Satsuki Murashige

According to the book "Making Pictures: A Century of European Cinematography", the format was 35mm Sovscope (anamorphic). You can certainly see some anamorphic lens artifacts like elongated bokeh in the film. The article in the book also takes about the use of b&w and color film stocks in the film: The usual shortage of color stock in the Soviet Union for minority-interest productions led to Eastmancolor being used only for the studio scenes in the space station, while Russian color negative (Sovcolor) was used for location footage, with interruptions of black and white in both. Tinting and the lower color saturation of the Russian negative help to integrate the look of the sections shot on different stocks.

Sweet, thanks again for the extra tips! I've been thinking about how to recreate the hard reflections from direct sunlight hitting passing traffic, all those fast moving reflections off of car windows. It seems like your rig can be adapted for that by putting the mirrors on the hi-roller instead of the lights. With several rows of hi-rollers rigged this way, you could probably light a fairly large area. I was thinking about doing this for the interior of a city bus on a greenscreen stage. I guess the only trick would be to get the mirrors low enough so that they seem to come from below the bus windows.

Wow, sounds like a cool rig David, thanks for sharing!

Hi Daniel, We had a nice discussion about the film here: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...011&hl=2001 David and Leo posted some info about the lenses used.

But can he actually do it? I highly doubt it. Glen, just give it a rest already - you've done enough damage to your reputation in this thread as it is. To the otherwise sane members of the forum, there's a helpful tool called "Ignored Users List" in My Controls that you can use to mask posts from your screen by user name. I highly recommend that you make use of it.

I've worked as a DP in this sort of situation before on several small projects. This happened because the camera owner/operator was a friend of mine who wasn't very confident in his lighting ability (unjustified IMO, but that's another story) so he asked me to step in for him as a lighting cameraman. We've also done several projects with him working under me as strictly a camera op. in the traditional American style, and also several projects with me gaffing for him. Personally, the latter two arrangements were more comfortable for me - we both knew where we stood in terms of who had the final authority so things went more smoothly. It sounds to me like your situation is somewhat similar, please correct if I'm wrong. You're not confident in your lighting skill, but you and the director have a working relationship already as director/DP. So you want someone to step in and fill the gap but who will also defer to you in terms of blocking, camera placement and lens choice. In which case I would recommend that you should be the DP and hire a talented gaffer who will agree to work under you. But if you still want to hire a DP and just operate the camera, then I'd recommend that you and the "DP" come to an arrangement during the job interview of exactly how much authority he has and in what areas. Just don't hire anyone who does not agree to the rules you've laid out, and things should go smoothly. The thing is, you can't be too upset that many DPs will not accept this arrangement because it's simply not what most of us are used to in the US. But I think if you're honest beforehand during the interview, you should be able to find somebody who will agree to this. Good luck, and let us know how it goes.

Good list, Chris. May I also add: - Give yourself plenty of time to test the lenses in prep. You will find lemons and quirks even in the good lenses. - Give your focus puller a decent stop to work at, 2.8 or slower if possible. - Rent the biggest monitor you can get for checking focus, and keep it where the 1st can pull off of it for difficult shots. - Get the director his own big monitor so he doesn't hog the 1st's monitor. - Make production understand beforehand that by choosing to go with still lenses, they are trading time and efficiency on set for a cheaper rental cost. There will be soft shots and more retakes than usual, guaranteed. And there's nothing you or the 1st can do to fix that. - Stand up for your 1st if he asks for another take or need more time to get marks.

Sometimes I do. It depends on the len, setup, and situation - for example, with still lenses that have a short travel I find that I have more fine control over the focus ring by pulling from the barrel, rather than using some janky plastic gear ring. This is important for handheld where the subject to camera distance is always moving. With cinema lenses with a long travel like digiprimes, master primes, and S4s, pulling from the barrel is awful because there's no way to get enough torque to make a long pull easily. I had to do this once with digiprimes stuffed into a super tiny loft with a DP and an 11 year old actor with ADD, not fun. I think I ended up using two strips of spike tape on the barrel to help me do the pull, pulley-style. A whip and speed crank is essential with these lenses, especially for handheld. Pulling focus with a teleprompter rig can be pretty horrible without a follow focus since the prompter hood often has to cover the lens marks on the barrel, so you transfer your marks to the hand wheel and use those.

Well, if I remember correctly, after you've created the partition and named the new volume with Disk Utility, you reboot your laptop with the Tiger install disc loaded. You'll be prompted to select which volume you want to install the OS on. Select the partitioned volume and install. After that's done, go to Startup Disk in System Preferences and select which OS you want to use after restarting. I'd recommend backing up all your data before you do this though, never know what could happen.

Hi Gus, I've been doing P2 data management with my Macbook Pro and Duel Adapter running OS 10.4.11 on a partition. The system works okay as long as I only use the Duel Adapter as a card reader and don't try to use P2 Content Management Software to ingest footage directly off of the card (which invariably crashes the system). I can hot swap cards without crashing as long as the Duel Adapter itself doesn't pop out of the Expresscard slot while copying footage, which it is prone to do (!!). For what it's worth, I've found that the P2CMS ingest function works fine on my system with a Panasonic FW800 P2 Drive. My other OS is 10.5.4 which seems to have the same functionality with the Duel Adapter and P2CMS as 10.4.11. So what I now do is use the Duel Adapter just as a card reader and do a drag and drop onto the external drive, then check the footage off the drive with P2CMS. I've been doing Red data management on 10.5.4 with no problems. Hope this helps, let us know what you find out.

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? I think a director with something to express would take even a mediocre script and inject some interesting ideas into the film thru their use of camera placement, coverage, staging, direction of actors, etc. I think part of what's changed is that productions are much more slavish in their interpretations of mediocre scripts; it used to be that if the director didn't like a scene, then he'd alter it. For better or for worse, the film was the director's film (a huge overgeneralization, I know). I just can't see the director of "Max Payne" doing this. At least we can recognize an Oliver Stone film when we see it. But what can any DP do on either production other than go with the flow if he or she isn't given the chance to contribute to the underlying structural syntax of the film? Didn't Willis have a great deal of clout on set in his day, more so than all but a handful of DPs working today? Come to think of it, didn't DPs in general have more control over their work (framing, exposure, grading) back then? He was probably able to impose his visual aesthetics much more strongly on a film than most DPs would now. Perhaps the machinery of filmmaking has become so big, schedules so tight, budgets so stretched, effects work so tightly controlled and post-oriented, that the lightness of the "camera as a pen" has been lost on all but a handful of productions? I understand your concern about younger filmmakers not picking up on the importance of visualizing their stories in basic cinematic terms though. This is probably where an experienced DP could really help them out. I look forward to seeing the work your students produce in the future! (I consider myself one of your students, BTW). :)

Cool Chris, sounds like you learned a lot and gained a lot of confidence on this shoot. Did you get to review any of the footage for focus issues?

None that I can think of, other than getting to use three filters at once while saving 1/4" of space by not adding another stage to the matte box. But if you want to use diopters then you pretty much have to use the round filter slot, unless you can find a square diopter. I've never seen any, but they might exist.

If a rough looking "manual" effect is ok, then what about using an ND grad filter in the matte box and sliding it gradually from dark to clear while compensating with the iris? Or you could possibly use that Rosco polarized variable ND gel by stretching it tight on a frame and mounting it in front of the lens like a teleprompter. Then use a pola in the matte box to slowly dial out the ND and compensate with the iris.

Hey Chris, Make sure the PL mount on the Red is collimated and keep checking it, as often as you would back focus. As you probably know, the Red PL mount is held in place with a couple of screws (hex, I think) which can shake loose over time. So you go to change a lens, twist the mount and whoops! the whole thing turns in your hand. Not good when you're depending entirely on the lens marks to judge focus... Keep tightening those screws. Talk to the steadicam op before the shoot and make sure you're comfortable with the gear he's providing (mainly the wireless FF). He will probably also have a wireless monitoring system, so make sure you're comfortable with that. Know where he keeps his batteries. Keep the cradle stand for the rig close by. One thing you can do to check sharps is to have an HD monitor on a stand near the camera and briefly hook up the HD-SDI cable to the camera before a take. Obviously check with the operator and work out a system with him beforehand because nothing pisses off a steadicam op more than being tethered when he isn't expecting it. :) If he has to be tethered for some reason, a good place to run a cable is up the right side of the chest and velcro'd to the back of his vest. Find out if you're getting a 2nd AC and if not, ask for one. Steadicam is one of those jobs where having a 2nd is critical to helping you get marks quickly, shlepping lens cases, moving monitors, etc. You can't do all that and pull focus too. Sounds obvious, but if you've pulled on steadicam without a 2nd before, you know what I'm talking about. If the operator asks for a tape mark on the floor, put the mark directly under the post, that's easier for him to hit than a mark at his feet. Borrow a laser distance meter from a fellow AC if you don't have one. Really helpful for judging 10'-25' range. Fight to get a good position where you can see the actors, and if you need time to get some marks, fight for that too. Steadicam in narrow quarters and on stairs is really tricky, it's hard to find a good place to stand that won't be on camera. Some ACs will stand behind the operator and peek over his shoulder. I don't like that very much because you can't see the actors very well but sometimes you have to do it. You'll be stressed on the day, so do your yoga in the morning, eat a good breakfast, and drink plenty of water. :P Good luck, and let us know how it goes!

Hey Jaime, A set electrician recommended this book to me as a good starting point: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Electricity-Re...8698&sr=8-1 I've read and own the "Set Lighting Technician's Handbook" as well, but a lot of it went right over my head. I guess that's why I ended up in camera dept... :rolleyes:

I dunno, it's kinda perfect given the material...

Cool, nice work Chris! I'll be using it. :)

*EDIT @ Jon: When I monitor focus, I never try to judge distance (as in, "I think she just leaned in 6"). My method is more like a branch of zen focus - I "feel" the actor's movement thru the focus ring (as in, "that feels like a 2 degree barrel rotation"). Thinking just gets in the way, slows you down. You can't be afraid to torque the focus ring either, the closer the action to the film plane, the harder you have to torque the lens. The only time my system goes to hooey is when my hand muscles "forget" which way to turn the focus ring - then it's a very dark day for camera department! I know it sounds like the ol' Jedi mind trick, but it works for me.

Jeez, just ignore the guy Steve, he's not worth the bother. You're just validating his inflated ego by responding to him. I stopped taking Alexander seriously after his whole anti-Panavision rant, and that was months ago. David's work hardly needs defending anyway :rolleyes:. David, you make a great point, I never really thought about the whole generational aspect. The thing is, I've found that most of the older crew members I've worked with are pretty good about staying up to date with the latest gear and technologies (a lot better than me, I still don't have a GPS) so I figured if they weren't using the monitor technique then there must be something wrong with it. I'm glad to hear of others using it though, it's another trick to throw in the tool bag. I guess at the end of the day all that matters is that image stays in focus and that the pulls have the right feel, so we should be professionals and use whatever tool we need to get the job done as efficiently as possible. Jon, well when I started, it was all eye marks, tape marks on the ground, and tape on the lens - 16mm Scoopic with a fixed zoom. Kinda ironic, since after learning all that other jive about measuring focus, monitor focus, and zen focus, we ended up back at square one again today with the EX1 (HD camera with a fixed zoom)! The only difference is that my tool bag is a lot heavier now, and I sweat more. :P

That's true, you are giving up a lot of back up techniques by using this method. I guess taking pride in Jedi focus pulling is kinda like taking pride in a camera rig you pulled together out of gaffer tape and bongo ties... hey it works, but its not ideal.

Kinda depends on what you use to clean your slate with. I've been using isopropyl alcohol and water because I'm cheap, and I've found that the black ink inside the engraving comes off with alcohol. So I'd get the reverse laminate, but that's just me.

Well, I think it's all a matter of what you're used to. If you're used to pulling focus by measuring, then pulling from a monitor is going to feel unnatural and naturally the pulls will be reactive. I've found for myself that pulling from a monitor actually feels more natural. It's a strange trick of riding the focus ring in minute increments while judging the image size as the actors move back and forth, then anticipating where the focus needs to be as one normally would. I find it more helpful to be watching the actual image and pulling by feel rather than having the move my eyes back and forth between lens and actor. I've mentioned this before in another thread, but I've been spoiled lately by working on a lot of HD shoots where sitting at the monitor and pulling with a Preston can work. I think pulling from a monitor might be suspect with the Red since you're only seeing 720P resolution - opening up the R3Ds can be a bit of a shock. I'm curious to hear what your 1st thought of working with the Red.

It's not just still lenses either. A lot of us focus pullers dread working with some of the Canon zoom lenses like the Super 16 7-63 because they don't have witness marks and have a very short travel. I unfortunately got an email from the DP about some soft shots on a Super 16 commercial I pulled on last week - it was just a short walk and talk sequence in a classroom tracking parallel to the lens plane with the camera on a dolly. The actress was moving left to right from 15' - 12' - 8' - 10', where she lands at a desk and then sits on it and leans back, 11' from the focal plane. We shot this same setup on the 7-63 zoom in a variety of focal lengths. The soft shots were at the 11' mark on the CUs, taken around a 50mm. Wide open at T2.6 the whole time, shooting thru a teleprompter. I kept checking my marks and running tape but apparently I misjudged where 11' was on the lens because the DP said it looked like I pulled to the wall behind her (around 16'!). I also had a laser pointer on the rods to make sure the dolly was landing in roughly the same place every take. I just couldn't believe it because the lens has a 10' mark and a 15' mark (but no actual witness marks next to the numbers) and I only cracked it a few millimeters when she sat down, nowhere near the 15' mark. The DP said I should have asked him for eye marks, which I now agree with. But at the time I was sure I had nailed it, so I never bothered to. It was a painful learning experience, to say the least. :( Ironically, that's a setup that I've pulled quite often on (always from the barrel) and I have to say that as long as there's a monitor for me to pull off of I've managed to get a very high percentage of in-focus takes even on wide open telephoto shots often without rehearsals, to my great surprise (granted that the expectations for perfect focus are not as high when working under these conditions). Whether the adapters are reliable or not is another story, I seem to spend a lot of time taking them apart on set and putting them back together just to keep them working... I think pulling focus this way requires a different mentality from pulling from tape - it's akin to an operator pulling his own focus, viewing the live image and getting a feel for the lens barrel and how each fractional rotation relates to the movement of the objects in the frame. I actually find it a fun, if stressful, way of working. In a strange way, it's more immediate and intuitive - your whole body is engaged and it feels like performance. Pulling from tape alone can feel like more of a intellectual/mechanical operation because you're constantly transposing the view in front of your eyes with a running estimation of distance. For some reason, pulling on handheld feels less mechanical to me than pulling on steadicam, dolly, or sticks. Maybe because there's less time to worry about it, I dunno? Anyway, pulling from tape usually gives me a stomachache until I can see some dailies. :(

It's not just Panavision lenses. Most cinema lenses are much larger than their still counterparts - Cooke S4s and Master Primes are a handful, 35mm zooms are beasts, anamorphic primes are often as big as spherical zooms. In large part, it's a design choice. Larger glass elements generally perform better optically and allow more light to pass thru the lens, meaning the lens can be made with a large maximum aperture with fewer optical trade-offs. A larger lens housing also makes certain mechanical requirements easier to manufacture - accurate, widely-spaced distance markings for the focus puller, internal focus (no rotating or telescoping front element), uniform size and shape within a given prime lens set, smooth and even movement of the lens gears, etc. Consider also that portability is a huge asset with still lenses - most SLR-sized camera bodies are used handheld often with only one hand, whereas 35mm motion picture cameras are usually placed on sticks, dollies, jibs, cranes, etc. "Handheld" in film terms usually means resting on the shoulder, which can take more weight than the hands alone. So it's not as critical that cinema lenses be as small or light as still lenses. And if a need for a smaller, lighter lens arises, still lenses are often adapted to fit a motion picture camera. Finally, there's been a general trend toward larger and larger lens designs in recent years. So as you get more experience in the film world and work on bigger budgeted shows that use the most modern lenses, you'll be introduced to progressively larger glass and the transition eventually won't seem as weird to you - you quickly get used to holding a hunk of glass and metal that cost more than your car (and sometimes more than your house)! I know I look at Super Speeds now and can't believe I though these lenses were so big only three years ago...