Eugene Lehnert

If it's not too expensive I would reshoot the scene. Otherwise you can convert the footage to 24p but the footage will suffer and it will be either time consuming or expensive. You can actually use Compressor to convert the footage from 30p to 23.98. The amount of motion there is in the video will determine how well the video looks when you convert it. If there isn't a lot of motion it might be passable. There are more expensive services like using a SNELL UKON converter but that will be pricey and in my opinion compressor can do just as good a job. The UKON will do it in real-time though. Where as Compressor could take days depending on your computer. http://www.dvfilm.com/ Has a product called DVFilm Maker wich is about $100 I think. It's fairly fast and does a pretty good job. Just don't use it on a cut piece. Only use it on raw uncut footage. It doesn't handle cuts very well as it just mixes frames together. I hope this helps.

Thanks Daniel! A new interview popped up today at Newsarama! http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=90281

It looks very digital but I like it. The HVX doesn't tend to be that sharp. I was reading that with all the extra resolution the lens can only focus to about 500 lines anway. But I'm digressing here. I like the color pallete. I think that's what appeals the most to me.

I agree for the most part. But if you don't know what you are doing, video is great. Storytelling is the most important aspect of a film. Why waste all that money learning storytelling when film can be so expensive and so damn complicated. Now with all these low-end video cameras that look very film-like in SD why go film unless you actually have something worth showing the world? I wonder how many people out there thought that they could all be Kevin Smith? Imagine spending $30k and having to pay that back for the rest of your life because your film went nowhere? But yeah, shooting with film just gives your film some respectability. I would say our movie "Armageddon for Andy" would not exist without video. I would also not know as much as I do now. But if I knew then what know now I would assuredly have shot on film. I would love to re-shoot this movie though. Any takers?

What lenses did you use? Did you do the gradients with filters or in Post? What kind of light did you have on the singer?

It's nice. It's quite beautiful. Was anything shot against blue/green screen? Eugene

Thanks. It's not perfect but it was my first big project. Here is a pretty detailed review of the movie... http://brokenfrontier.com/lowdown/details.php?id=542

Sorry to confuse everyone but this is just the 5 minute intro to our feature length movie "Armageddon for Andy." The movie is 80 minutes long. Eugene bohemiafilms.com

It took 5 years because we honestly just didn't know what we were doing. It took a lot of mistakes and time but I think we finished something that feels like a full watchable film. That and we didn't have any money. We probably spent about $10k on the whole thing. A lot of donated time and effort by many. Yes, that rose is supposed to be from Andy.

Hello everyone. Below is a link to the intro of our film "Armageddon for Andy." It tells the tale of high school love during times of war. It's been 5 years in the making. We definately took on a project bigger than any of us imagined. But we learned a lot along the way. We are screening the full film this weekend at the Anthology Film Archives and hope to submit to festivals soon. http://youtube.com/watch?v=sp4gmjlaAHo Thanks! Eugene Lehnert www.bohemiafilms.com

Wow! Thanks David. That advice for using the Kino Green bulbs was truly awesome. They worked out like a charm. I've never been able to pull a better key before. The light was so perfect and even. I shot with the HVX doing interviews with P2 cards and we had Shake on site to check the keys and with little to no effort we could pull a near perfect key. And the room was smaller then they said! With a few mirrors all over the room. But with the room covered in black muslin it worked out. Thanks again. That rocked.

That's really interesting. I'll see if I can give that a try. Thanks!

Excellent. Thanks for the advice. What are Kino green tubes? Are these made specifically for green screen work? How are these different from tungsten balanced tubes?

The room we are going to be shooting in is going to be fairly small. Not tiny but not gigantic. About 15 feet by 20 feet. The green screens shots are merely going to be interviews. So I got the ok to rent some better lights. I was thinking some decent flourescents because they would be cooler and less power. I was going to go to www.hotlights.com to rent them. My green screen is 9 feet wide and 10 feet high or more. We only have one car to transport this material. I was testing everything out with two 650k fresnels with diffusion on the front and I was getting a fairly good key. The lights definately needed to be farther back to diffuse the light to get a more even spread on the green screen though. I was also getting a lot of spill from the white walls in the room we were shooting in. I am bringing some black muslin to hang off of grip stands to cut down on that. Are flourescents practical and portable? Two on either side? How much wattage can I expect to see from a 4ft 2 bank system? Your advice and experience is appreciated.

Is there any benefit to create a narrow depth of field when shooting on a green screen? Setting the camera at a distance that would throw the green screen out of focus and the subject in focus? Would this be beneficial?

Are 100ft rolls of 35mm cheaper? I was interested in renting a cheaper Eyemo 35mm camera for a weekend to shoot some 35mm film with. Can I purchase these rolls directly from Kodak?

I have 3 650 watt Arri lights. I want to purchase a green screen to start doing some lighting tests with. Any advice on the set up? Basically I just need to get the green screen as even as possible without getting any spill on the actor? Maybe I should pick up some more lights?

Well the situation I was shooting recently was a man standing next to a fire place looking down. I had a 650 watt Arri fresnel attached to a flicker box bouncing off of a gold reflector up onto the man's face. He was looking down at the fire but of course I had a reflection in his glasses that did not look like a fire at all. We moved and positioned him to minimize the reflection but it is definately noticeable.

Cool. Thanks for the advice.

I just recently shot a short and the two problems I've been meaning to research came up again. Shooting people with glasses on and practicals. How does one typically deal with the reflection of the lights found in glasses? Do you take the lenses out or find a material that does not cast a reflection? Then when lighting with a practical I installed a 60 watt bulb in a practical shooting 500T Vision2 at a 2.8 and the light was definately blow out. I didn't have a spot meter so I couldn't read the actual lamp. Do you use less wattage? Or install a shade that has some sort of ND filter in it? How do you deal with the hot spot of the light, where the center is really bright but the falloff is properly exposed?

Excellent. Thanks guys.

We will be doing a video transfer only most likely. I doubt we will ever make a print, but it maybe possible. Why is the transfer better than making a print? If I rated the film at 320 ASA when I shot with it will pushing it help us at all? Pushing it a stop maybe?

I shot with a 3 year old roll of Kodak film this weekend. It's been sitting in my refrigerator since I won it from Kodak a few years ago. The film was color with a film speed of 320 ASA, the stock was 7277. Any advice on processing this film? Should we push it a stop or maybe we should have overexposed the film a bit? Thanks!

Aye. The flicker was during the day and night. It's all over various footage that I s hot. Overhaul it is!

So what is the point of using a crystal speed motor on my Bolex? How can I avoid this? Would a simple overhaul of the camera suffice?