Jon Kukla

It's all silver, as far as exposure goes.

Int. with day lights to Ext. Night with tungsten lights? I'm confused about what you mean by that. If you mean Int. with daylight-balanced HMIs, then you can gel them to CTO to match. This all being said, you don't have to align all your light sources to the same color temperature, nor do they have to match the film's color temperature. The important thing is that you know what sort of effect you will get. It's not uncommon, for instance, to only partially correct sunlight coming in to an Int. Day shot otherwise lit by tungstens, in order to give a stronger impression of the daylight. It just depends on what you want to achieve. For instance, I lit a short a few months back where I had a lot of big windows (and no budget to gel them), small and weak tungsten practicals, and my own lights which I wasn't crazy about CTB'ing and losing lots of light output. My solution was to 1/2 CTB my lights, leave the practicals and the windows uncorrected, and add an 81EF filter (that's a half correction to tungsten balance) to the camera. This had the effect of making my lights white, the daylight from the windows only slighly blue, and my practicals slightly warm.

You might also be curious to know that Fuji does in fact make 16mm b/w cine film (RP 72161), although it's not available everywhere in the world. I've only been able to obtain it in 100' spools, which is less than convenient. It's also supposedly available in 35mm as RP 71112, although I've never actually been able to obtain it. In any case, it's an 80D/64T speed stock, which makes it a competitor to Plus X. Any faster and you'll have to go with Kodak.

Don't know how much this will actually affect sharpness per se, but on the grain front I'd definitely overexpose a moderate amount. If it really is a concern, then pulling the film should also help you out to a degree. However, if you're pulling a stop (with exposure compensation), as well as slightly overexposing, then you're effectively using a working stop close to 7231 anyway. On the other hand, this could be a virtue, as you'll still have the option to develop normal if you need an extra stop.

Here is a picture of a PL mount adapter, which shows you the basic design. It's composed of a four-pronged flange, of which at least one will have a notch in the middle. I've seen one, two, and four notched PLs. Four is of course the most versatile, since you have that many different positions to mount the lens, depending on your requirements or tastes. Most modern lenses have four notches. The PL mount of the camera will have a small locating pin 45 degrees clockwise of the 12 o'clock position, which you need to align one of the notches to in order to seat the lens. This means that the flange prongs mount at a 45 degree angle to the normal X-Y axis. I unfortunately couldn't find a good picture of a PV mount lens, but it's simple to describe. It is also a four-pronged flange, but instead of notches it has a single locating pin protruding out of one of the flange prongs. The PV camera mount seating has a single hole directly below the lens port to which this fits. Therefore the PV mount prongs are oriented like a standard X-Y axis. This design is intentional in order to make it impossible to seat an anamorphic lens at the wrong angle. The PL mount is more flexible than the PV, largely by virtue of most PL lenses being spherical, and thus will give the same image at any angle of axial rotation. The other major differences are the flange diameter and the flange focal depth.

I'm certain it would reflect a lot more light than it normally would, but if that were true, then I doubt that 50/50 mirrors would be so commonly used for this. Surely this is obvious that the silver content will reflect more light than an otherwise identical clear glass?

Good to hear it! Will definitely store that in my mental archives for future use. :)

I believe that it's easiest with a 50/50 mirror (aka semi-silvered mirror). I've been present for tests of this effect, and yes, the hardest thing is just setting everything up to precise positions for each variable - light, mirror, camera, and actor. You should definitely allow a good bit of time in order to get the shot. Other than that, make certain to line it up and view it at least once in the viewfinder, as I've had the misfortune to see several people relying on the monitor, where it's least likely to be properly visible.

The manual doesn't seem to say directly, but my guess is that you cannot change any parameters while the camera is in run mode. I'd first ask a rental house if this is doable/advisable (you don't want to blow a fuse). If you're reasonably confident, you can always run a test in the field.

Remote focus is not a camera-specific item - you just need to have the ability to power it and the correct gears on the motors. Any camera rental house should have them.

You pick a camera based on the applications you need it for (as well as your budget). The 435 is an excellent all-purpose camera that can do almost anything except run at sync sound, so it has more general usage than anything else. The Aaton III was designed specifically with handheld operation in mind, and also is the only 35mm camera with quick-change mags, so those factors tend to be its attraction. The 235 is a more basic stripped-down camera with what we'd now consider "standard" electronics and video tap, but it also is an MOS camera; its body is also created with lightweight handheld/Steadicam usage in mind. If you want Panavision lenses, for instance, you are locked into Panavision cameras (or the Pan-435), so lenses will also determine your camera. The Moviecam SL and Arricam LT were specifically designed to be versatile across all usage, be it studio, handheld, or Steadicam. People wanting 35mm sync cameras who are on a budget may also use slightly-older but reliable models such as the Panaflex G2, Arriflex 535, or Moviecam Compact. At the end of the day, though, it comes down to: what are you doing? and how much can you spend?

Max, I think you're missing my point. I brought up wireless systems to illustrate how today the focus puller would simply stand at the 90 degree angle with a WLCS and make marks on the wall opposite them. It's also not difficult to allow for minor actor movements. This has been done on many films, including Owning Mahoney and Enduring Love, to cite two recent shoots that I heard about firsthand.

I shot a film recently with a lot of old 93 which was kept in horrible conditions. We discovered it in a very hot, non-AC'd projection booth, and it had been there at least four years and maybe a lot longer. But when you discover six 1000' cans, you try to find a usage for it. I did some exposure tests first to try to determine a usable working rating for the stock. The lab claimed that it was fogged, but when I saw that there was clearly a negative, I had them go back and print it - this was after I told them that I was testing for a distorted and ugly look with this old stock! It came back looking surprisingly well, considering its age and storage conditions. The obvious things to check for are base fog, grain, color shift, latitude, and flicker. In our case, the tests came out very well - it looked optimal around 1 to 1 1/2 stops overexposed, yet still had a "staleness" which would clearly separate it from the rest of the film which was shot on fresh stock. There was a tiny bit of flicker on one scene, which I blame on it being at the head of the roll, and thus more likely to have gone off. Make certain to test each of your rolls, too, as different rolls may have decayed at different rates, even if stored together. We also tested some old 98 which came out too well - it was barely distinguishable from fresh stock! I guess that's because it's a slower stock. Oh, and we had dug up some 95 - a stock so old that the can label doesn't even state the speed! Being both the oldest and the fastest stock we discovered, it was no shock that it was in the worst condition - with lots and lots of grain and a green haze covering portions of the image. I will find a good usage for that one day, I swear...

I believe that the video monitor was only needed because there were no wireless focus systems available back then. The technique (minus the monitor) is still common today when using extremely long lenses - the focus puller uses a wireless system and stands at a fixed spot at a 90 degree angle to the camera's line of sight, and you can use the opposite wall to make distance marks. And sometimes it's just easier to pull focus when you can see the distance orthogonally instead of from head-on. (I've seen focus pullers do this several times for certain types of Steadicam shots.) They also frequently nailed down the actors' shoes so as to give Doug Milsome a chance! I've also heard that Kubrick got on so well with Milsome that he actually arranged for production to pay him during the downtime between the Ireland>UK move so as to ensure that he wouldn't be entangled in any other productions.

Well said, Adam! If you have any doubts that the camera crews, from operators down to trainees, use UK techs, then feel free to peruse the CVs of any of the people on Arricrew, Wizzo, or Suz Cruz, to name just a few diary services. (Speaking of which, if the Local 600 doesn't help people find work, why doesn't NY or LA have diary services set up?)

You do realize that the 2C is an MOS camera, correct?

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm JDC has these lenses now, but I don't know if they've been adapted for modern mounts. My guess is probably not.

I'm an American who has been living in London working the film industry as a camera assistant for over three years now. I started with zero contacts and zero experience, and have worked on everything from student shoots to Hollywood studio features at Pinewood. You can believe Phil's generalizations about an entire industry filled with people, most of whom he doesn't know, or you can believe my specific experience as just one of many stories. It is not difficult at all if you are willing to do the groundwork and give time for things to snowball. The winter season is always slow as well, so you need to prepare for zero work between mid December and now. But usually stuff does come around anyway. Yes, I put in my name for a lot of jobs that I don't get, but who cares? I'm always busy, I can pay my rent and food, and I'm happy here. It's not about your batting average; similarly, why should I care how many other people were considered for my job on any given gig? It's a healthy industry that has a larger pool of talented technicians than jobs - that's what you want in any given market, and that is how the machine keeps running. The trick is to get your ins, whether that's a few dailies or second unit work, or freebies. You aren't condemned to Phil's fate anymore than you are to mine, so make your own assessments, goals, and decisions. Unfortunately I will be leaving the UK film industry in a few months myself, but not by choice; immigration has tightened visa qualifications well beyond my original options. Personally I'd be happy staying in London indefinitely; yeah, a lot of Brits think I'm crazy too for working here instead of Stateside, but that's a personal preference for life here. While I could stay here for at least another year, I don't see the point when I can be using that time to build the US contacts I'll need to make anyway when I return. Frankly, I believe that it's going to be much harder for me to break LA than London, but I've already started to get an idea of the lay of the land, so to say, and I have some promising places to start. Plus everyone there has a high opinion of UK techs (so I'm told). I'll leave you with two quotes (the first from the BSC, the second from a film) "There are many pathways. Anything is possible, but you must have serious ambition, be relentless in your pursuit of it, obviously have the talent, and never become disheartened by the ups and downs of the business." (emphasis mine) "It's supposed to be hard. If it were easy everyone would do it. It's the 'hard' that makes it great."

Remember that the age of the camera itself is irrelevant - the camera is just a lightproof container for advancing the film thru the gate. That being said, for a very early 20th century look, I'd guess that you'd want to handcrank it.

Well, if you really want the old lenses look, then I think you have to stick with old lenses. So you have a few options - you can look for a different set of older or uncoated primes, you can work to more carefully flag off the ambient light hitting the lens, or you can control your frame thru your lighting, art design, and wardrobe. One of the old tricks was to dye white items something slightly off-white, like cream or very light gray, so that the cinematographer had an easier time giving the fabric a bit of texture without needing to blast too much light at everything else in turn. Good luck!

Speak for yourself.

Congrats on your first 16mm venture. Just thought I'd pass this along to hopefully avoid any future hairs on your part - checking the gate is often much easier with a zoom. Set the iris wide open, the zoom to the tightest length, the focus to infinity, and phase the shutter. The lens itself should act as a magnifying glass in front of the gate.

Random idea - couldn't baggage handlers use some sort of teleradiology technology like ultrasound to safely scan film cans enough to confirm that they are holding film (and not weapons), without either opening the cans or exposing them to damaging radiation?

What are the spacers for?

Simple answer - shoot at the local TV framerate (25 PAL, 29.97 NTSC) and use the phase button while running to shift the bar out of the screen. You can practice this without film to get the hang of it.