Jon Kukla

It doesn't sound bad, but it doesn't sound overwhelmingly good either. If I were you, I'd at least call up the sales reps for both Fuji and Kodak who deal with student sales and see what sort of deals they can cut you. Often if it's a student 35mm production, they're willing to help you out with big discounts, free rolls of miscellaneous stuff they have kicking around, etc. Also worth asking about rolls in damaged tins - basically unopened cans which have some slight dents and thus aren't usually sold. Either way, you'll find out if .20 cents a foot is worth it. Good luck!

The AC article confirms that a very small percentage of the film was shot on 65mm, although you are right that Lubezki originally was looking at using it for everything.

When you say scan I'm guessing you actually mean telecine. They can't telecine it in black and white, per se, but the colorist can desaturate the image to b/w and grade it from there, if asked. The main thing is to make certain that you've shot a properly exposed grayscale so that the colorist has a standard reference to grade to. Otherwise he'll have to set levels by eye. I'd recommend doing it in telecine if you're certain you aren't going to go back to color, if only because they can properly grade the image with a degree of control you probably won't have in-computer.

I was under the impression that the big shoots often just used large arrays of cyc lights.

A selection of what they termed "hyperreal" shots, often with the intention of accentuating an epiphany or unspoken moment, were shot in 65mm.

IIRC, you should be fine with primes. It's with zooms that you start to need the 6 inchers.

The reel had some intriguing images in it, and I really liked the black and white footage (I presume that was film?). But the main problem I have is that I haven't seen anything that appears to show your skills as a DOP. As an operator, I can see some basic framing preferences, but the cuts are too quick to see enough of that aspect of your work. However, it seems to me that the rest of your footage was not given any consideration exposure-wise; meaning - lighting, filtration, etc. So my question to you is what are you aiming for with your reel? Also, please please please get rid of the SMPTE bars and tone at the start of the reel. It's completely unnecessary unless someone is going to be watching this on a Grade A broadcast monitor.

For camera sheets, if nothing's going in until the end, then I'd advise just continuing the sheets as if it were a one-day shoot. Keep it simple and compact, especially as nothing is getting separated through different days and baths.

When both cameras couldn't see the slate, why not just use the same board to clap each camera sequentially? Just put both slates' info on it - I've done that before with no problems. The main thing besides that is just to get clear idents for each slate number on the camera at the front of the slate, that way everyone knows what is being shot.

No, it should (largely) be a function of the mechanical offset - more offset means more exposure during the pulldown. What I think is being said is that it's an effect that will only be noticeable in the highlights. Your aperture and subject will be just as important as your film stock in determining which areas will be the most greatly affected.

If you're at all near a Panavision facility, I would HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend simply calling them up and explaining your situation. They should be more than happy to have you come in and show you all the basics including practicing your loading. No text can come close to that kind of experience. HOWEVER, in the case that you can't, the gist of it is as follows: the magazine loads in the "99" configuration. This means that the film winds off it clockwise and winds back up counterclockwise (which makes it look like a 99 when the film comes on/off the cores). This is also known as an "emulsion out" takeup because the emulsion (usually brownish) will be on the outside for the takeup. It usually is on the inside for the feed side unless you have a specialized camera. Otherwise, there's not too much to it - there are no sprockets - all you have to do is take the film through the left-most slit at the bottom, then take it back up through the next one to the right and wind it emulsion out. Make certain that the takeup is wound enough to maintain its hold. More info can be found in the manual here: http://www.cinematography.com/docs/millennium.pdf And diagrams can be found here: http://www.davidelkins.com/cam4/threading/index.htm Good luck!

Sun guns? High powered flashlights (I've had to use these in dire straits before, and they *just* work).

Yeah, I was a bit shocked myself when I saw the Fuji announcement. Also very red in the face - I sent in a CV with a cover letter specifically mentioning the Genesis...oh well. I had someone who's an HOD on it mention the Genesis usage to me back in early June - before they even had hired Braham. I guess they figured he'd go for it given his past work, but perhaps he decided to scrap those plans?

I don't know about specific parties, but if you have short ends of less than 100', you can easily use a bulk loader to "roll your own". As mentioned, the aspect ratio is 1.5:1. Where to get them processed? This is the real problem. No stills places really do it anymore, and the motion picture labs don't want to bother with short lengths in stills cartridges. So you might be out of luck there. Note that you should NOT under any circumstances attempt to send it in for development in a C41 lab - the ECN2 process is different and the remjet backing will likely screw up the C41 bath bigtime. F-stops are the theoretical "ideal" apertures. However, since a certain amount of light is inevitably lost to the lens elements, the T-stop is what the equivalent aperture would be when taking into account the transmission factor of the lens. Basically, don't worry about it - just read your meter and dial in the number. And yeah, try to shoot at 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speed. I wouldn't worry about depth of field, because the ratio isn't identical either; however, the general goal is to play around with basic exposure and framing. My personal opinion is just ditch the ECN2 stocks and go shoot stills with stills film. Sure, it won't be "the same", but neither will a single frame of an ECN2 stock - those stocks aren't designed to be viewed freeze-frame to begin with. Good luck, in any case!

Yes, you're right. (It's getting late over here...)

You absolutely have to change the music. It's seriously distracting from your work by making an instant connection to the Sopranos. My opinion on reel music is that its best to use something that's not too obtrusive and not very recognizable. That way the viewer concentrates on the images but has something in the background to keep the reel flowing without drawing their attention away from the images (which is what you want them to see, right?). Having some more shots from other work also would be nice, but I understand if that's not yet possible.

The technical reason for the rate difference is the transmission of sound data in the TV signal, which as stated, is always at a constant .1%, hence 23.976p (often rounded up to 23.98, presumably because NTSC's 29.97 only uses two decimal points).

Go around and ask; you have nothing to lose but a few minutes of time - it's not like there are hundreds of labs around London.

My general school of thought on mag numbers is that you specifically SHOULDN'T be using your own numbers, precisely because it's increasing the error for a variety of reasons. Oftentimes people just put a piece of tape on the mag with the number on it. This can lead to problems if the tape comes off, for example. Or if a problem needs to be traced after the kit has been returned. What good is it if you know that a scratch was occuring on mag 4 or mag C, but you've already taken the tape off when you returned the equipment? How do you tell the rental house which one it was. The serial numbers on the mags are unique identifiers which will never be found on another mag of the same make. That's why they exist. The fact that they are longer strings of seemingly-random numbers oftentimes makes it easier to remember which one could be giving you a problem, or be noisy, I find. Mags 5155 and 3178 are much more distinct numbers than 1 and 2. You can go back to your sheets weeks or months later, and still be able to absolutely determine which mags were used (also very useful on shoots which have a lot of equipment going in and out regularly). Anyway, that's my preference.

Assuming that the camera is running at speed and the film hasn't been compromised in any significant way, the only thing I can think of is trying your tests again with a different light meter. Did you calibrate yours?

Both mounts at the same time? Their diameters and flange focal distances are considerably different.

There are lots of differing opinions as to the precise order and method of labelling mags, but the general consensus tends to be that it must include the following: the length of the stock loaded, what kind of roll it is (new, short end, or recan), stock code, emulsion number, mag serial number, and roll number. As far as how you choose to display the info, that depends on what you're working on, where, and who you're working with. So there is no definitive answer.

Yes, but only if in a country using 120V. Important to note.

Well, I just hope that Raiders had a good print still around - the last time I dug a 35mm copy out last year, the print was alright, but visibly overused and starting to fade...

Ideally you'll want a high speed SR2 so that you can really slow it down. But mainly I'd imagine you'd want a long lens to isolate a single drop, and the appropriate lighting kit to be able to properly light it for a high speed shot.