Jeff L'Heureux

I don't mind front lighting at all, for the most part. In this case, the lighting fits well with the style of the video, and since it's what's on their t-shirts that stands out, having the shirts front lit makes sense.

This B-Roll says so! Haha. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB1XqYGaOHw In fact, at around 7:20 in this clip, Spielberg is playing around with a 16mm camera with the actors. My guess is it was a prop used by an extra in the background.

I currently have a small inventory of factory sealed cans of Kodak 16mm negative in storage in France. I had planned to shoot it myself, but the need is no longer there, so I'm willing to sell it at a discount. If you're interested, and located anywhere in Europe, it would be easy for me to ship it. I have in proper storage: 9 brand new sealed 400' cans of 7203 50D 1 brand new sealed 400' can of 7207 250D 200ft shortend of 7219 500T 100ft shortend of 7203 50D 240ft shortend of 7203 50D The new cans are 83 euros each and assuming someone wants to buy alll 10 cans I'll throw in all of the shortends for free. You have my guarantee they are just as shootable though. The shortends where made at the end of shooting days when film was still remaining in the camera mag but it needed to be loaded with a different stock for the following day. The rolls were cut with scissors in a changing bag and put back in their cans, still on a core. To reiterate: - 83€ / can (preferably would like all 10 purchased) + shipping Message me if interested.

PeeWee's Big Adventure. I would've got that easily without the hint if I was online earlier. And Batman, of course.

I would go with MELS Studios in Montreal, formerly called Vision Globale. I have used them since the last of Vancouver's labs closed. They scan film negative too. http://mels-studios.com/en/post-production/laboratory/ I would not risk crossing the US border with undeveloped film. I actually had a long conversation about that very topic this week at a Vancouver Post-production house. I asked what the major Hollywood productions that still shoot film up in Vancouver do to process the negatives. It becomes a complicated process involving customs brokerages, insurance etc. and people with lots of past experience and trust with the border people to ensure that the film cans cross without being opened or x-rayed so they can get down to a lab in Los Angeles.

I'd double the size of the font that says "Essex". Even with it right in your face it's hard to make out. Look at your forum avatar even. You can see how 'space' and 'bin' can still be made out, even with the small icon dimensions but 'Essex' cannot be.

The 2015 Fantastic Four trailer would beg to differ. Heh http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/12-scenes-from-the-fantastic-four-trailers-that-arent-in-the-film

Trailers are the worst when I go to the movies. I've seen as much as five feet of clearance/cropping between the horizontal edges of the screen and where the projected image begins. Basically, they project the image smaller and using less of the total screen that is available, and it jumps all over the place in terms of image placement between different trailers. I shook my head at how the image can be butchered so bad, and this was with trailers for the big movies.

Has anyone else seen this video by Shane Hurlbut showing the staggering visual difference between the Leica Summilux C's vs. the Cooke S4's? I was floored by the differences in the image using the same focal length between the two sets and just what importance design and barrel distortion do the overall image. I knew that shooting anamorphic vs spherical made some big visual differences but I didn't expect this big of a difference between two sphericals. Opinions? https://vimeo.com/90168989

Yeah, Hail Caesar is 35mm.

I saw it in the theater, and didn't notice anything annoyingly underlit. All I remember that comes close is the scene where they were lying down on the train track bridge, but I think it was supposed to be only moonlit. On the big screen it was fine though. I remember driving around Vancouver when it was filming and seeing their set on the street outside with all of the rubble everywhere from Godzilla's destruction. Neat stuff.

I don't think people would buy this camera for the pixel count of the scan, but rather precisely because it's super8 and looks as such. I love super8 footage. You can shoot something today and it will instantly look like something shot in the 1950's or 60's. It's a hipster's wet dream. If the price is right, I'd pick one up just to have fun with, and more importantly, I love that Kodak is pressing its advantage by marketing film as a completely different beast from digital, which it always has been. Ever since they reorganized they've made great moves to keep film alive and well. I also love the idea that they will process it and scan the super8 it for you when you ship it to them. I've always wondered why they never did that with 16mm and 35mm too. If they could do high quality scans of the larger film gauges, it would render the further closing of any film labs not an issue anymore and keep pricing completely in their hands for raw stock, processing, and scanning. This would infinitely simplify the workflow for film-based productions for those young filmmakers who have never tried shooting film and are turned away by the sometimes daunting workflow. Actually, that's a very exciting prospect. Now I hope this super8 experiment of theirs is successful so maybe they start thinking in those terms for all of their film products.

If you pulled too hard and/or forced the lever to advance the film to the next exposure not knowing it was the end of the roll it could separate the film from the cartridge on an old manual like that. It's not normal but it's possible.

The brochure on the Arri 416, for those interested http://www.arricsc.com/pdf/416_brochure.pdf

Would that not triple your raw stock and processing costs for the 16mm though, assuming you shot as many takes as you would for a super16 frame at 24fps? Every one of those horizontal 4perfs takes up three normal frames of super16. For that matter, could you even modify the gate of a camera to fit that frame?

Yeah, it would probably be more economical to move to 2 perf super35 rather than shoot 16mm horizontally, strictly from a stock and processing cost standpoint.

No studio. It was all shot on the real streets, using differently configured tow rigs with different parts of the taxi cut out for the camera crew, depending on the angle. The bumps are real because the camera crew is along for the ride as well. Look around the 5:00 mark of this video.

If they can shoot vertical 65mm sync sound quiet enough on a camera to use the onset dialogue, why can't they make an Imax camera quiet enough for sync sound? I guess it's just the speed of the camera? 5 perfs pulled down vertically per frame on 65mm as opposed to 15 perfs pulled per frame horizontally on Imax? I guess that's the equivilent of running a regular 65mm camera at 72fps?

Ahh, well, at any rate, that effect is in Gladiator. Should be easy enough to get a hold of for an example of the look. Rent it on iTunes perhaps.

The Omaha beach scene in Saving Private Ryan was more like a 45 degree shutter and unnaturally sharp, with little to no motion blur mostly. The smear effect you want would be something more like the end portion of the first battle scene in Gladiator. That was achieved by undercranking the camera (not sure what frame rate, maybe 12fps) panning around wildly during the shot for smear and then double printing the frames. Still using a 180 degree shutter though. I believe Ridley Scott mentions it on the commentary. Here it is at 5:30

That's the perfect lighting for a night exterior. It's lit, stylistic, but looks entirely natural to an average audience member. I'd much prefer seeing a film shot like that with some 500T film rather than footage in available light on some new fangled digital camera at a high ISO setting. Maybe it's not happening in forest scenes, but it looks like it's going that way a lot for urban/city night exteriors. With available light, you lose this controlled, crafted look of cinematic lighting.

There are many photographic tricks in cinematography to manipulate the perceived height of an actor. It's generally known that if you lower the camera closer to the ground and point it up at an actor, they appear taller, and vise versa. In wider shots an actor could wear platform shoes, and/or have the taller actor remove their shoes or slouch. Then, of course, there's the trusty apple box to stand on. In general though, if you have someone framed in a close up, a 6'4 man can appear the same height as a 5'1 woman depending on the placement of the camera. Or, look at the Lord of the Rings movies for extreme examples. A lot of the 'height difference' between hobbits and humans was not CG and was camera tricks with people standing on their knees and/or stunt doubles that were little people or extremely tall people.

The absolute worst offender of this is Gangster Squad. I saw it in the theater with a friend who has no knowledge of film making at all and during the final act's night shootout and fist fight she leaned over to me and asked why the movie looked weird like a TV show. It's because the motion blur was so blatantly not film, it was pulling her out of the movie. Most regular audiences can't seem to tell or don't care about the difference between something shot on digital or film, but when your format is pulling a regular audience member out of the film's immersion, you're doing something wrong.

I enjoyed the film from a visual standpoint. Very different look from Skyfall, and I can appreciate the new DP's take on the material after taking over from Deakins. For all the hubbub about shooting on the Alexa 65 for the night river sequence instead of film though, after actually seeing it I don't see why they couldn't have just shot it on 35mm anamorphic. Logistically, it looks like they only used a very short stretch of the river, and most of the angles were hero shots of Bond onboard the boat anyway that could have been lit to any stop they wanted. I mean, they shot the entire night car chase over a much larger total area on film, why not just keep the format consistent? I'm not liking this new idea that's starting to go around that "if we shoot digital we don't have to light our night scenes as much because the cameras are more sensitive". If you are spending $200+ million dollars, you can afford to light a night scene for 500 ASA, even if that set is a small stretch of the Thames. Like I said, they did it for the car chase earlier in the film. Cinematography aside, the story fell really flat. It turns out that the studio was well aware of this problem during production. Apparently, the Sony email hacks revealed that most of what people are criticizing now about the story were the same complaints the studio executives had, but they were under the gun to get the movie into production. Here's one article from last year I found on it: http://defamer.gawker.com/new-bond-script-leaks-execs-scrambling-to-fix-awful-en-1670479885

Quoted in Quoted in that article: “On 16mm because they (the lenses) are so sharp, they look very good. So it was a small camera with a small zoom that we could hand hold forever. You don’t need a lot of things to shoot with it and I told the camera operators on the second unit and they didn’t believe me until they tried it for themselves. They had forgotten how easy it was to shoot on film and it affected your attitude to film making." I can definitely attest to their statement. I was ecstatic about the portability and ergonomics of shooting on the 416 on my most recent feature. It's perfectly designed to rest on the shoulder for handheld, and is probably one of the lightest, quietest film cameras out there. I had complete freedom of movement, no cables, and a single battery lasted an entire day of shooting for me as long as I turned off the camera during long pauses. To further remove cables, we mic'd up the actors wirelessly too so no boom mics getting in the way. It allowed us to work all over Paris in extremely tight environments such as the metro, cramped tourist trams, and even the stairwell of the Eiffel Tower. When I have some completed footage, I'll post some of what we were able to do with this camera on a very modest budget, but I can't sing its praises enough. It's a keeper.