Logan Schneider

I am also curious why Kodak doesn't keep older MP stocks, like EXR around longer. ~KB Keeping a worldwide inventory of a filmstock is a huge financial and logistical feat. Kodak has to be able to serves productions all over the globe, but cannot keep stock longer than a year or two (I think two) without replacing it. This makes specialty stocks an expensive and risky endeavor, because if people aren't shooting it they cannot just hold onto it indefinitely.

I think that they will be stopping production after the first 50 cans and then telling everyone the 'great news' that they will be having a production hold for a few months.

Try leaving a steel tape measure around the house. Guess distances and then measure them. It's something that you can do at home, but there's nothing like the real thing for really learning. Try to learn in low stakes situations like student films and low budget films.

I don't think that 4x5 filters are much more expensive, but they are much easier to rent to other people, thus recouping the difference. They also cover more super 16mm and 35mm lenses. I do think it would be easier to find more 4x4 used filters.

I believe that the 8-64 came with a 4x4 clip on matte box (mine did). However, I chose to purchase a 4x5 mattebox so that I could buy filters that were more versitle. The Arri clip ons are my preference, but the chroziels are also very good.

These are great posts. Thanks.

Lab screw-ups happen more than you think. I don't think it's fair to start naming names and saying that a lab screwed up unless you are directly involved and they have not done anything to fix the problem, which I'm sure that Arri has if they are responsible. Don't flame someone just for the sake of gossip.

I'm ACing on a film with the Panavised F900 right now, and it helps a lot to have the 4x5 and 6x6 matteboxes. We use the 4x5 all the time inside, but often have the 6x6 on all day when outside. Grads seem to be important for capturing as much detail as possible, but the 4x5 makes life so much easier.

Your work looks very good, but I would suggest drastically shortening the reel to 1/3 or 1/4 of the length. You can make clips of individual projects available separately, but for a showreel this felt much too long. Someone once told me, "your reel is only as good as your worst shot".

All of those names, except Lubezki, probably makes well over $1 million per picture. Being "below the line" (though we really are the line), DPs make much less, but still make a good living.

You could go to a rental house and look through their filters until you find one or a combination that you like. I would recommend corals, straws, warming filters and sunset grads as a start. Or you could just do it in telecine.

I use Dinos over the dining table and a Bebee as my nightlite. Occasionally I will turn on a Ruby Seven to read by.

I think the lobby looks beautiful with no light. You could put up a 12x12 bounce to add a little more detail, but overall you may not need to light anything. You could even do a silhouette. Don't be afraid to not light. Why fight nature?

Beautiful stills. They blow away the F900. Really nice work.

Check you local library. They sometimes have random film books.

Filters are a great way to make extra money as an AC if you have a DP that will get production to rent them. Many, many 1st AC do this. Also, many DPs make extra money renting filters to production. It takes about 30-50 rental days to pay them off, which is about 1/3 to 1/2 of normal film gear.

This looks like a mix of power window vignettes and blur filters, both added in post production. You could do this in camera, but it would be time consuming and you would limit yourself later. Just use vasoline on a filter at the edges for the blur. For the vignetting you can cut a hard matte or there are ND filters that have a clear hole in the middle. Those filters are rare though.

I would definitely recommend the DVX-100 over a GL-2. You should be able to buy one and have a little money left to spare for a tripod. As for editing, both cameras will connect to your computer via firewire cable, which is how you get the footage off of the tape. The tapes are reusable, though it is not recommended. If you buy a bunch of them they are only about $5 each. Your computer should have some basic editing software built in. Good luck.

I know ACs who clean lenses with tissue, with microfiber, and even with their T-shirt. I find that a wet tissue to rub on the lens and then a dry tissue to clean it off and absorb the panchro work very well. With a filter I just spray onto the glass and then use dry tissue. Filters can take a beating. Lenses not so much. I always blow them off before using tissue. I do use a microfiber when I'm on the run. However, the only kind that I like or will use it the Schneider Photo-Clear. It leaves no residue and I've never had a problem with it. And no, I'm not related. And I do not condone using a t-shirt, but hey, we've all done it once or twice out in the bush.

http://www.cameraguild.com/ Go to "magazine" and find January 2006. Brilliant film.

I would say that he is very much overdue for an oscar. He is a DP's DP. Some of the finest DPs that I know consider him to be the best cinematographer working right now.

Now that the film has premiered, will you be able to post any shots of your setups? Congradulations on the great reception in Toronto.

It is pretty expensive to buy a few lenses and really take off the coatings, which would be ideal. You could try hitting the lens with a flashlight or fixture from outside the frame. Lens flares added in post never really look right.

The reason I own an SR3 is because I found a great deal on one while looking for an XTRprod. Now I love my SR3, but I still remember why I was looking for an Aaton. I've even had great experiences with the Aaton 35-3, which is the only Aaton that has any sort of a questionable reputation.

Jim, I do look forward to seeing how the RED film lenses perform. I have been bugging the ARRI and Cooke guys for years to come out with a more affordable second tier in their lens products, and whether or not I find the RED lenses as a good fit for myself, I think that you are providing much needed competition at the owner/operator price point. The only other company that has stayed competitive has been Canon with their Super 16mm zooms, which seems to be piggybacked on their much larger ENG lens production. "Gee, an entire lens set and camera, or one and a half Masterprimes..."