Jon Kukla

Yeah, I was about to say - it doesn't seem to make sense to have to record out multiple IN's for direct release prints, since each IN can only handle so many prints. Making the one IN and then multiple IP/INs for prints seems both more economical and practical.

There's no good reason NOT to do it if you know you're going to a DI now. It was done sporadically in the past (mainly around the late 80's-early 90's), but the optical step generally was too high a price (both financially and quality-wise) to pay for the relatively small extra negative area. With digital intermediate workflows, though, the optical problems are avoided. It's still cheaper to do an Academy 1.85 film in post, since everything can be done with contact printing.

Well, the lens needs to be set in a way that allows it to be seated in the lens mount, first and foremost. If there are several seating options available, then you'll probably want it so that the focus marks are clearly readable from the operator's side of the camera. You set your focus marks by watching a rehearsal and measuring between the camera's film plane (there is a usually a stud to hook measuring tape to) and your subject. If the framing permits, you can put down marks for reference. Then you just pull as you can judge it against your marks. For handheld, it just really depends on the situation. It's certainly not impossible - you can do it by follow focus or with various accessories like a speed bar or a "whip", and if you really can't move with the camera, then you can use a wireless system with a motor. But you also need to take into account how much the camera is moving, how much depth of field you have, and how likely it is that focus will even been seen critically. If your operator is running after the subject with an 85mm lens, it's gonna be so bouncy that the motion blur will cancel out most of your focus anyway. (Whether or not anyone would want to watch the footage to begin with, however, is another story...) In some of these situations, it may be easier for the operator do some rough focus, but if the DoF is fairly critical and is moving, I'd want a focus puller. Also, the focus puller and operator do sometimes communicate during the take - since they are so close together it usually is easy to do this VERY quietly.

I would think that a zoom would be better in that I could at least use it to quickly check for any change in backfocus. But in essence, assuming that everything is securely locked in and the lens is supported properly, I don't see any reason why there should be problems.

EDLs generally require Keykode of some sort or another, so that the negative cutter can quickly and accurately find the needed footage. If you're trying to avoid a TK, then I'm assuming that you are finishing on film. The problem, as stated, is that your DV is not capturing identical frames (or frame rate) to the film. So you have to do two things in this case - find matching frames between your film and video footage, and then do frame counts and conversions to figure out which frames of film should be your cut points. It's a lot of effort and is unlikely to actually work in practice. If you're just going to print the film and do a rough conform to the print, then it'll certainly be a load of trouble. But if you have any intentions of cutting the negative, I would HIGHLY advise you NOT to do so - they pay professionals a lot of money to do so with good reason. And a neg cutter is going to want a frame-accurate Keykode-based EDL. My two cents.

The main drawback most likely is going to be that you're probably going to have to do a special order in order to get 1200' loads, which means minimum orders. The only other problem that I can see, which really is specific to lower-budget productions, is that when the loads tend to be longer, people often begin to lose track of how much film they actually have left, and just keep popping off more and more and then suddenly realize that they only have so much film left for the entirety of the shoot. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly good situations where loading less is highly desireable, but in all honesty, how often does one find that 400' mags just aren't good enough? Just another thing to note - looking at the official Kodak catalog, they only offer 1200' for 7217 (V2 200T) with 1 perf. Minimum order is 8 rolls. If you don't mind 2-perf, then you can also get 7218 (V2 500T), again 8 rolls or more. Otherwise, it's 800' rolls, which most of the other emulsions offer. That all being said, with a sufficient order, I'm certain anything is possible.

Using different mags also can make the camera louder. IIRC, one feature I was working on had an SR3 as the A-cam and an SR3 HS as the B-cam, but the mags were used interchangably (despite my voiced concerns). We got rushes most days, and never had any focus issues, so I suppose that it can work. Ironically, we didn't really use the HS for high-speed work much if at all - there was a misconception that its low speeds also stretched beyond the SR3. In the end there was no need for it to be HS, as we'd have use an intervalometer either way. I'd ask the rental house about the mag issue, just in case. After all, they know their equipment best, and you never know if they've modified it in small ways that can affect these things. As mentioned above, the FFD is different between the cameras, so in theory it should make a big difference, but on the other hand, I imagine it wouldn't be difficult for a rental house to modify their HS cameras to have the same FFD as the regular ones, which would be a logical thing to do.

http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/C...r_Polarizer.htm See Carey Duffy's response in particular.

Speaking of candlelight, has anyone ever seen this sort of thing before? This a framegrab from an online behind-the-scenes video of Rome, so apologies for the poor quality.

You need to get a TK done with burnt-in Keykode and Lab Roll, at the least. Then you need to log your Keykode numbers when importing the video copy (and this requires editing software that can handle it). Cut your film and export the EDL or ALE file, which you send to a negative cutter along with all of your negative. The neg cutter will actually be the one to cut it together, and then you get an answer print made of that. The neg cutter will charge by the hour, though, and it's not cheap. And this is before the costs of a married (ie with optical sound) answer print. There's also really no point to getting a 16mm print, as virtually no one can screen them anymore - if you're going to bother to go back to film, you might as well do the 35mm blowup route. However, if you want to cut the neg to get to an HD copy of that, I would HIGHLY advise against that. There is absolutely no point - the print's quality is far less than the original negative which you're planning to TK anyway. The smarter thing would be to simply TK to whatever HD format you want, while getting a clone of that on miniDV for your offline edit. Or failing that, TK to miniDV, then use your EDL to re-transfer the selected footage to an HD format for an online conform (although IIRC that option usually is more expensive, since you're TK'ing twice - cheaper to do it once and pay a bit extra for the clone).

Morgan, congrats on the gig! As for your question, I'm not a features DP, but if I were, I'd guess that I'd probably be looking a lot at lenses, post-production routes, and acceptable latitude.

If you already have a rental house confirmed, then I would approach them and ask if you can use the equipment on-site (or just outside the offices if you're doing EXT shots) for some basic tests. This usually is not a problem, and it is something that they deal with regularly. I also usually talk to my lab about getting a nominal amount of test footage developed and printed for free - how much tends to be correlative to how much footage we're planning on shooting for the film. (Also keep in mind that in such short quantities, printing is often as cheap if not cheaper than telecine.) So all you need is a short quantity of film. You owe it to yourself (and the production) to at least make the effort, instead of assuming. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/%...ter%20angle.htm

I'd hazard to say that one of the key things will be being able to keep the sign framed as static as possible (considering the moving car) - in other words, trying to keep it in the same place in frame during the immediate approach and passing. Ultimately it comes down to how fast the object is crossing the frame and it's exposure time, so I'd suggest framing more on the wide end and closing down your shutter angle maybe to 90 degrees (enough to help but not enough to be too noticeable, unless you're all for that, in which case, keep going!) What time of day are you shooting, what stock speed, and which camera?

Remi was there again this year. All in all it was a nice show - saw a lot of old friends, played with some cool equipment, and just had a good time. I was most impressed with the 2-perf movement which Arri have finally released - Arri Media plans to have them available for the Arricams and the 235 within a few weeks. I thought I heard someone say the 435s as well, but the official press release doesn't include them. Well, now I don't need to worry if the Penelope will be released soon... No Eterna Vivid stock or footage available yet - just a promise of test rolls available next month. As for the Hawks V Plus series - the 40mm is HUGE! Imagine a Master Prime and then think even bigger. I know it's anamorphic, but still... I think it's the width of the front element that really threw me. Also, Panavision reps were talking about how they had the feeling that the Genesis was likely to be supplanted by a new model within the next year or so.

I know that Remi Adefarasin and Nic Knowland were there last year. IIRC, they came on the Saturday, though. Matthew, if you really want to catch Watkin, you have far better odds at Camerimage. Watkin probably wouldn't be caught dead at an equipment show - it's not the kinda thing he's interested in.

I wouldn't be so dismissive. Are they finished as "normal" rolls? Yes, very likely, unless they had completely ideal conditions (and even then...). However, last year I found 8000 feet of 5293 completely randomly which had been left in a regularly overheated projection booth for at least several years. We ran some tests on it and informed our lab what we were shooting and attempting. The lab claimed it to be too fogged to bother printing, but a cursory glance at the negative showed otherwise, so I had it printed, and discovered it was VERY MUCH usable, especially when overexposed by 1 stop. We ended up using the 5293 for all of the dream sequences of our film, and it came out very well for giving a not-quite-normal eerie feel to the scenes. It does clearly look a bit more "stale" than the regular film, but if carefully used for particular effect, you definitely have some viable film stock on your hands. The most important thing to do is test the rolls (test all of them as if they are each separate stocks), and determine what you are willing to accept and how you need to rate it.

Well, it's a function of motion blur, so it is determined by the speed at which the object is crossing the frame and the exposure time. (This is assuming that focus and framing is already fine.) Your speed of frame crossing will be primarily factored by the speed of the object or camera and the size of the object (ie your distance and focal length). Exposure-wise, your frame rate and shutter angle will matter. How fast are you supposed to be going and how fast do you think you are going to go? What are you shooting and how are you planning to frame it?

No, you're right - haven't remembered well enough, I guess! That being said, the size is nothing like a convention hall would be, IIRC. In other words, don't go expecting anything on the order of NAB.

I'll be going on Saturday - it's more or less open invite, if anyone is curious. See bscine.com for more info. AFAIK, nothing really major tends to debut there, but it is the largest gathering of equipment companies for the motion picture industry in the UK. As such it also is a good socialization opportunity. Space-wise, it's nothing too massive, just a single average-sized stage at Elstree. Hope everyone who visits has a good time!

Christopher, I have to agree with what's been said above. Sometimes the easiest principle to follow is: minimize the potential for f***up. I always use a grayscale and Macbeth chart for my tests, but I never use the Macbeth during the actual shoot. I have no doubts about the capabilities of the chart - it's the capabilities of the colorist that I'm most concerned with. I want to make the colorist's job as straightforward as possible - that means the largest fields of reference I can provide, which I can safely assume that anyone decently trained can competently work with. I don't want to worry about whether or not smaller squares will appear large enough on the neg (or the monitor, for that matter) in order to be gauged. And I doubt that the average colorist will actually reference the individual squares' values against the charts - at least, not unless they already can tell that their system isn't working properly. Otherwise, I would imagine that most guys work as much by what their eyes are telling them as what the vectorscope/RGB values are displaying. Keep it simple.

I've come across this stock on the Fujifilm motion picture webpage for their Japanese market: http://fujifilm.jp/business/broadcastcinem...l100/index.html A rough translation provided by Google is as follows: This film, with the daylight type color negative film of exposure index 100, does the color masking automatically, the coloration coupler is built in. Because it is the daylight type color negative film of the optimum to outside photographing, it not to be necessary to use the conversion filter for color temperature, because it can decrease also the ND filter, being natural, photographing is possible with bright finder range of vision. In addition, it is ideal even in photographing the bright interior where plain air you insert. This film has sharpness it is high, granularity and the rich gradation which are superior, coupled with natural color reappearance, being sharp, clearing can obtain the picture. Furthermore, the processing being completed film is designed in order the long term picture discoloration not to do. ???? Product name: FL-100 35mm Type 8590 16mm Type 8690 More (auto-translated) specs can be found here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...Flanguage_tools Okay, so it's a 100D ECN2 color negative film, that we know. With a "zero" generation (last number of the stock code). And it's still available? I'm really scratching my head - so does this predate both the "1" and "2" (Super-F) families? If so, isn't aren't the already-nearly-obsolete Super-F 125T (which would be ASA 80 with an 85 filter) and Super-F 64D more than enough? To say nothing of Eterna 250D. Wait - is there any chance that the L in FL stands for low-con? Confused...

This quick guide is a good way to get yourself briefed on all the basics in no time. If you can read it while the equipment is at hand, so much the better. Good luck!

Well, there's what you can do to the negative and what you can do to the print. I've shot 7222 and 5222, but it's always been out to b/w print stock. The basic exposure characteristics and properties are equally applicable to b/w and color. Now as for printing b/w neg to color print stock? I've never done it myself, so I can't speak from experience, but I have heard that the problem tends to be that a color print will never really give you "pure" b/w, so there can be problems with slight tinting/shifting. Of course, then you have to factor in the projection bulb color temperature variance, as well as the print's color decay, etc... If it were up to me and I were shooting b/w neg, I'd want to print to b/w. As far as the Callier effect goes, IIRC, it requires the use of optical printing, which will only occur if that's part of your post route. Contact prints and DI should be immune to it.

I don't understand the nature of your question - why is it so surprising that slower stocks and newer lenses should give "better"/"snappier" images?