Dan Finlayson

I know some Bolexs can be converted to Super 16, not sure which models. Crystal sync electric motors are also possible. But you won't be able to get the noise level down for actual sync sound recording.

I would hardly consider that "disturbing". He's right. Audiences will be more sensitive to bad sound than bad picture. We know what peoples voices are supposed to sound like because we have a lifetime of experience hearing people speak. On the other hand, we see bad lighting all the time in our daily lives and cameras "perceive" in a significantly different way than our eyes do. We don't have a built in set of rules about how things should look the same way that we know how voices should sound.

You'll find their old hard drive... and it won't turn on because it is not an archival format and will have long-ago lost all ability to store data. And that flickr account? As much as I love flickr, I wouldn't bet on it existing in 100 years, much less maintaining 100 years of photos.

That's quite a claim to make. You certainly have benefited from being white and male, doesn't matter what industry you're in. Seeing fewer female applicants does not prove that women are less interested in technical roles. http://cdn.twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/Spurious-Correlations-01-685x432.jpg?f870c3 Of course, the original job post is inappropriate, I agree there.

I love this lens! My most recent experience with it was on 35mm, but I've used it on the Red Epic and Sony F3. If you are shooting academy or super 35 format, it's a great lens for its vintage. You will notice some gentle vignetting, especially when open at a T3. In a not-so-scientific way, I'm of the opinion the vignetting is more noticeable on digital. I'm not talking about cropped corners, but a gentle brightness falloff as you leave the center. It does NOT cover over-sized sensors well though (i.e. 5k on the Epic or 6k on the Dragon). So I would check exact sensor sizes and compare against the Super 35mm format. I love the lens for its "cooke look" and surprisingly limited pincushioning distortion. Any chance you can evaluate the lens on a digital camera before committing to purchase?

Totally understand - I already have a Moviecam and don't really need another right now haha. Best of luck though! The Moviecam Compact is fantastic camera to operate!!

LUTs are simply color transformations. You can be working in any colorspace when you use a LUT. It is very common to use LUTs to transform a log image into a more desirable, contrasty image and those kodak characteristic curves sound like an interesting option to explore as a starting point! Rec.709 and linear are not interchangeable. Rec.709 is a standard that includes a defined color space and gamma. It's a top-to-bottom standard that was developed to create consistency between televisions. Linear vs. log is a more complicated thing that I'm not qualified to get into haha

Would you consider selling the 1:1.85 Super35 ground glass separately?

I mentioned this in the other thread, but often post houses have separate scanning hardware for their telecine sessions and their "DI" or "UHD" scan jobs. Your HD telecine could be done on an old Spirit - if you ask for DPX, you could automatically be bumped over to an Arriscan for example. So now it has nothing to do with compression or file containers - the sensor in the scanner sees more information. This is not a rule of course! You can get DPX out of old Spirit Datacine scanners. Just something I've noticed at a couple places I've had film scanned at.

Are you talking about the faint horizontal striping?

^ What Phil said haha ffmpeg is a great tool, though if you're intimidated by that command line stuff, Premiere will display an image sequence as a single file in the import dialogue. Or sometimes you just select the first image and check a box that says "image sequence" and it will bring the whole sequence and display it as one entry in your media browser. I have CS5 so I imagine CS6 is even easier to deal with. DaVinci Resolve Lite has only 2 limitations: No noise reduction and no 3D tools. Every other feature is available, including UHD output now. Just don't expect any customer support if you have trouble with it - they don't care if you're struggling with something you got for free.

First of all, I recommend getting the UHD transfer as you call it. Will it really be UHD or 2k for S16 though? Usually S16 is scanned at 2k. Your editing system does not have to be "high-powered" to handle DPX. You do need a fast data connection to play back at 24fps though. Don't get hung up on this, 24fps playback of your scan is likely unnecessary. When you get the scans back, they will be flat. Low contrast and low saturation. Premiere can interpret DPX image sequences as a singular movie. You'll want to bring the DPX into a timeline to encode a ProRes editing proxy. Given your computer setup, I would recommend making 2 prores files - a 2k "online" ProRes4444 file that you'll color correct later, and a 1080 or 720 422 editing proxy. Don't touch the color of the 4444 file, but add some contrast and saturation to the low quality editing proxy so you can tell what you're looking at. When you're done editing, you'll replace the editing files in your timeline and color correct the 2k version. I'd recommend color correcting in software like DaVinci Resolve, which is free, albeit with a bit of a learning curve. But here's why you should bother going through the trouble of the DPX. The scanner they use for the DPX sequence is almost certainly a different scanner than their telecine setup. And telecine scanners can't interpret the entire tonal range captured on your negative. DPX will preserve more information (even when encoded into prores) and give you more creative freedom with color after you edit instead of making these choices before. And, down the road, if you decide to revisit this project and have access to a more robust setup, you can return to your DPX master and have all the information possible to play with.

I've got a Moviecam Compact and the rental house I bought it from supplied me with XLR4 to XLR3 cables. Just make sure to very clearly label them!

XT M is the way to go for sure. It can do Arriraw at up to 120fps in 16:9 mode. 1080p Prores4444 up to 120fps, 2k Prores4444 up to 60fps. http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/cameras/camera_details/alexa-xt-m/subsection/technical_data/

I've actually heard of/seen ACs struggle to get the Alexa to take timecode from external sources. I was talking to a buddy about it today and he suggested that the Alexa is designed to run as the master clock and wasn't really intended to slave to other TC devices... I haven't really done any testing besides anecdotal evidence of this, but I would trust the camera to run TC more than take TC.

Continuity is the job of the script supervisor and yes, they will take notes of every single detail of every single take. They'll usually also take photos, sometimes video, and time the length of each take. Script sup. is a huge job - no way you could do that and direct at the same time, especially on a larger set!

The overexposure has much less of an effect on contrast than the chemical pull-process. Overexposing is done to achieve the desired density on the negative despite the shorter development time. If you define latitude as usable range of exposed tonal values on the negative, then yes, you are increasing the latitude by pulling. You are not changing the dynamic range of the film stock, just the range of tones than you deem acceptable in terms of grain. I think I read somewhere that Kodak recommends with vision 3 and modern scanning tech to not pull or push to effect the EI or dynamic range (this can be easily manipulated digitally) and rather to use these tools as a stylistic choice. I think you could make the argument that in the case of True Detective, pulling the film probably saved the production money - DI time probably would work out to be more expensive than getting the look straight on the negative.

^^^ On the show True Detective - don't know how I omitted that from my post!

Beautiful work! I read somewhere that Adam Arkapaw overexposed 5203 1 stop and pulled 1 stop for the exterior material set in 1994. He also used old panavision ultra speeds (the pvintage lenses I think?) to cut contrast as well.

I'm learning the gears now too - I've been visiting a rental house that allows me to throw my 7D on the head and just track and follow people around the prep floor. I recommend using a DSLR w/ a zoom so you can experience different focal lengths. I try and stay at 135mm to make things tough and if I ever tense up or need a break, I'll go to 50mm or 35mm. If you do the rental house thing… let people around you know what you're doing! Not everyone likes a camera pointed at them/tracking along with them!

Oooof heavy.

My biggest frustration with the bigger sensors is lack of standardization. Bigger is ok… if everyone can just get together and decide on a definition for "bigger".