Karl Lee

In case you haven't seen it, today Kodak posted an announcement regarding distribution of motion picture film. Essentially, it sounds like they're moving to a direct ship model and will be shipping all orders from their Rochester manufacturing facility. There's mention of an anticipated delivery time of 5 (?!) business days after placing an order, but I don't know if this is actual order fulfillment time or just a worst-case scenario for ground shipping. There are a few other announcements, including discontinuation of ShootSaver and NYC will call.

I recently bought an Arri BP-7 bridge plate to use with my SR3, and I was a little surprised when I noticed that the rods on the BP-7 are offset from the camera's optical center (compared to my 15mm lightweight rods which are perfectly centered). I knew that the width between 15mm studio rods was wider than between 15mm lightweight rods, however I didn't realize until I did a little research that the studio rods are, by design, offset from the optical center by 17.25mm. Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the 15mm studio rod standard has a 17.25mm offset from the camera's optical center? The 15mm lightweight and 19mm studio rods are perfectly centered, yet the 15mm studio rods have the 17.25mm offset. On the surface, the offset seems kind of counter-intuitive, so I'd be interested to know why such an offset exists. Also, in terms of studio rods, which format is more commonly used today - 15mm studio or 19mm studio? In case anyone is interested, Arri has a nice chart which specifies the dimensions and offsets of the three rod variations.

I've been syncing some audio and video clips from a few sync sound tests I tried at the last minute while shooting my last batch of film (last minute = mono audio recorded on my iPhone :) ), and while reviewing one of the scenes I noticed a spot where, for about 2 seconds, the transfer becomes slightly brighter and takes on a very subtle bluish tint. I've uploaded the clip, and if you take a look, the spot in question is between 0:20 - 0:22. It's best to view the clip in 1080p resolution, as the color and brightness shift aren't as noticeable when viewed at YouTube's default 480p. Any thoughts on what might have caused this? I'm curious if it might have been something in processing, telecine, an issue with the film itself, or some anomaly with my camera, although this is the first and only time I've ever seen anything like this in my transfers. FYI, this was 7207 filmed with an Arri SR3. Thanks!

FYI, here's a link to Bluestar's eyepiece chamois selection chart, complete with photos of the various shapes, sizes, materials and colors they offer. I'm not sure why I didn't notice this earlier, but according to the chart, they suggest either a large round or small round for the SR3.

Since the SR3 eyepiece is oblong on one end and not perfectly circular and symmetrical, I had always assumed that an oval chamois would be needed for a proper fit, but I relied on on Bluestar's selection chart when making my selection. Maybe I'll try picking up a small oval and see if it fits any better, or try again an keep struggling with the small round :)

I recently picked up a couple of Bluestar eyecushions for my SR3, and based on Bluestar's selection chart, I bought the small round size. I've tried a few times, but I haven't been able to get the small round eyecushion to fit on my SR3 eyepiece...it seems too small. So, for anyone who uses eyecushions with an SR3, what size do you usually use? Thanks!

I was reviewing some S16 I recently shot and transferred, and in a few scenes I noticed what I originally thought was lens flare. However, the more I look at the transfer and compare the scenes in question back to back, I'm thinking it was more than likely a small spot or speck of dust on my filter or lens. I was filming with my SR3, Canon 11.5 - 138 zoom with a clamp-on Chrosziel 4x4 sunshade, and a 4x4 Tiffen 85 filter. I've uploaded a short clip with a few scenes in which the small spots are visible, so if anyone can take a look and let me know what you think might be the culprit, I'd appreciate it. The spots are horizontally toward the center of the frame and vertically about a third of the way down from the top of the frame. I'm pretty sure I checked the filter and lens for dust or dirt before and after I was filming that day, but I certainly could have missed something. Since the spots are in approximately the same area in scenes filmed at 11.5mm with the 85 filter in and don't appear to change as the camera is panning, I'm thinking this was likely an issue with the filter. Thanks!

Thanks for posting the article, David. For people like me who have an affinity to film over HD video, this is definitely a bummer, especially when it comes to NFL Films which had held on to film production for so long. I had always enjoyed playing "spot the 16mm camera" or "spot the Harrison changing tent" on the sidelines when watching NFL games, but playing "spot the AMIRA" just won't be the same :) Still, even after what I'm sure was a nice volume discount with Kodak on purchasing 16mm film, I'm sure film stock was a huge expense considering how much film they went through across the country on any given gameday. Not to mention that they shot quite a bit of slow-mo, so you can only imagine how much film they burned through at each game. I'm curious what the future holds for the NFL Films lab in Mt. Laurel, NJ. I actually contacted them earlier this year about film processing and transfer rates, but (at least at that time) they were offering processing and transfer services to students only. If they choose to keep the lab up and running, perhaps they'll expand their services to more outside clients.

Does anyone know if NFL Films is still shooting 16mm this season? I've only seen a couple of preseason games, but the few photographers I have spotted on the sidelines wearing the NFL Films vests were carrying around what appeared to be Alexas instead of SRs or XTRs. While I certainly hope not, I'm curious if NFL Films is planning on slowly phasing out 16mm in favor of digital, or if their ultimate goal is to shoot both mediums. I believe I read somewhere that NFL Films was Kodak's largest client in terms of 16mm film sales. I'm reminded of a "NFL Films was here" photo I posted here back in early 2007. I took this photo (albeit with a digital point & shoot) while walking the sidelines of the now demolished RCA Dome in Indianapolis after working a Chiefs vs. Colts playoff game. For the record, this was a remnant of 7218 (Vision2 500T).

Thanks to everyone who has replied and for all of the information...I think I know more now about the topic than I would have ever expected! Going back to my original post, though, I guess my main question was that unlike a film scan which deals with discrete scans of each individual frame, can an HD film telecine (at "24", or 23.976 FPS) destined to HD 30 / 29.97 FPS video be technically considered a "progressive scan" end product? The reasoning behind my question is that while the telecine camera/sensor/optics certainly would be capable of producing a 1080p video conversion of individual film frames, in 3:2 pulldown, the (video) frames composed of fields from two different (film) frames are likely a product of digital processing that synthesizes and combines the two fields into a single frame of video, as opposed to being a true, optical 1080p video representation of an individual frame of film. With that in mind, I'm just curious if these "combined" video frames are technically considered a "progressive" video product. It's certainly possible that since the "combined" video frames are generated from individual film frames that were captured in 1080p format, then the resulting combined video frames are still regarded as being "progressive" video. Does this make any sense? I do have a habit of over-analyzing things :)

As I've been reading about the finer points of telecine transfers and 3:2 pulldown, more and more questions have been coming to mind regarding frame rates and the capabilities of telecine equipment, so hopefully someone can help clarify a few of my questions. (and while it's probably implied, it's worth mentioning that the frame rates in my post are all based on 60 Hz North American systems.) Although a vast majority of telecine transfers are done at 24 FPS, I had always been under the impression that telecine machines are capable of transferring film at any desired frame rate. However, now that I'm starting to understand the mechanics behind film to video telecine transfers, I'm not so sure that this is the case. On account of having to adhere to the 24 FPS frame rate for achieving 3:2 pulldown, are most telecines limited to transferring film at 24 FPS (well, actually 23.976 FPS) or any multiple thereof, or 30 FPS transfers (actually 29.97 FPS) or any multiple thereof? I assume a 29.97 FPS transfer would technically be the easiest since it matches the video frame rate exactly and probably wouldn't require any special interlacing or pulldown processing. Or, do telecines have various types of internal interlacing algorithms that permit telecine transfers at virtually any frame rate? Also, while telecine transfers commonly referred to as "24 FPS" are actually performed at 23.976 FPS, has it ever been common practice for cinematographers to film at 23.976 FPS instead of 24 FPS, provided their camera is capable of such a precise frame rate? I realize that the difference between 24 and 23.976 FPS is extremely negligible...it's only a 1/1000 reduction in speed, which amounts to about an increase of 3.6 seconds in play time over a period of 1 hour. However, in terms of visual appearance and syncing with audio for shorter scenes, I'm curious if any cinematographers have done so, especially if a project is destined for 24 FPS (actually 23.976 FPS) telecine transfer. Finally, taking into consideration telecine judder and the visual effects of 3:2 pulldown, has filming at 30 FPS (or 29.976 FPS to accurately match the video frame rate) ever been considered as a way to improve the quality of a film project destined for telecine transfer, considering that it would provide a true 1:1 frame rate ratio for the telecine transfer? Aside from the obvious consequence of burning through film a little more quickly at 30 FPS than 24 FPS, would film shot and transferred at 30 FPS still maintain some of the overall appearance of film but have more of a video-esque appearance in terms of motion? Lots of questions floating around in this post...I know :) Thanks to anyone who's made it this far and might be able to answer some of my questions!

I’m trying to learn a little more about the nuances of telecine transfers (specifically, 24 FPS film to 30 FPS video), and as I’ve been reading more about 3:2 pulldown, I’ve started thinking about HD telecine transfers, many of which are referred to as “1080p”. Considering that a fundamental of 3:2 pulldown is creating 5 frames of 30 FPS video from every 4 frames of 24 FPS film, a process in which 2 of every 5 video frames are interlaced even and odd fields from two different frames of film (the Wikipedia article does a nice job of illustrating this), then is a “1080p” telecine transfer technically a progressive scan transfer? In other words, what would be the difference between a “1080p” and “1080i” telecine transfer? In the video domain, is a frame of video consisting of odd and even fields from two separate frames of film technically considered a “progressive” frame of video? While I understand that moving images captured entirely in the digital domain using digital cameras can be done so using progressive video from the start and thus remain a true progressive signal throughout the editing process, an inherent part of adapting film for video is the 3:2 pulldown, in which some degree of interlacing is an integral part of the process. Regardless of whether 3:2 pulldown interlacing is introduced in a telecine transfer or interpolating is accomplished through some type of smoothing algorithm for a scanned film transfer, it seems that there’s always going to be some degree of interlacing when adapting 24 FPS film to 30 FPS video.

<>

Sorry, I messed up the subject to this thread and have re-posted. If a moderator could delete this thread, that would be great.

Hi everyone. A while back I finished filming the first 2 test rolls through my SR3 and have had a chance to review the transfer many times and scrutinize my work. Looking at some still frames individually, not surprisingly and as expected with filming at 24 FPS and a standard 180° shutter angle, many of the frames with moving objects do show a fair amount of motion blur. As the SR3 has a few different shutter angle settings (45°, 90°, 135°, 144°, 172.8°, 180°), in my next round of filming I’d like to try experimenting with smaller shutter angles and seeing and learning first hand how they affect different scenes with varying amounts and speeds of motion. I understand the theory behind adjusting the shutter angle…less exposure time leads to a sharper image and less motion blur, choppier appearance, and so on. Practically speaking, though, I was curious if anyone could share specific examples of situations when you’ve used a tighter shutter angle on a film camera and the reasoning and desired effect of doing so. I can see where having a tighter shutter angle might be considered when filming scenes which predominantly consist of fast motion (sports, cars moving or auto racing, etc.), but apparently the resulting choppier motion when viewed at 24 FPS is less natural in appearance and considered somewhat of a compromise. As I haven’t knowingly viewed anything filmed with a tight shutter angle, I don’t really have a frame of reference or comparison, so I am kind of looking forward to giving it a try on my own and viewing the results.

Good suggestion, David. Actually, I performed a similar test on a wide landscape shot which had both bright, direct sunlight and shade. I did a complete aperture sweep starting at T2.5 (wide open on my Canon zoom), then closed down to T2.8 and worked my way all the way to T22 in full stop increments, stopping the camera between aperture changes to make the different aperture increments easily identifiable. My spot metering indicated an f/4 - 5.6 split in the shade and an f/11- 16 split in the direct sunlight. When I checked out the shot on the film transfer, it looked like the sweet spot for this particular scene was right around T8, which happens to be the midpoint between the two incident readings. T11, while acceptable, looked a little underexposed in the shade compared to the T8 shot. The T5.6 shot was also acceptable, but compared to the T8 shot, the areas in direct sunlight were starting to look very slightly overexposed. I've read previously that when shooting a scene which has both direct sunlight and shade/shadows that taking the average of the readings in the shade and in the sunlight is a good starting point, but just because that happened to be the optimal aperture setting in this particular test, I'm not sure that it's really a proven, reliable metering method. Every scene is different, and my guess is that in many cases, skewing the lens aperture more toward one reading over the other will yield better results.

A while back, I ran my first 800' of film through my new SR3. As I'm really just a hobbyist, my goal was to not only make sure that my camera, mags, and lens were all working well optically and mechanically, but also to see how I would fare with my first solo attempt at manual metering. While I was a freelance AC in college and had the opportunity to work on quite a few film projects, I never delved into the finer points of metering and having the final call on exposure, so from a metering standpoint, this was a great learning experience for me. I have a Sekonic L-508 meter which has integrated spot and incident metering. While I'd love to learn proper spot metering techniques, I'm not really comfortable with spot metering at this point, so for this batch of filming I stuck to incident metering. As I was filming 50D, all of my filming was done outdoors. As such, my overall lighting conditions fell into two basic categories - direct sun with highlights and shadows, or overcast, diffused daylight. As I wanted this to be a good learning experience, I kept notes and recorded the incident meter readings for each shot, including readings in both highlights and shadows when filming in direct sunlight (when possible...it's not the easiest thing to do when filming skylines and distand subjects). I also kept notes of the exposure at which I filmed each scene, and in addition to filming most scenes at what I believed to be proper exposure, I intentionally underexposed and overexposed some of the scenes to experiment a bit with the film's latitude. In the end, I was quite pleased with the results from my test rolls and the film transfer...kudos to Rob and the crew at Cinelab for such a nice job! As for the quality of my metering, I was pretty happy considering it was my first major attempt at manual metering for cinematography, but I did notice that some of my shots, particularly those in direct sunlight with highlights and shadows, and a few shots I tried during magic hour, looked a little underexposed in the darker areas. In these particular shots, there really wasn't much technique to my metering...I'd take an incident reading in the direct sunlight, then film at or perhaps 1/3 stop above the incident reading. In retrospect, I think had I opened up a complete stop or stop and a half above the incident reading in these situations, the resulting image would have looked better. If nothing else, I'm learning first-hand something I've heard repeated over and over...meter readings, even when taken properly, are a good point of reference, but ultimately proper interpretation of the readings and experience yield the best results. That said, are there any good rules of thumb when it comes to interpreting incident readings outdoors? When interpreting incident meter readings taken in direct sunlight or during magic hour, for example, is it customary to overexpose by a stop or so? On the flip side, when filming in overcast conditions with uniform, diffused daylight, do you usually go with the incident reading or under/overexpose a bit? I realize that these kinds of generalizations may not really be applicable in practice, since the lighting conditions and highlight/shadow composition is always going to vary from one shot to another, but I thought it would be worth asking. In terms of interpreting meter readings, I think David Mullen phrased it best in a recent post..."Metering [a grey card] is the beginning of deciding what the exposure should be, not the end." While metering itself isn't terribly difficult, the key is knowing how to interpret the meter readings and apply them to each unique scene and lighting composition...a skill that's probably best learned from experience, and hopefully a skill that I'll be able to perform better as I continue experimenting with shooting film.

TC slates are fairly common on video and film projects big and small nowadays, and I had long assumed that use of the TC slate was a fairly integral part of synchronizing audio and video in a timecode-based double-system audio recording configuration. However, I've been researching and learning more about TC-enabled audio recorders recently and have come up with a few questions, so hopefully someone can help. I had assumed that file-based, TC-enabled pro audio recorders kept some sort of running TC track for the duration of a recording (as did TC-enabled DAT recorders, for example). However, from what I've found (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), it looks like most TC-enabled file-based audio recorders (even high-end, pro models) don't keep a running TC "track", but rather just timestamp the first sample of audio. BWF files, for example, note a single timestamp at the beginning of the recording and write the single timestamp to the file's metadata. I'm not sure if BWF files are the most common file format for pro audio recorders, but my understanding is that for most file-based pro audio recording systems, TC is stamped in this manner...a single timestamp noting the beginning of the clip as opposed to a continuous, running TC track to accompany the audio recording. I believe most pro NLEs can be set up to detect the TC timestamp from the audio file's metatata when imported, but that's just a reference point for the first sample of the audio file. Any subsequent timecode for the audio clip is essentially calculated by the NLE, using the single timestamp as a starting reference point. While I imagine the NLE's calculated TC values are fairly accurate, I'm guessing that the calculated TC for an audio clip might not be as accurate as if there was a separate, dedicated timecode track providing TC marks throughout the clip, particularly for longer audio clips. Anyway, back to my original question. Considering that even pro, file-based audio recorders may not record a dedicated TC track and that NLEs end up generating an audio clip's TC based on a single timestamp in the file's metadata, are TC slates typically used used specifically as a frame-accurate synchronization method to sync audio and video tracks in post, or are they used primarily as a general, visual reference to help match up a video or film take with the correct audio file? Even with TC slates, it seems like the slate's sticks are also used, so the comparatively old fashioned use of the sticks may prove to be a helpful sync point after all!

So I was watching the premiere of Extant on CBS tonight, and during the opening credits I recognized the name of the DP as our own forum member David Mullen! David posts frequently here and I've learned quite a bit from many of his messages, so if you're reading this, David, congrats on a job well done and a great series premiere. Looking forward to next week's show!

Thanks for the replies. There appear to be a number of iPhone to hot shoe mounts available, and 3/8" to hot shoe mount converters are available and pretty inexpensive, so among all of the options and combinations I'm sure I'll be able to piece together something that will work.

I'd like to capture some scratch audio tracks during some upcoming filming, and I've thought that a logical, inexpensive solution is just to use my old iPhone along with an external mic that attaches directly to the dock connector of an iOS device. I'd like to somehow mount the iPhone on my SR3's carrying handle which has two 3/8" screw threads. I'm guessing that there must be some sort of rigging attachment or clip available that would be good for mounting something like an iPhone to a 3/8" thread mount. B&H has quite the extensive selection of support and rigging accessories, and I'm looking through the listings now to find some options, but I thought I'd ask and see if anyone might have any specific suggestions. To minimize my rig's vertical footprint, I'd ideally like to mount the iPhone flat on the camera (so that the touchscreen is oriented toward the sky). Thanks!

Hi everyone. Just curious if anyone might be able to give some tips or advice on film choice when shooting interiors under fluorescent light. I've been playing with my SR3 and so far all of my filming has been daylight exterior, but I'd like to experiment a bit and try filming some interiors with fluorescent illumination (like inside a subway station). I realize that different types of fluorescent lighting can vary greatly in terms of color temperature. Unfortunately, I don't have a color meter, nor do I really want to buy any special filters since I'm just experimenting now, and in the long run, I won't be doing all that much filming under fluorescent lighting anyway. That said, given the choice between tungsten or daylight balanced film, I'm just trying to determine which of the two would generally be the better choice for filming under fluorescent lighting. My choices are essentially 7219 (500T), 7213 (200T), or 7207 (250D), so any thoughts would be really appreciated. Thanks!

Just curious if anyone might be able to recommend a good soft shell case for lugging around an assembled SR3.  While I always store my camera disassembled in hard shell cases, I'd like to get a soft shell case which I can use for carrying around my assembled SR3 (including battery, zoom lens, and lens shade) in run and gun situations where I'm filming documentary-style and walking from one location to another with my tripod in tow.   I haven't yet measured the dimensions of my camera package fully assembled (I'm guessing maybe around 24" length from battery to sun shade when fully assembled), but I'm curious if anyone might have recommendations for a particular brand or model of camera case that has served them well for this purpose.  I'm guessing I'll need to go with something originally designed for ENG cameras, and that it will probably end up being a PortaBrace, Petrol, or Kata, but any suggestions would be appreciated.   Thanks!

Hi everyone. I'm looking to purchase a Harrison Pup Tent. I believe there are 3 different sizes of the Harrison film changing tents, but I'd prefer the smallest "Pup" tent, as the footprint of the others is a little large, and the Pup tent should be more than sufficient for my SR3 mags.

Good point, Adrian. Actually, I did some metering tests the other day, and it looks like even in late morning or early afternoon direct sunlight, with 50D I can still still shoot around T16 without using any ND filters. Certainly not the best option if I'm wanting a shallower DOF, but for testing purposes of basic camera functionality, I'm not too concerned about having a narrow DOF.