Jon Kukla

I believe John Mathieson also did some in-camera experimentation with shutter-less discs which were run through a drill, of all things! This was all on Love Is the Devil, btw. See the AC article in the online archives.

If the school isn't giving you what you feel you need, don't feel compelled to find it on-campus. I would say in fact that if you are able to find or organize your own work on off-campus projects - even if they are mostly freebies - the grad schools may look highly on that as evidence of your own initiative and drive to improve your skills. I had a somewhat related problem when I was already at film school - we had a great program, but unfortunately who did what was entirely decided by the students, which led to a lot of paranoia, politics, and back-stabbing. Eventually, I got sick of it, so I wound up spending most of my free time hanging around equipment companies and meeting the pros instead. Working in the "real world" helped me focus on what was important - skills, knowledge, set etiquette, personal relationships - and helped lower my stress level by not being as hung up on what happened at school. Also, while everyone else fought over who would get to DP or operate, I just quietly took most of the AC jobs on a LOT of the student films. Having the pro experience made me a better AC, and people appreciated that, which led to more work, including DP gigs. The important thing to remember is that you do have some control over your experience level. You shouldn't have to rely on any one person, company, or institution - that's the whole point of networking.

Keep in mind that you don't necessarily need to rent the camera just to test - if you are already planning to rent with a particular company for the actual shoot, then just ask them if you can come in to shoot some on-site tests. As long as it's obvious that you are shooting tests (ie charts and the like) and not actual footage for the film, and as long as you don't take the equipment further than just outside the site's premises, they very likely will allow you to do it gratis. (Of course the film still will cost you.) I've found that most places are happy to let you test to your heart's content, provided that you are going to rent with them for the shoot and as long as the equipment is available.

What kind of music are you looking to complement it? Fast/slow, louder/quieter, etc...

You shouldn't buy junk film for your practice. Talk to a rental house or a lab - they probably do have extra bits lying around. As for using short ends, the main thing to think about is the reputation of the company you are getting them from. I'm not too familiar with purchasing them myself, but if you search the board, there are several companies worth checking out (and several worth avoiding). People generally don't use short ends because they want to, but because they have to in order to save costs. (The main exception being using discontinued stocks.) Remember that the film costs you are being quoted is for the raw stock - you still need to pay for development and a print/telecine.

The shutter angle is what controls the shutter speed (along with the fps chosen). The shutter angle divided by 360 x fps to obtain the shutter speed. It can be particularly critical when working with HMIs, for example, which can flicker if the combination of speed, shutter angle, and mains frequency are not in sync. As you have mentioned, tighter shutter angles mean less exposure time per frame, which provides for less motion blur and hence "sharper" detail. You should remember, however, that each time you halve the angle, it costs a stop of light. Most manual variable shutters will have positions for the common HMI angles (172.8 and 144), as well as the normal 180, 90, 45 sequence. Some older cameras can open as far as 200+ degrees, although most now cannot go further than 180. Most electronic shutters can go down to around 11.2 degrees.

You might not want to hear this, but you probably would stand a good chance if you came back to work in London - the work has been very busy lately; 2006 definitely beat the horrible 2005 hands down. In any case, the UK market is much easier to crack due to the lack of real unions here, so it's very doable. If you have a lot of time on your hands, then the best thing to do is find a rental house that will let you hang out for a week or so to play with the equipment and help out ACs checking out. It's a quick and easy way to become more familiar with the gear and meet people - people who will be inclined to return your favor of helping them out. The most valuable thing when you're getting started is having the time and money to be able to take the jobs as they come, so I'd say that if can do that, you're in a good place; the hardest thing is sticking it out in the beginning when you only get crumbs. Gradually things start to snowball as you work more and meet more people, so then you should be (relatively) fine. When I was getting started I only had three or four people as contacts, so when things were slow I had to always remember when I last called people so as not to seem a pain! As the work's gotten busier and my contacts increased exponentially, the problem now often is finding the time to get around to giving everyone a friendly call now and then. (Definitely a better problem.)

You have a couple of options, it seems. First of all, have you considered just using some diopters to shift your focus range? It's not like you're going to be able to see much out of the car anyway, given those stops. Second, if you have an idea of the size of the car, maybe you should try bringing a typically setup camera into a similarly-sized car, and have someone measure between it and where the subject would be, just to get an idea of what your actual distance will be. The CF on the 50mm is 2'6", which may be doable anyway. Depends on positioning, really. Another thought - what about getting the actor's face through the rear-view mirror? Would allow you some extra distance. Again, though, I don't see that the focus distance is necessarily an issue if you stock some diopters. Then you can main concentrate on getting the glass you want with the stop you want. The midrange E-series lenses, for example, are considerably lighter than the average anamorphic lens - something in the ballpark of C-series weight, with much improved quality. And then there's the PV Superspeeds if you really want some extra stop (though I wouldn't envy your focus puller). The Hawk V-series lenses can do you well for CF and stop, although they are somewhat heavier. You should ask Panavision as well, because even if they don't have something in Spain, they can probably easily obtain a good range of lenses from the UK office. They also are likely to have a good idea which lens series available are best for tackling these issues, so don't neglect the in-house advice! After all, it is their bread and butter.

The Kodak V2 test film even has a split screen of a girl on the phone, shot simultaneously on 100T, 200T, and 500T, and it's completely astounding how close they all look.

There's no easy way to do this, since there are so many factors involved - what you are lighting, what the dynamic range of the shot is, what colors are being used, what you are exposing for, whether or not you are under or overexposing, what your development process is, what your printing process is, etc... Fuji and Kodak do both offer some test shorts which were designed mainly to show some degree of comparison, but ultimately what you need to do is narrow your choices down somewhat and then test, test, test. It can't be overstated - testing is everything. No two projects will have the exact same approach, so figure out the look you want, and try to create it. The other thing to keep in mind is that as far as each of the "families" - Vision2 and Eterna - are concerned, the object has been to keep them closely calibrated to each other for contrast and color rendition. While there are certain exceptions, like the Expression stock or the Fuji low-con 400T, generally this means that your main concern for shooting will be picking a stock with an appropriate EI for your needs. But again, testing between a few similar possibilities will be the best way to figure out what approach works for your intentions.

It reminds me of some old friends' film school films which were shot on 16mm, printed, edited on a flatbed, and then telecined. So I have to ask - was this a TK straight from the original uncut negative, or is it coming from something else, like a workprint?

Another useful piece of information that will sometimes be mentioned is the CF - close focus. That can also be important if you have specific shots in mind which might only be a few feet (or less) from the camera.

If you want to discuss all of this in depth, with cost information that is accurate, then you should call the lab. They want to help you, ultimately, and usually someone around is happy to answer all of these questions.

Can't say I've seen it, but yes, it was definitely D-20 - I was at Arri when they were checking out. It's also featured in the latest VisionARRI newsletter, IIRC.

As long as the magazine is properly secured (ie in its box), I don't think you'll have any problems, barring the unusual.

I'd say the rule of thumb is if you can, you should. In other words, if the lens comes with a support bracket and/or has a screw receptacle underneath it, that probably means that it was provided precisely for that reason...

A vs. B - in other words, side-by-side comparision.

Seriously, call your rental house ASAP. (Why haven't you already?)

It also can come in handy for the focus puller, as the extension tube includes a magnification switch that allows for more critical eye focus. The manual rather offhandedly mentions that one can use two of them mounted in sequence, although that's a configuration I've never heard anyone ever use...

Super 16 width: 0.493" Height for 2.39 crop: 0.206" Negative area: 0.102 square inches 16mm frame height: 0.292" Required width for 2.39 crop when using 2x anamorphic optics: 0.349" Negative area: 0.102 square inches I'd say spare the trouble and crop the Super 16. Avoids the cost, slow speed, artifacting, and weight of anamorphic lenses. Also gives you more negative quality if you wind up chosing to do a 16:9 or 1.85 extraction instead of or in addition to the 2.39 one. Clearly neither method is better than the other for negative real estate, though.

Time code error? See page 121 of http://www.arri.com/infodown/cam/manu/435adv_e.pdf

I'd call your camera rental company, just to be on the safe side. It might be nothing and truly have gone away, but it also might be something that won't be a problem again until it's too late. Better to be safe than sorry.

It just seems that this is creating a lot of other far more bothersome and just as expensive, but even less-standardized problems in order to avoid changing the pulldown mechanism. Either way, you're still going to encounter all of the same problems in post as 2-perf, plus a few more it seems! By all means go ahead with this and let us know, but frankly, I think that if you're looking for innovative ideas regarding 35mm origination, there's still a ton of abandoned formats from the past 100 years that probably are worth looking into reviving (a la Techniscope) instead of trying to start fresh. And it's worth noting that the 2-perf idea was mooted as far back as 1930, btw... As stated below, the 90 degree anamorphic concept is probably the most interesting. I think someone else here suggested using that in conjunction with 1-perf to get 2.39 images while having a 44 minute mag off of 1000 feet. Now that is amazing.

If you're in LA, probably the best and easiest thing you can do is call up a camera rental house and see if they have one that you can come in and have a play with first. As far as actual loading goes, it's very easy - just the standard Arri sprocketed magazine - take the film through the first sprocket out of the mag, line the edge of the film up to the guide mark on the outside of the mag, and then bring it back in through the other sprocket without damaging the perfs. The same as an Arri II or a 435. Anamorphics-wise, depends on what set of lenses you're using. Generally speaking, make certain to stick as close to your 1st AC as possible, because anamorphic pulling needs all the help that a focus puller can get.

I'm not certain that the O'Connor is Moy, although I believe it is. Either way, a Moy mount set of sticks shows that you mean business. There should be a bowl-to-Moy adapter plate if you need it. I've used wooden sticks (and spreader!) before, but I'd highly recommend against it merely because they are beasts. Very heavy compared to the metal ones.