Joseph Dudek

Thanks for replies. Looking through IMDB randomly and noticing that the use of a 1.37 negative, intended for release in Euro 1.66.1- US 1.85.1, is sparingly used in modern productions (though this could possibly just be IMDB). Like has been mentioned, shooting a full can lead to mics etc being in shot (though presumably this can be avoided by hard matting?). Despite this, which is the most common way to shoot nowaday, full Aperture 1.37 negative, or a 3-perf negative 1.78, assuming the release will be 1.66-1.85?

So people still shoot with a negative of 1.37 to be released in 1.66-1.85? It just seems that I rarely encounter this combination past 1990 when researching, though it may just be coincidental.

Wouldn't let me edit: Additionally, considering that if the negative ratio is 1.37, doesn't that mean a lot of ambiguity over framing, as most likely it will be released in 1.85, or something similar, and to achieve this I presume they mask over the bottoms of the negative to produce a narrower image?

So, 'The Thing' [1982], was filmed using 35mm East 100T 5247, they used anamorphic lenses as it was later blown up to 70mm for release. The printed film format was Eastman 5384. Question: How does the print film format affect the look of the film, i.e. can you categorize print film in the same way as negative (Tungsten & Daylight)? Negative vs Intended/theatrical aspect ratio. If a movie was shot in 35mm & its negative aspect ratio was 1.37- how many perforations would it have, what type of films was that most likely, what is the reason for it? Considering that the film in question was released in 1.85.1 ... does this mean they blew it up? I associate 1.33 etc with 16mm. What affect does running 35mm film through the camera horizontally produce? thanks.

@Freya: Ah, I thought you were referring to the post you quoted, but to be fair to the original post - I posed a question about rental prices, not a fact, then went on to outline that I was unaware of all the options, implying I was looking for help in reaching such a conclusion. Apologies if you have interpreted my concerns as trying to be matter of fact, I could see how the topic title could have implied so (perhaps a question mark was needed), but if you read my posts it is quite clear I didn't intend it to be that way. Anyway. Currently, the conclusion which you thought I had arrived at is on course to be true, unless, like you stated, Kodak introduces a similar deal. Which we all hope they will. Overall, we can at least agree, that there is a severe amount of ambiguity over an already unfavourable situation. NPR: thank you for mentioning it, I will certainly keep that in mind for the future. Assuming the rental prices go the way we hope they won't, buying a 16mm camera and converting it may be the cheaper & more efficient way to shoot S16. I will first state that I have not yet received a response from Panavision & Arri regarding their policies on renting to unaffiliated amateurs, so I cannot chastise them on that. From the research I have done and from your post it seems that a lot of the more acceptable rates are dependant on building a relationship with these companies on the basis of honesty, which is fair. But looking at their site, you would have no reason to come to that conclusion. Their enquiry forms alone require you to state company affiliations and places like TakeTwo require industry vouches. Their catalogues state explicit prices (which are high), so you can forgive individuals for not feeling valued as potential customers. You mention 'going in' and meeting representatives of these companies, which is fine if you live anywhere near their offices - but for everyone else outside of their range, such a relationship would need to be established through phone and email out of circumstance. Good customer service and the requirement for customers to be humble, while fair in this situation, are not necessarily compatible; so I can understand why it might not be the first thing to run through people's minds to approach them this way, after all, an amateur money is as good as a professionals. Thanks for the responses Phil, very helpful in my understanding of how to successfully approach these companies.

I wouldn't look into it that much; it was written as tongue-in-cheek as I thought was implied when I signed off with 'Rant Over'. Perhaps I came off a bit Daily Mail. Though there are some odd paradoxes in the UK when it comes to pricing. When you consider all the elements to how price is calculated then a relationship between government spending (in turn taxation) and consumer, even rental, prices does exist. I'm not knowledgeable as to the differences in taxation between the UK & France, but you say France has higher taxation then the UK (corporate tax you are referring?), and another poster mentioned that rental prices in France are much cheaper. It would take a much smarter person than me to understand why this would be, but I do know that companies as successful as Arri & Panavision aren't in the habit of making pointless obtuse prices for their products - there must be a economic reason for such a difference in price between the two countries of similarly unfavourable economic climates. High damage rate? Land prices? Taxation? Transport costs? High labour costs? Your guess is as good as mine; we are not economists after all. As for conclusions about the future - I don't believe I made any. I was only trying to outline the unenviable situation many aspiring cinematographers/film-makers in the UK find themselves in and I can only attest to my own experiences - but from the posts, I am clearly not alone. I didn't start the thread just so I could whine on about it, if anyone knows any alternatives to the high rental prices I'm more than willing to listen.

Whether or not that is true, film is still the best technology in regard of quality. I don't believe that makes me a film purist, it is just reality - I'm not one of these film enthusiasts who believes digital projection, DI's and CGI is the death of cinema. It's not as though renting a high-end digital camera is a cheaper alternative either. When you mount up the costs of all the auxiliary memory, it is actually, price wise, fairly even when compared to S16 - in the UK - in most other notable film producing countries S16 would be a cheaper alternative to high-end digi. At least from what I've seen on foreign prices. @Alex, I agree with your sentiments. The rental prices, whether digital or film, are ridiculous. It was only a year or so ago that every pomp in the BBC was talking about the revival of the UK film industry, that not since the 60s' have British films been of such quality and popularity. Well that may be true for those already established, but where is the UK independent film industry? It's fine having films like the King's Speech which the government institutes throw money and appraise at, that appeals the American Anglophiles who like pomposity of it, but what about the generation that is to replace the current? Are they expected to make films with unsatisfactory cameras intended for documentaries, making painful, overdone kitchen-sink dramas because that's about as much as the affordable formats will allow. There are no low-budget options for rental, the only affordable way to get your hands on professional film equipment is to work your way through the ranks of the film industry & studios, which are almost exclusively in or around London & the South East. Which are highly sought after jobs. When you compare the UK independent industry to that of the States or France it leaves a lot to be desired. There is nothing wrong with making films which are profitable and appeal to tourists, but if you are to have a serious and thriving industry you need to look all stages of film-making, everyone is a indie film-maker at one point, unless you rise through the ranks. Simple things like dropping the price of rental would make a massive difference and probably pay itself back due to the number of quality films being cheaply made. Though I don't profess to know how such a drop in price can happen, the reason for prices being so high is most likely a complex economic combination of high taxation, welfare state and low demand. The staidness of this country drives me half-mad sometimes. Rant over.

Is it just me or is renting a film camera about to get extremely expensive in the UK for amateur filmmakers? I'm not completely aware of all the options in the UK, partly the reason I made this thread, but the main companies who rent with reasonable prices seem to be Arri, Panavision, Movietech and Take2. What made them reasonable was that they had an agreement with Fuji and Technicolor London that when you purchased even a single can of film you would receive a discount of 60% on film cameras and some equipment. Unfortunately, with the steady demise of Fuji's european operations it is stopping this arrangement at some point in early 2013 (taking the avg. price of S16 rental from £512 a week to £1280, based on SR3). Very disconcerting, especially when you consider that the alternative film quality digital cameras are more expensive to rent. Any people around this part of the world have any information they can share? {edit = the site was getting buggy and instructed to refresh, which has appeared to have created numerous topics, my apologies, ADMIN}

I don't see digital projection as a bad thing when you compare it with the inconsistency of a film print in a regular chain cinema. As long as it is captured on film, for me at least, it still has enough organic character to not resemble that unpleasant lifeless digi look, even when projected digitally. If you are going to be pragmatic then digital projection is a step forward - consider the days before digital projection, I remember them well, half the cinemas had badly kept prints that they used to exhaustion out of frugality, inconsistent light from the projectors. To begin with I wasn't too much of a fan of digital projection, even before I wanted to make films, just watching as a fan. But digital projection is consistent, looks a lot better than well used print and no one can deny in the last few years digital projection as come along leaps and bounds. For example I went to go see Waterloo(1970) & Solaris (1972) last night, projected digitally, and I have to admit I was very impressed with the quality - bright and saturated. Going to see 2001 tomorrow at the same chain, that will be very tell tale to the quality of digi to the eye on account of all the black in that picture. Does digital projection look as good as a fresh print with a serious projectionist? No.But who was ever really getting to consistently see fresh prints, with a well maintained projector and serious projectionist anyway? At least not anywhere I have lived, it was a roll of the dice at times. Cinema's always try and get the most out of their prints. Now digitally filmed and projected - I haven't as of yet been able appreciate cinematography in this combination. As long as we can still capture on film I will be happy, digital projection is, in some respects, a good thing, or at least a consistent thing. The problem is, like OP said, when digital projection is the only mainstream option, will we still be able to view the less popular films of the past? I hope so but it seems unlikely as it is not economically viable, it would most likely require a charity to pursue it like the Scorcese's organisation.

Just to add: With digital projection, although lacking at times the richness of a film print, is it more likely for films to show the aspect ratios that the filmmaker has requested, seeing as they can adjust such things through their computer?

This might be a rather elementary question, but one I'm having difficulty understanding. Take for example the original Tobe Hooper "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", shot by Daniel Pearl, which was filmed on 16mm on an Eclair. I'm assuming when it was shown at the cinema in the 70s it was blown up to 35mm and shown @ 1.66? Was the result a change in the composition, say a wider view of the image, with the top and bottom cut off slightly? How can filmmakers prepare for this, if your film is going to be scaled up or scaled down, or viewed in a ratio other that in the native ratio to the format it was shot in, how is it possible to maintain the painstakingly careful compositions chosen by the director and DP? Say a 70mm film viewed on an HDTV? An S16 film blown up to 35mm screened @ 1.85? Another question: Why is that generally formats like 16mm & S16mm are limited to the aspec ratios of 1.33 & 1.66 respectively, yet 35mm can be anything native from 1.5:1 to 1.85:1?

Old topic but didn't want to start a new one. You see the 180 degree rule broken quite regularly in films. Though, it is usually following a shot which clearly shows the audience the geography of the set and the players positions - in turn, making no disorientating effect on viewer.

You say the post-syncing process is a headache, I'm sure it is - but even major productions do a lot for ADR, is it not the same principle? i.e. having a recorder on hand to get their lines in the set, then re-record to improve the dialogue, later.

Any recommendations? (camera)

When working with a loud camera, such as a Russian 16mm, in a piece that requires either sound effect and/or dialogue, how difficult is it to achieve a decent post-sync with just a basic digital recorder and Premier Pro? It sounded to me as almost impossible, but after research it seems it was the industry standard for a much of the 20th century and is still in use in some places. What techniques exist to make the sync better? I mean, actors would surely need to speak in such a way in the recording as to completely mimic the rhythm of their speech in the image. Assuming I choose to do it this way - I was going to sit with the actors and watch the chosen takes, watch it several times, then attempt, while watching, to get the actor to speak their lines in as close to the rhythm as seen on the image. Thoughts?