Jon Kukla

2-perf is actually very slightly smaller in the vertical dimension than Super (or regular) 16mm, so no, you aren't gaining any vertical resolution in the matter. That is, however, full height 16mm, so if you were framing for 1.85 or 2.39 it would be slightly less in 16mm, but still probably about the same. The only improvement you get with 2-perf in film resolution is the increased horizontal neg space. By the way, IIRC, the Techniscope system was 2-perf Academy-width, because there was no reason to grab the extra soundtrack area, since an equivalent area would need to be cropped out. So 2-perf isn't 2.66, it's actually 2.33 (.868 x .373). The intermediate system and the projection mask ensures that the projected image is 2.35 (or now 2.39).

I'd go to a camera house (or a photographic store which specializes in filters) and have a look at their warm filters. There are lots of good ones - antique suede, straw, tobacco, chocolate, etc. There's also a lot of variance between manufacturers, so you'd have to figure out which exact brand Soderbergh used. According to http://www.dga.org/news/v25_5/feat_soderbergh.php3, he used tobacco filters. But also remember that the post workflow changes the image characteristic, particularly given the one that he chose.

A lot of this is going to depend on the speed and number of 2-perf movements which enter the marketplace within the next year - if Arri and Aaton actually get these things going sooner than later, and if they have enough demand to circulate them far and wide, then it seems fairly inevitable that a larger number of labs and post houses will add the service to fill the demand. My guess, however, is that this market needs at least another year to start to mature, so if you have something ready to go now or very soon, I wouldn't do 2-perf unless you have a post pipeline already in the works. Otherwise it's no different than doing this in 2005. Does anyone know when exactly the Arri 2-perfs are going to start circulating? It would be nice to see something at least about it "coming soon" on the official site.

I can't see why they wouldn't, but I honestly have no idea. I'm in the UK at the moment so I've had to be a bit "crafty", if you take my meaning... :P

It's been really fun watching this (the season finale is this Sunday), but I sometimes wonder if the HD technology hasn't compromised it to a certain degree - I just think that the contrast range, especially when they go outside, really shows its limitations. Not 100% crazy about the way that they've graded it either, but that's me. The actual lighting is usually very nice overall, with at least a handful of very excellent shots. What amazes me, more than anything else, is how ballsy they've been about placing their Condors - sometimes you can see them in the shots! It's sorta a mistake, but it's something that only I seem to notice. But I can't see how the operator would've missed them. Cinematography aside, it's a solid show, and I'm gonna miss it...until next season.

You can project any format in the world you want, if you have the proper lens cover and gate aperture. Super 16 isn't compatible with standard 16mm projection. Most preview theatres also have the capacity to project Super 2.35 (ie flat from the rushes) - even in 3-perf, but it isn't considered a projectable format because standard 35mm projectors aren't set up for it. In theory it wouldn't be too difficult, as long as there was an SDDS or Dolby Digital soundtrack, but the reality is that this probably is never going to be a standard setup.

On a very similar note, ever seen The Holy Sith?

The UK system I've been working with is: Length, Can Type, Film Type, Emulsion and Cut numbers, Mag number, Roll number. For example, 400' N/R 7218 058 122.01 (23.1) M2381 R#B43 This is usually placed over mag latches, unless doing so makes it exceedingly difficult to read (eg Aaton XTR). The can type is always N/R (new roll), S/E (short end), or R/C (re-can). When the film is unloaded, the tape is taken off the mag and then placed over the black gaffer tape used to seal the can. Makes it easier to identify the cans even if they're all stacked up. I am well aware that the US system may be different, however.

Looks like we're getting a Christmas present: http://www.aaton.com/news/index.php?nid=9

You might want to look into getting an LLD if you can - it partially compensates, especially in the less easily correctable ranges - without having a significant filter factor (ie no compensation needed).

Availability is another factor. In many countries your only choices are 35mm or HD, so that puts 16mm out of the running from the start.

You could also probably try local camera houses or labs if it's easier.

Usually the most difficult thing about the dolly zoom is figuring out how to time the speeds of the dolly and zoom so that the subject remains consistently sized during the move. Needed: at least several tech rehearsals, a good grip, probably a zoom motor, and a fair amount of time. The focusing should be rather easy, since the subject probably is going to be still. In which case the focus puller can make marks relative to the dolly's position on the track. Very easy, I would imagine.

You should be able to find these all in the American Cinematographers Manual. I'd tell you now if mine weren't sitting in a bag on a camera truck. (Hint: try searching within the text on Amazon.)

To answer your second question, NEVER point a laser at or near someone's eyes.

No, what I was saying is that I don't see the point of the bloop system if you're not going to be able to record any take info on it (a la AatonCode or just plain using boards). Obviously I don't know what you're planning on using the system for, though, so it might not matter. Just seems a little odd, that's all.

There is no way to get your subject in focus if it is closer than the minimum focus without using a diopter. Doing this will shift the focus closer and thus lose your background (if it isn't lost already). Your options (as mentioned before) are to either composite the scene, reframe it, chose a different lens, or stop down considerably. But if you don't have access to diopters, then you have to somehow get the subject within the minimum distance.

I'm about 98% certain that Movietech has them for rental and 100% that Panavision does too.

What sort of system exists on the film image for actually recording the take information?

Try here. (Google is your friend.)

Amen, brotha. Seems like they complain that they can't shoot b/w bc of the grain issue, then add it in later anyway, so...what's the deal? Personally I hate the look of color neg>b/w, because there's always too many shades of gray. Color reversal>b/w, on the other hand, can be done well if planned out properly...

I've heard that the NYC requirements are less strict than LA's, IIRC...No roster to deal with, I think.

One of the things to consider is that different labs and regions may have different report sheet standards. I've never worked in the US, but reading Doug Hart's book, it sounds like some report sheets are smaller than a standard piece of paper. Here in the UK the reports are always a full page, with full lines for each slate/take. That's obviously going to be much easier to keep the info on. The other thing to consider is what you're shooting. It's not uncommon to write little beyond "lens var, T var" on a music video shoot report sheet, and just cram as many rolls onto a page as possible. Feature films, obviously, will be much more detailed. I've found that having a tin is very useful because it not only can keep everything together (ruler, older sheets, can labels) and hold the sheets down, but it also is good protection for the sheets in the event of snow, rain, wind, etc. Usually just stash it in the back or front pocket of a camera bag. My other rule is to always write down the info as it's happening in a little notebook, and only transcribe that info to the report sheet AFTER the roll is dead. Just avoids little problems if you try to anticipate too much...

I don't suppose this has anything to do with the red layer being the deepest one and flange focal distance? I seem to recall that the FFD in cameras was reconsidered in the past decade or two and they chose to set it to within the emulsion instead of the top of it in order to optimize depth of focus (note - focus, not field). Might have been more of an issue in the past.

I'd highly disrecommend getting polyester base negatives - if there is any sort of jam, the camera will break instead of the film.