Chris Cooke

Email Rosco, Lee, GAM, Lowel, etc. and ask them for free gel swatches. I've got a ton of these sitting on my desk right now. I have #02 Bastard Amber sitting on a gel frame right in front of the lens on a 2K Fresnel right now. I put a new one in about once a month and use the light every second day. It depends on the wavelength of the color (purple will fade a lot faster than amber).

I found a neat little product from GAM called Heat Shield 99. It's an optically clear thermal insulator that protects color filters (gels) from fading and warping due to prolonged exposure to high intensity light sources.

I personally like Rosco corored gels and Lee diffusion. I'm sure that you can find a dealer within a few hours of you that can ship the gels down or just order straight from Rosco, Lee and GAM websites.

Let's just hope that Kodak doesn't kill super 8 production on us

Don't worry about that man. Too many films are using super 8 for Kodak to just shut it down. I just read an article (http://www.csc.ca/news/default.asp?aID=1095) about Danny Nowak, CSC who shot about 1/3 of The Love Crimes of Gillian Guess on super 8mm. Many cinematographers on major motion picture films choose super 8 as a "home video look". I don't think that Kodak would take this option away from us. Also, there's an ever increasing super 8 community and I think that Kodak is well aware of this. They claim that super 8 is what 16mm used to be. I know they dropped K-40 but that's not the be all and end all of super 8 by any means. The new Ektachrome 64t looks pretty good and they've also integrated their vision 2 stocks.

Hello,

 

I realize this may be somewhat subjective, but can you folks explain the resolution differences between Super 8 and 16mm running at their respective standard frame rates?

 

Thanks.

You could fit roughly 4 super 8 frames in one 16mm frame. Therefore (all things being equal) 16mm has roughly 4 times the resolution. Frame rates don't have anything to do with resolution. Although, there are many factors that can affect the appearance of resolution.

http://www.apecity.com/manuals/

Awe common, no Nizo's on that site. I need a manual for my Nizo 2056.

I took the liberty of color correcting your images to my taste. However, I do not know the context of where these pics are in the story and the overall look that you're going for. This might help you or you might just look at the pics and say that's not my look. Doesn't bother me either way.

But it doesn't offer any better pictures than miniDV.

Phil

So what you're trying to tell me is that if I shot a film with the SDX-900 and recorded it straight to miniDV, I'd get the same picture quality as if I recorded direct to DVCPRO? I don't think so. Try telling the engineer at my place of employment that. Drop-outs in miniDV are the major concern and then what about the bit rate. I record all of my DVC-PRO work onto 50Mbps. MiniDV doesn't have the capabilities of that. The differences are quite big actually.

I've done quite an extensive search and can't seem to find a DVCPRO telecine.

While we're on the topic of direct to hard drive, I find that it's a very viable option that I'll be looking into in the near future. I was wondering though about DVCPRO. I have used this format more than any other and think it's great. I have access to DVCPRO decks for free and I would like to transfer my super 8 film onto this format. Are there any labs that transfer to DVCPRO?

Rick,

I'm shooting my first super 8 film soon and I live about 2 hours from Calgary. Is there much of a super 8 industry there? I can't seem to find a good company that will even sell and/or process super 8. Do you have any film friends in Calgary?

I just saw "Flight 93" about a week ago on A&E and I figured that it was shot on HD. It had a lot of very emotional moments and the content seemed to be quite factual. As far as the cinematography goes, I was not particularly impressed with the overall look because it felt like a made for television movie that was shot on video. Although, at the same time I could tell that it was shot by a talented and experienced cinematographer. The lighting was quite nice and the camera moves were appropriate. What made it feel so low budget? I think that maybe the producer/studio was pushing for a certain crisp, "perfect" look. It didn't look like there was any color correction, probably all done in camera. I kept asking myself, what makes this feel like a low budget tv movie. No disrespect to Mr. Irwin. Any answers?

Try using a 81EF filter while using a tungsten stock (5279 is a nice and contrasty). Wait for the weather (clouds with sun peaking through). And maybe try a graduated ND. Do you have to manipulate the image in a DI? You might want to do a bleach bypass.

If you're shooting on a cloudy day, use lots of negative fill to get the contrast you're looking for. You also might want to key your talent with a large diffused HMI on a cloudy day so that it's not too flat.

where did you read that diary?

has david written any other books about cinematography?

 

thanks.

 

goro

You can read every week of production from the Astronaut Farmer at the In Production forum. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...hp?showforum=56

He also co-wrote that book you see on the right hand side of your screen called cinematography by Kris Malkiewicz and M. David Mullen.

I don't know what the mood in that first frame grab was supposed to be like but you captured an amazing moment that conjures up feelings of peace and at the same time some forshadowing of something negative that is about to happen, has happened or is happening. I like the ND grad on the sky, it creates depth and mystery. All of these grabs are very naturalistic with a touch of style.

Assuming that you are shooting in 24fps, how are you recording it. Are you shooting in Cine mode (I think they call it 24f)? Or are you shooting in interlaced (50i) and then de-interlacing your footage in post? How are you color correcting?

You probably allready get AC magazine and have seen this but if not, check out the inside cover. About 2 months ago Kodak was doing a nice add with a woman in an indoor pool with shafts of light hitting her from an exterior window visible in the shot. They've been showing this add for a while but I know for sure that it's in the August issue.

have you got a url for that?

Once again, google is your friend but here's an article from AC magazine about how Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC shot The Village.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug04/village/page1.html#

Chris,

 

Your original statement was "f4.0 is a good looking stop on mini dv. Anything under that and your mid tones start getting quite noisy".

 

I still don't see how going outside the sweet spot of a lens causes the mid tones to get "noisy". You are talking about an optical effect in your explanation below. Sure, using gain, bad exposure, harsh colors - these can cause noise - but setting the lens outside its sweet spot? Setting the lens outside the sweet spot can result in certain image characteristics that would be less than ideal - but I can't see how it can affect noisiness and compression artifacts. Isn't that like saying if I'm shooting on 35mm, and I set my prime outside the sweet range, the image will get grainy in the mid-tones?

 

And what about opening up from f4? Besides possibly abberations - which again is an optical thing, how does opening up from f4 cause noisiness if everything is exposed properly? Clearly it is not diffraction, is it? The problem you stated about lenses on the xl1 for example, going fuzzy at small apertures is an optical effect - not a digital one. And it would be affecting not just the mid-tones. I don't believe it is causing noise - its causing apparent reduction in resolution in the final image. This is more a result of the ccd size, no? - not compression as you suggested when you stated "since mini DV is so compressed allready, we should strive for the optimal stop that will help us to not see that compression so obviously."

 

I would also suggest that the higher the format's resolution, the more important hitting the sweet range on the lens is. I think that also works for formats that have low-compression.

 

Just one view on the matter.

 

Regards,

 

AJB

Since mini dv is a fairly compressed format (I'm used to shooting on DVC PRO 50 and HDCAM) I would stay away from stops such as 1.6. Shooting wide open magnifies compression artifacts. When shooting below F5.6 the lens will produce coma and astigmatism.

Astigmatism - The inability of the lens to bring to focus both vertical and horizontal lines on the same plane. Astigmatism is caused by axial rays (not parallel to the lens axis). It will appear that lines of equal density (darkness) are less dense horizontally or vertically. Astigmatism is improved by stopping down the lens (smaller lens opening, larger F number).

Coma - coma causes parallel oblique rays passing through a lens to be imaged (focused) not as a point, but as a comet shaped (oval) image. Coma can be improved by stopping down the lens.

I often notice coma when shooting in low light levels but at times we can't help but shooting wide open. All I'm saying is that we should avoid it if possible (unless of coarse the look fits the story).

By the way Jonathan, it's nice to see more Canadians on this site. I took a quick look at your website and your portfolio looks good.

Sorry if I'm missing your point - I want to understand this because it sounds interesting:

 

How, as a rule, do compression artifacts manifest themselves when you are shooting wider than an f/4 on those cameras? what have you observed? That in any given situation, when you set the stop wider than f/4 you start getting artifacts in the mid-tones?

 

Regards,

 

AJB

A broadly known and accepted fact is that lenses typically perform at their sharpest in a certain f-stop range. This is usually a range from about two stops down from wide open and two stops up from fully-closed (often from f4 to f11). One major issue though on mini dv is that since it is a small sensor camera, defraction becomes obvious. When light is forced through too small of an aperture the image begins to appear out of focus. There have been tests done that say the DVX-100 is sharpest at f5.6 but I find at this stop, too much of the image is in focus, thus appearing more like video.

Chris,

 

Could you explain what you mean by this? There are so many cameras and lenses that shoot minidv, it seems like a rather broad statement to say that shooting under f4 is going to cause problems. Are you talking about a specific camera or lens? Minidv is a tape format, so it is not itself predisposed to a certain look at a certain fstop. Particular cameras, ccds or lenses on the other hand, are.

 

AJB

From experience on the DVX-100 and XL2, I've observed that my previous statement is true. Your right, I should have qualified my statement. I believe though that since mini DV is so compressed allready, we should strive for the optimal stop that will help us to not see that compression so obviously.

If at all possible, don't shoot wide open and never use gain (unless that's an effect your going for). f4.0 is a good looking stop on mini dv. Anything under that and your mid tones start getting quite noisy. Anything over that and everything will be in focus.

i think a little bit of frontal soft light is needed to get rid of those bags under the eyes

Good makeup would also help. I put my hand over her eyes and all of a sudden the whole frame looked a little better. One bad aspect of a frame can spoil the whole thing.

I just watched Batman Begins again a couple days ago on mute. I like to do this so that I can watch the cinematography a little closer. This film was my favorite of the year in terms of cinematography. I also think that Pride and Prejudice could be a close runner up to these films because of its long thought out shots going from room to room (it was a very grainy film though).

I just read my eNewsletter from American Cinematographer magazine and saw that David Mullen is doing the Q & A in ASC Close-Up in March. I hope that David continues to get more recognition and hopefully soon we'll see one of his films hilighted in the magazine. I feel that he is contributing to the evolution of cinematography (which is the ASC's mandate) more than most other ASC members specifically because of this forum.

looks nice. I would've given her a small eye light. Also, Michael makes a good point about the color of the walls. If I was working with this particular background, I would've flagged the light off the top of the wall and put a little hilight in the top right corner for more contrast. Your key hits her face and body quite elegantly. The picture is overall too orange for my taste but you could get away with it a little more if you had some more contrast in the background and even some color seperation.

Can you bring your own lights? Do you have a small rental budget? If so, you could rent a small package consisting of 3 bars (4 lights per bar) of par cans, 3 socopex cables and a small 12 channel dimmer. Get some gels and be creative with chases and cues.

I'm blessed enough to have a beautiful wife who is passionate about both me and movies. She is a producer and a writer so she supports me in all that I do. We just had a little baby about 7 months ago but since then we've allready writen and shot a short film together. My wife and little girl are an inspiration to me.

If any of your girlfriends or wives think that you're silly for reading forums about cinematography untill the wee hours of the morning, let them read David Mullen's posts on this thread. I let my wife read them and she thought it was so sweet that he loves his wife so much. I think that she just gained more respect for this forum.