Zac Fettig

Wouldn't that depend on the ballasts for the fluorescents? If the ballasts are high enough frequency, you'll probably see nothing, with any shutter angle. The honest answer is you'll probably have to run a test.

Living? Vilmos Zsigmond, Owen Roizman or Wally Pfister. But all time I'd have to say Jordan Cronenwith or Andrew Laszlo. I must have read "Every Frame a Rembrandt" about 20 times now. I always pick up something new in it.

Whoops. My bad.

You could nudge the color temperature on the camera a little higher. say 5500K instead of 5300K.

If it helps, my current project is being shot on 7222. Our solution was to just add more light. If you want outdoor scenes, you could always do what Kurosawa did. Wait for cloudless days then shoot during the day with a red filter in front of the lens (the B&W version of day-for-night).

The 416? BTW, Tim, what happened to arri16s.com? I loved having a reference for lenses. Any chance the clips will be posted on a vimeo channel or something?

There's always the option to shoot 7219 and turn the saturation off in post. That's what they did for "The Artist". Using color film and dropping the color in post, I mean. I don't know if they used 500t. My understanding about ORWO is that they only get in film sporadically, sell out each shipment, then wait for the next one.

When I get enough super 8 to send (I've only got 2 rolls of 500t shot at the moment), you bet I will!

Kind of funny, I didn't even know about Gamma Ray, and I live in Waltham (these days). The first round of footage from my latest project is off at Cinelab right now, but 'll have to remember them as an option in the future.

No problem. That's what the forums are here for. I don't have my 60D handy at the moment, but you might want to try shooting at 60 FPS instead of 30. A faster frame rate means less time for the scan line to be visible. Magic lantern is great! I feel lost without it now.

If you have magic lantern installed, I'd play with the shutter angle feature until the strobbing goes away.

It sounds like a refresh rate problem. The camera has to match the screens, EXACTLY. It is a shutter speed problem. Are they old CRTs?

If it was a designed as ground up medical imaging lens, you might not be able to adjust focus much, if at all. There probably was a setting for adjusting back focus at the factory, but it might not be easy to get at. Traditionally, Medical-Nikkors were focused by moving the camera back at forth. I'd assume this was used the same way. Moving the target towards the focus, rather than vice versa.

You could just buy an Arri bayonet->m4/3 mount adapter. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Cooke-Arriflex-Arri-B-Bayonet-to-MFT-micro-4-3-pocket-Blackmagic-GH3-GH2-/261285525539?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item3cd5d4b823 I've seen cheaper ones out there though...

Ektachrome will work, getting to be hard to find these days. Velvia will work (http://spectrafilmandvideo.com/). If you're shooting off the screen, 72Hz refresh will help (72 is a multiple of 24). Ideally, slowing it down would help more. If you're S8 camera has animation features, it might be worth your time to go frame by frame, with long exposures.

I think Brian means "greater than a second." I suppose you could just shoot hours of video then compress it (only use every 10,000th frame) or something. But a camera with an intervalometer is your best bet.

Any chance it was an old (20+ year old) batch of 7252?

It's not a current product offering. It's just a chart telling you how to read the Specification (SP) Number on the can. The list all the specs so you can use the chart to identify any film you have lying around. The product offerings start on page 14.

Ouch! I knew there was a reason I wasn't in grad school.

True, for a mechanical adapter. The adapter could have optics also. Like FD->EOS adapters. You'd lose some light. But I don't think any exist. Not really any reason to put M4/3 lenses on EOS.

Does anyone make an adapter to put M4/3 lenses on Canon EOS? The other way around is common, but I've never seen that one.

Kodak still has that as part of their specs. They're not offering any film in that spec though.

Both NYU and Columbia have fairly renown film schools. I'd pay that much (if I had that much) for one of them, but probably not for NYFA. Colleges in the USA are very expensive, especially for foreign students.

And I still get nightmares about shooting Tri-X in low light.

There's a theory that says you don't become an expert at something until you've practiced it for 10,000 hours. That's a lot of time. At the end of the day, the camera is just a tool. If you have a DSLR, use it. If you have an XL-2, use that. They're both just video cameras. I prefer using my XL-2 to my DSLR. I like not having down time while the camera cools off. I like that XL2 has never quit on me in the middle of a take (the 60D has done that due to overheating). I like that the XL2 was built to shoot video; It's not a tacked on feature. I think the final results look better off the XL2, if a little grainier. The latitude is roughly the same. If I want to, I can mount PL-mount cine lenses on the XL2. I can't do that with the 60d (without doing major surgery to the front of it). It mainly comes down to fighting the herd instinct. Every wannabe filmmaker bought a expensive MiniDV camera, then chucked them as soon as HD, the 2k, then 4k came out. They're still perfectly good, and can be had for a song. Take advantage of that. Buy one, but cheap. Watch Rodriguez's 10 minute film school. If you want to figure out what to buy, to practice on, save your money on the camera and spend it where it makes the most sense. My lightmeter cost almost as much as the 60D, and I think it's worth 100 times as much. I only expect the DSLR to last 2-3 years. I expect to have that lightmeter for 10-20. If you need to buy something fancy and new to shoot on, get a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. It has better latitude. It can take cine lenses with adapters. Honestly though, it's just a tool. The are people who still shoot on Fisher Price PXL-2000(s). They like the way the image looks, and more power to them. It's just a tool. Given a choice, I tell everyone to get a cheap video camera, practice a LOT, and graduate to film, where you plan on spending a minimum of $20/minute. I'd much rather spend less on a video camera (and that is what a DSLR is at the end of the day) and more on a 16mm film camera (Arri SR2 or SR3) and film. Or a lighting kit. Or lenses. And, there's nothing wrong with spending a few years shooting weddings. It's good experience, it can be a bit humbling, and it pays you while you learn your craft (instead of the other way around). If you can handle a bride's temper tantrums, wildly mixed lighting, remain inconspicuous and deliver a good video; you can handle almost anything. Keep in mind, Andrew Lazlo learned cinematography in the Army. They paid for his film, while he learned. It wasn't glamorous, and he didn't start at the top. But he ended up there.