Paul Nordin

I really like the look of Cooke S4s...guess I like warm vs clinical. I was quite excited when Cooke announced the new Panchro lenses, as they are arriving on the scene at just about the same time I'm gearing up to buy a new set of lenses. I've read the sales stuff saying they are the same image as S4 & S5 but a stop slower. I find that somewhat hard to believe given the tremendous price differential, but it would be very cool if true. T2.8 is pretty slow for a modern prime these days, but if the image quality is stellar, that might be enough for me to outweigh the stop loss. There are no sets out here yet where I work (SF Bay Area), so I'm wondering if anyone has had a chance to shoot or evaluate them and might be willing to share their opinions/findings? Cheers, Paul

Mathew, Thanks for the quick feedback! I'll have to rent the Optimo DP Rouge for shoot sometime soon and check it out. I keep hearing great reports of them going toe-to-toe with all but the select best primes (MPs for example). I find that hard to believe, but I'd be quite glad to have my eyes opened. Cheers, Paul

That's quite a statement Micheal! I know this post is from 6 months ago, but I was wondering if you can point to any negatives you observed with the Optimo DPs? besides the red-rings, which are fairly universally regarded as cheap looking. I have heard that the DPs are quite sharp throughout thier zoom range. I've not heard much about CA, distortion, or vignetting? Cheers, Paul

Mostly I agree with this. Lenses -tend- to be selected on a per-job basis for the characteristic and budget size of the shoot. David Mullin, who was probably over-simplifying a bit, said he just rents the most expensive lenses his budget allows regardless. Although he also said he gravitates towards contrastier lenses. But the point of this, is that while lenses can have a significantly longer useful life than any form of digital camera system, a full set of quality lenses are so expensive that you will likely not get an ROI for many years unless you are a rental house. However, there are people that really like the old-Cooke look, and while I think they may be a bit over-nastalgic, some vintage lenses have an active market. There is a real advantage to having a set of house lenses for you to use on your own project and to offer lower budet shoots. But if those house lenses are from the SLR world, and not Cine world, they will be viewed as unprofessional/or-very low budget. Options are good though. The new CF.2 lenses from Zeiss are something you might look into.

Which the Red zoom is definitely not. Not that it's terrible, but the manufacturing tolerances are pretty weak. I've shot with two of them over the last month or so, and each one had different manifestations of slop in the mechanics. The one I used last week had the annoying behavior of changing iris whenever you use the zoom ring. So to rack zoom, you have to keep your thumb pressed down on the iris ring to hold it in place...very disappointing for a $6500 product.

If you're looking for the "best" C-Stand, my personal vote would go to American Grip's C-Stand. They have a bit thicker tubes and the grip head handles are by far the easiest to spin/tighten/untighten I've come across. Personally, I've found that the MSE line has suffered a tad in the QC since moving all it's manufacturing offshore (china I believe). I'm not coming at this from a "buy american" perspective...just think American Grip's stuff is really great. Its all I'll buy now as they last a lot longer under extreme conditions. Check it out if you get a chance. BTW- I'd place Modern at just as good as MSE and cheaper.

I recently read "Reflections" by ASC press. It is a compilation of interviews and practical workshops by master cinematographers which goes into enough detail to see how they each approach lighting to achieve their different looks. Quite a good read in my opinion.

If you are into reading to learn, in the book "Reflections" put out by ASC press, there is a chapter on Yves Angelo with a couple of lighting examples. The title of the chapter is "Rembrandt Homage" and describes in detail, with examples, how to achieve the look you are describing.

Interesting theory Jason. I would bet a dollar that its a digital makeover, but the only way to verify would be to watch it again and it wasnt' that good of a flick. Cheers

Jamie, In my experience, the Brevis (or any other 35mm adapter) has no impact on whether or not the prime lens will flare. If you put hot point sources in the frame or just outside the frame you will get the effect you desire as long as the prime has a tendency to do that. The Brevis will not reduce or increase that tendency.

David, You're probably right. The effect is similar to that look, where your eyes are trying to grab onto some visual reference points in the image but they have all been smoothed away. Really does not fit in this context since it was not evident in any other shots. In Ultraviolet at least they were making a visual statement.

Computer enhanced definitely, but probably not a computer generated actor...at least I don't think so. If it was, they should have realized they didn't have the budget to do it right.

I saw "Resident Evil: Extinction," shot by David Johnson, BSC yesterday. Post-appocalyptic movies are my truest form of guilty pleasure. I thought the film was pretty good in it's production values and true to it's intent, was a roller coaster ride. Mostly it seemed to be well shot, but in several places there was a strange processing done to the close-ups of Milla Jovovich. I believe each one was an exterior. In them she looked very different from the wide and medium shots, with her skin texture appearing unaturally smooth and "softened". The only reasons I could think of were either the DP had underexposed those shots and they had to be heavily boosted in post and then they were over-smoothed to remove the resulting grain, or the producers hated the harsh desert exterior lighting on Milla's face and forced some radical post processing to make her skin smoother. Regardless, I found them very distracting and totally out of character with the rest of the film's look. Does anyone know why this was done? And if so, what was done? Cheers, Paul

I do a lot of low-budget car shots. It's a real challenge to balance interior with exterior. The fixtures that are being described here are generally too weak in output to 'nicely' match interior and exterior. Even if you tow and shine a 1.2k HMI into the front, you will not be at the same level inside the car as outside on a sunny day (+2 stops). Reflectors help, plan the angle of the sun to your camera (per David's advice), and early am or late pm time of day can also be a big help.

I'll second the number one problem: inadvertently turning the unit off or forgetting to turn it on. It runs very smoothly (best speed for me is with the dial set to between 6-7). I've used in on a Varicam and SDX and other than having a much longer footprint, on an already long camera, it creates a nice look. If you have 4 batteries and keep the charger working you won't have a problem. SDX is a great cam. Shot a commercial with it a few months ago and the image is cleaner than the Varicam in the blacks.

That's a big question. I work on low-budget features, so others may have a different approach. But I've got no agent, and am usually one of the first hires. During pre-production I ask as many questions as possible, from as many different perspectives as possible. I need to get into the director's head to a place where I feel we are at least on some level sharing a vision. From that tweaks to all pre-production deliverables happen, and a trust gets built between myself and the director before we start rolling...very important. Style, budget, organization, look, crew, wardrobe, set design, shot list & storyboards, working style, work flows, equipment lists, logistics, distribution targets, hours per day, hours for turnarounds, hours between meals, types of meals, etc. It all has to be covered because once shooting starts the DP will be heads down executing the plan. There is almost always a lot of improvisation so how that is handled also needs to be discussed. Your question is so broad it's hard to answer. But basically every aspect of what you plan to or hope to do during production needs to be planned during prepro. Otherwise, you will be screwed unless your really good at dancing fast. In my budget level, with no unions or major studios, and mixed experienced production team, your crew also is at the mercy of how well you communicate limits and needs beforehand.

If you are not able to foot the bill for a pro-quality tripod such as those Nash is recommending, you can work through the chain of support to try to eliminate the wobbles one joint at a time. I would start by sand-bagging the tripod legs solidly to the ground. Then work your way up doing what you can to eliminate any unwanted motion when you are applying the rotational torque from racking. Obvious places to put attention on will also include: Tripod Plate to camera, camera to rails, rails to ff, ff to lens. If you don't have a lens support on the rails, you will be fighting a loosing battle.

Thanks Stephen. I remember those tests, though it would be good to see something from the current generation of chip/electronics/software/etc. A lot has changed since the Stump tests. Although I suspect all those changes have only made things better.

I've noticed that lack too. I'm going to be testing camera #103 when it ships at the end of Oct, and that will be a big part of the evaluation. Although I looked at some test footage from unit #23 at a gathering yesterday and zoomed in the edges looked amazingly sharp. So I anticipate it handling chromakeys quite well. If noone has posted such tests before then, I'll be happy to do so when I am able.

LOL- thats an understatement! I've hate having to steadicam with video & sound feeds, but a paintbox tether would be impossible or so nearly so as to make it ludicrous to try.

Actually, the P+S Pro 35 is for 2/3" chip cameras which are outside of his budget. The adapter alone is close to $15k. He should be looking at the P+S Mini 35 adapter to use with an HVX, XLR, JVC or whatever else he wants to look at. "Bearded-know-it-all" ?! LOL I really admire your patience and willingness to help in the face of that. Cheers, Paul

Hi Joseph, Welcome to the forum. Visual Products is a very good company to buy pro-quality used gear. There are others, but thats a fine place to start looking and figuring out what gear pros use. I think the biggest challenge you will have in creating a "film" look will not be your equipment. It will be your skills as a cinematographer. Any reasonable 3-chip camera which shoots 24P will do just fine. My personal opinion, and that of many others on this list, is it's your skill and talent at lighting which will give your projects a film look. I suggest you start by reading "Cinematography" by Brown. I also highly recommend that you work on a film or two as a PA or camera assistant and learn how all the gear is used and what value each item brings to composition. Once you have a basic understanding of the concepts, you will be able to make a much more informed decision about how to spend your $20k. No matter what equipment you have, you will need a solid understanding of the concepts around cinematography to have the control of image necessary to create the looks you want. Without that knowledge and skill, you can spend $200k on equipment and still shoot footage that looks like crap. Cheers, Paul

Hi Stefan, If you are shooting an exterior in full sunlight, a 575hmi would not do anything as far as fill. Simply not enough lumens to compete with the sun. The best bet would be to use some form of reflector and bounce sunlight into the shadow side. the cheapest bounce is foamcore. You can get a 8'x4' sheet from a hardware store for a couple of dollars US. And one that size would be fine for filling in a two-shot. In my opinion, if you are wanting to match/balance outside, the smallest you will get any help from is a 1.2kHMI, and that is still barely enough to do much with. That said, a 1.2k HMI will help balance interiors with bright exteriors through windows with some creative use of ND on windows. The Arri Softbank IV is a nice flexible kit. I have one which I purchased several years ago. However, if I were going to spend that kind of money on a light kit, and I was going to use it for dramatic shooting, -and- I was going to stay tungsten. I'd probably do the following. there are three main things I'd need to get from my first $2000. 1. Lots of raw searing light...as many watts worth as my money can muster. 2. Ability to beam in light to targets across the set/room 3. Ability to light scenes both daylight and tungsten balanced. I don't care too much about paying a premium for a softlight kit. Those are neat in a studio, but very limited. I can make the world's best softlight with a big openface and either bounce it off a $2.50 foam board, or a 12'x12' grif, or shoot it through a large frame of diffusion. That said, I LOVE Kinos for their flexibility and low profile. But I don't like the color of their light as much as pure tungsten. But their big cool advantage is they can be globed for daylight or tungsten. All my other lights will have to be gelled blue and loose 1.5 stops in the process. That can take a nice 2k openface and cut it off at the knees when lighting a bigger set. So what I would get are: 2-2k used Mole Richardsons 2-1k mole babies (fresnels) 2- 4' 4-bank kino 2 - 150w dedos 1- 4'x4' shiny-board I would buy them all on eBay used (from places like Kaye Lights) and pay 40%-50% of the price of new lights. Cheers, Paul

Hi Rolfe, I'm not sure why you think a smaller shutter angle would help with using a flare as your source. Certainly having the talent keep the flare a consistent distance from their face would be important. I've not tried to use flares myself so can't provide any first hand advice. However, there was a film called "The Descent" which came out last year that was written up in AC. The DP use practical flares held by the talent as they moved through the caves, and after a bit of trying ended up using red-gelled lights. I can't remember the exact reason for that (smoke build up was at least a part) but you might try to find that article for more info. Cheers, Paul

True enough...reading a basic lighting text will answer all the types of questions you are asking and probably do so more thuroughly. Even so, if I were lighting that scene, with the same "fixture" you used (a flashlight?). I would have placed the hot key high as you did, but slightly behind the object and aim it in front of the actor's face onto back side of the relic (from camera). I'd place something reflective and gold on that surface. The effect would be to have a glow from the light hitting the relic to provide the key light for the talent. That would also avoid the nasty shadow the relic creates on the actor's face when he reaches for it. The rest of the lighting can be built out from there to fit the mood.