Jon Kukla

It's good that you're diligent enough to do a separate framing leader for each camera, but in my experience, having a consistent ground glass for all the cameras tends to be more important. Mainly because the people on the post-side of the work, whether it be the lab, editor, or projectionist, tend not to pay terribly much attention to which camera the work was originating from; it's most likely that they'll just check against *one* of the frame leaders and continue the rest from that one. The only obvious exception would be if you're using mixing different formats like anamorphic, 4-perf and 3-perf S35, etc... That's why I find the consistent groundglass issue to be more important; you can't depend on them to match the different rolls to each camera's frame leader, even if you do the legwork of providing each.

Some of this may also be dictated by production circumstances. For instance, I've been on a few gigs where the production couldn't afford HMIs (and one time, couldn't even find any lighting house that didn't already have them booked!).

I wouldn't even bother the production - surely the rental house can supply one with the unit bag? I'd call ahead and ask if that's possible. And make certain to ask for a white-board slate; sometimes they will leave you with an old black-painted wood one otherwise...

http://www.motionpicturerentals.com/Rental/UltraPrimes.html - see the bottom. Looks like ANSI is slightly larger and is the only option for Arricams (if you're using them). Of course, the most important thing is to check that each of the cameras has identical ground glasses and to shoot a proper framing leader...

I know that some forums have a standard policy that redundant threads are nipped in the bud by almost immediately replying with links to the appropriate past threads. This also is beneficial to the forum, since it allows any given topic to have a centralized thread for discussion, which can always been revived at any given point. Maybe we should look into instituting this practice?

Static can occur for several reasons, but the most common one usually is atmospheric conditions - specifically dry air. I wouldn't be surprised if the conditions of filming in Poland made that more probable. As far as the exposing goes, black and white is a different beast from color in that the baths are really as strictly standardized as with the ECN process, so different labs will often have slightly different gammas upon testing (and sometimes can even be set to particular gammas on request). Of course there are also far fewer labs developing b/w now compared to 1992/1993... There's no real difference in what you're asking about the 100 ASA - if you rate the 5222 at 100, then by definition you're overexposing a stop from the Kodak-recommended EI (assuming tungsten light). The overexposure should also help to counteract the graininess to a degree, but '22 is well-known for being a fairly grainy stock by nature, which is why many cinematographers in recent years have opted to shoot their b/w with modern color stocks and desaturate in post in order to avoid the grain. The 5231 has much finer grain, but you of course gain that at the cost of film speed. (If you're able to rate at 100, though, this might not be too difficult.)

400 meters or 400 minutes? I would call the UK labs, since it seems that they're more willing to do rates by the foot instead of by telecine time. Some of them are in-house; others sourced out. Exclusive TK houses are great for doing supervised work like commercials and promos, but not very practical for budget-minded filmmakers, I've found.

You have to remember that 1K is very similar to most SD resolutions, so your grain issues should be no different than any regular SD telecine. The 4K number is for getting the full resolution, or something close to it, out of the 35mm frame. Lower resolution transfers therefore may sometimes minimize the appearance of grain, since each pixel is covering a larger area of the image. The 35mm gauge will also work in your favor for similar reasons - you're using more area to record the image, so while the grains will physically be the same size on 35mm or 16mm film, they will be *proportionately* smaller in relation to the frame size when working with 35mm. Ultimately, your first priority before anything else is to get a useable image. If you say that you're going to be shooting a candlelight scene, then you need to decide how you want to shoot it first. If it's going to be nothing but practical candles, then 500 is probably a must, possibly with some forced development. On the other hand, if you're going to be cheating it a great deal, then maybe you can get away with a slower film and just light more. That's a question of aesthetics and logistics. However, it seems that most DPs have been satisfied with the latest 500 speed stocks and consider their grain much closer to the slow and mid stocks than they were before. It's something that you probably should test for your own opinion of what looks acceptable to you: how much light do you need, how are you going to rate the stock, and are you going to apply any special processing?

Entourage uses it for the agent's office. Hustle also has one on permanent standby on the Kudos stage in Bermondsey. Looks like Hallam Foe also used one recently: http://www.getyourpeople.com/archives/2006...ryboarding.html

Chris, who else was on the camera crew for that gig? I seem to remember one of my friends mentioned working on it, but I can't for the life of me remember whom it was.

Which company are you going through? I only have some limited Dubai experience, but I know that FilmQuip and FilmWorks (they used to be the same company; the head guys of each are brothers) have solid crews - so no worries if you're working with them.

Very good point about different manufacturers' filters having variations, even if they have the same name. While standard correction filters like 85s and so on are usually fairly consistent, different filter brands for say an Antique Suede will each have a distinct color rendering from each other. There are a few places, like South London Filters (and I know they have a US company they work closely with), which actually specialize in this and carry just about every type of filter from every company in every size. Makes for very handy comparisons. While there are standards like Tiffen and Schneider, of course what matters most is the look that you get out of them. Play around and see what you like.

Also regarding Sunshine - they shot everything in anamorphic that didn't involve the sun, bc they didn't want it to give a horizontal flare. But since the film was all going to DI anyway, that probably wasn't as much of a problem.

The problem is that if you want to do correction to your distorted shots, you're gonna lose all that highest quality in the correction process and it will preclude you from creating a chain of contact prints. So you'd have to DI at least those shots anyway. Right?

Please do not listen to Phil wrt prices. http://www.take2films.co.uk/Services/16mmCameras/SR3A.htm - that's a brand new SR3 kit at full price of 350 a day with most common accessories included. You will not be paying that rate even. If you wanna make a Wes Anderson AMEX commercial for a 16mm short, that's probably gonna be a bite. But if you just wanna do some simpler work, you're not going to need crazy money for that. And I'm not even saying to use the SR3 - you can buy a K3 at a good price if you just wanna shoot some MOS stuff for yourself. But don't let the "pros" scare you off - it's not cheap, but it's not too expensive either. Certainly not 2500 a day, unless you want a Technocrane added in.

I'll put it bluntly - you're out of your mind. I've never had any of these problems that you claim exist, and I'm not at all a big-budget bigshot DP or AC - I just do regular work like dozens of others out there. If you can't get tests, you're simply not trying. If you can't find shortends and know ANYONE in the industry, you aren't trying. I've been to rental houses many many times and never been told that there were no more S16s left. And my point about the SR2s is that there are so few left because EVERYONE HAS MOVED ON TO NEWER MODELS. Getting an XTR or SR3 is not a big deal. In conclusion, I simply think you haven't made any significant effort. But this is the whole point, isn't it? You want everyone to give up. Do you actually think random strangers will just suddenly listen to one random man ranting in the wind telling them to give up even trying to attempt their dreams? If you're right and everything is hopeless, you're still as much as fool to try to stop them as they are to try it (from your point of view). And they'll figure it out very quickly if it is so dreadful. If you're wrong, you've either squandered your chances and are too bitter, or worse are cynically trying to profit on the misconception that somehow you're going to intercept a significant percentage of people wanting to enter the field. There are better windmills to tilt at. And your pessimistic slant endears you to no one, including the handful of working professionals in the UK who also frequent this board. I don't care if that bothers you personally; I want you to seriously ponder what you're doing, what it is and isn't accomplishing, and what difference it really is going to make. Any fool can deride a newcomer.

I don't know where you're even coming from on the tests issue, Phil. Any DP worth his salt knows that rental houses and labs will let you use their resources gratis for a limited amount of test footage. And any DP or AC worth their salt will either have shortends on hand or be able to obtain test rolls if they don't have the right stock. I've never heard of any 16mm shortages in the UK because, like any good business, they don't like to turn jobs down. And good luck finding a rental house that even has an SR2 - virtually everyone has gotten to the 90s now. As for the cost of the equipment, no one but a fool ever pays full rate. I've shot student films on Moviecams with UltraPrimes for ridiculously low prices (still not dirt cheap, but far better than anyone should reasonably expect) - deals are always possible when you establish a good working relationship and remain as flexible as possible. Any other straw men I should meet?

I agree with David - it seems that you're bending over backwards to get a rectilinear shot from a format that isn't really optimized for that. Is there a reason why you need to shoot in anamorphic instead of Super 35?

Why are you shooting interlaced instead of progressive?

I had no problems whatsoever getting into rental houses and later working on professional FILM gigs when I was living the UK during the past four years. (And for the record, my departure from the country had nothing to do with the industry and only to do with sudden new Home Office visa rules that made it impossible for me to stay.) It's very simple: networking, networking, networking. And of course knowing your stuff as well as you can. I had no real experience prior, nor did I have any connections of my own - I just got in there, learned the equipment, learned the theory, and tried to help as many ACs as would let me. Then contacted them and slowly got jobs. In fact, if you want to learn 16mm, the UK is probably one of the best places in the world to be - it's more popular there than 35mm is, and there's even been a backlash to a certain degree against HD, due to implementation problems. Which is not to say that HD is going away, but 16mm seems to be a solid "known" quantity that producers are still comfortable with. Kodak and Arri both consult the UK market extensively when working on new 16mm products; Arri even had several secret development meetings with top camerapeople there to discuss what direction the 416 should go towards. You can listen to Phil and just give up. But he's never addressed any of my contrary-wises EVER in any thread, so keep that in mind too. If you want to give this a try, though, no one's asking for you to make giant investments of money or sign any contracts, so you might as well give it a try and risk losing nothing but some time. However, if you wanna play life safe, I hear there's a shortage of accountants. (And Phil, please consider it! You'll be much...er, marginally happier.) Just remember, people who succeed aren't perfect - they fail a lot too. The difference is that instead of moaning, they assess the situation and look for other possible solutions to the problem instead of giving up.

Yeah, here it is, page 8: http://www.gbct.org/newsletters/TECHS_15_lr.pdf

Doug Hart's book goes over this in detail, but the easiest way to do a phase test is to get some junk film and draw a highly wavy line on about a foot or so. Load the magazine with this and make certain that the line section will be going through the gate. Then, without a lens on, slowly inch the shutter by hand. You shouldn't see any line movement at any point during the shutter being open. Doing extensive tests with POMs and strobes is a surefire way to check for even minor problems, but in the field the wavy line is the best way to discover larger phase problems.

During the early sound era, the standard practice was (as it remains today) to shoot full silent aperture. After this, they cropped the left side slightly to allow for the soundtrack. This reduced the 1.33 ratio down to 1.19 (sometimes called Movietone format). AMPAS "renormalized" the ratio by standardizing thicker frame lines to be added in lab post processes, which brought about the Academy ratio, 1.37. This was the standard sound-era ratio until the coming of widescreen films in the early 1950s.

Use a 16:9 groundglass in your S16 camera and make certain to shoot a frame leader at the very beginning of your first roll of film (before grayscales and action). The frame leader is a way to show the telecine operator what your framing lines were during the shoot. Use a piece of postercard and place it on a wall at your camera height. Lock off the camera with zero degrees of tilt on a tripod. Use a 25mm lens for S16 and move the camera until it's facing the poster dead on and the poster fills the field of view. You can use black gaffer tape "arrows" to point to the frame corners and edge midpoints. Write the film title, date, lens, format, and ratio somewhere in the inside. Shoot maybe ten seconds worth to be safe.

I generally don't *meter* the backlight per se, but just set it by eye. (If you're outside, you either have to set the fill by eye and then meter that or send the sun through some material first.) If you're shooting video, you might want to check your zebras to stop down enough to avoid blown highlights, but film should handle fine.