super-8, evidenced by prior moves. I posted this elsewhere.... I picked up 200T kodak super-8... I don't see how this means that kodak is abandoning super-8??? Though I dislike the notion of phasing out stocks, Kodak does this all the time. Like with the great EXR stock '98. But then they turn around and put out '18 (many years later). The reality is, most people telecine their work, so negative makes more sense than reversal. Though Kodachrome has fine grain, its 1/2 stop of latitude either way dooms it for professional work. I does have a certain look, as with all stocks and I wish it would stick around, but I DO NOT see how this can be interpretted as Kodak running away from super-8. Granted most post work is now digital with DI's, but the capture medium is stil film. I think in their shift to digital they still realize any clown can get a great image with film, whereas you have to really work to get video looking "professional." This is why super-8 sales will grow, in light of a growing DV market that 99% of the time looks like video. I know I wouldn't chance shooting anything on video, for the reason alone that it might come out as looking like video.

I've been buying the prepaid processing mailer for Kodachrome and just recently noticed it is no longer offered for sale. Has anyone else encountered this problem?

Hi Ian, let me preference this by saying I have not used this product before so I have no idea how well it works. You can purchase a removeable metal pressure plate that fits into your film cartriage from a German company. They claim this resolves the problem of noticable registration problems. More to the point, there is a link to view footage of several test cards filmed with and without the additional pressure plate. Let me know your experience, if you try this out. http://www.andecfilm.de/html/bildstand_e.htm