Michael Rodin

Ikegami HL55 was more like a final analog camera. There was an all-analog BVW400 after the BVW300A. Can't agree about the UVW decks. Those were already utter crap in their day, never intended for professional use. Consumer-grade mechanics, shitty electronics - they actually had a limited bandwidth. If you buy one it can easily break down in a hour. Better get a Sony PVW deck and Ampex-made BVW is as good as it gets.

Sony BVW-D600 was a workhorse camera on 2000's TV. There were also older analog BVW400 and Ikegami HL55 still in use and some newer Beta SX, DVCPRO and Digibeta cameras. Many OB vans and studios had Sony BVP500…900 heads or Ikegami HL57/59 with triax adapters. That DXC series camera on eBay was a cheap one for cable, corporate, etc, not used much on major networks. Those old SD cameras were very different in image quality. Ikegamis were miles ahead of anything including Sony and Philips, vastly superior. Ikegami HL59 used to hold up quite well on big screen, better than cheap HD cameras.

Well, they have Mole and MSE gear in that rental as well, which is also not typical in Europe.

One of Russia's largest G&E rentals bought these lights and electricians generally liked them, they say. But at 200 watts, it should be more like a 200w fresnel or a Pocket PAR 125.

A used Arrisun 5 will cost around $2K. Takes some more money or a gaffer friend to check it, but it's a whole world of difference. 3-10X brighter depending on the lens/setup, extremely versatile, built to last. Well-serviced LTM Cinepars are no more than $1500. With a choke ballast they're indestructible. And there are Compact 575, Apollo 575, Strands, Desistis if you want a fresnel. That said, I don't understand why you have to own everything. It's not the cheapest way to make movies.

See, the bi-color version costs $1700. For the money, you can buy: (prices based on European/Russian used market) 2 x used Ianiro Minispots at $150 apiece 4 x used par cans @ $10 2 x used Strand 1K fresnels @ $150 1 x used Strand 2K fresnel @ $250 and still have cash for stands and basic grip. You can already light something with that. When you need daylight, it's more complicated. You'll need help from a G&E guy, but, well, you'll need it anyway if you are going to shoot a film which uses artificial daylight.

Frankly I don't know who these guys are serving at all. This "Intellytech" gadget actually costs more than a new Arri T1. And if you need daylight, you can rent a good old choke-ballast Apollo 575 for ages for the money. You can even buy that Apollo used for less - of course, it makes sense to share the purchase with somebody who could service it. And there are other ways to get a usable lighting kit for cheap - know it, done it. No need to spend on Chinese crap which will fall apart in a month.

J.D., Sure I can (and will) rate this nonsense on Youtube, but, really, do you think it'll change anything? People may read our comments and turn away from this exact product, but after that they'll happily buy another crap fixture. They - and they're producers, countless "production studio" owners, even (now this is a shame!) DPs, - just don't have the knowledge to choose the right stuff. Some have nobody to consult, and some are so full of it, they think they know better. Better than pro gaffers/sparks, of course... So there will be crap gear on low-budget sets anyway. And we need to somehow make do with it. I've made up a small electric kit with Dedos, 300w to 2K fresnels, couple redheads and small HMIs. It doesn't make profit or pay off fast, but makes gaffing on micro-budget projects more comfortable, as I don't need to rent to light an interview or a small interior. P.S. By the way, I've noticed the industry is somehow getting used to amateur equipment. I've seen Manfrotto fluid heads on pro sets (national ads, etc), which I can't explain, as they're rubbish. I mean, they could have rented an OConnor, but the DoP chose the Manfrotto toy, as that's what he had used before. There are DoPs who rent no-name resin camera filters, scratched and filthy as ***t, as if they're OK with ruining the image. Worse, there are rental houses which rent out broken Chinese stuff and used expendables. So it's not only a problem in G&E. But it's MORE of a problem in grip&electric, because while a cheap fluid head won't kill you, a defective lamphead/ballast/dimmer/distro easily can.

Seems that these guys aren't consciously lying about the output of this light. They bought a pile of these lights from a Chinese vendor who provided them with bullshit tech specs, and now they're advertising those specs on their website. Sure they haven't compared it to a 6K HMI - I guess they've never actually used or seen one. Because they're not electricians or gaffers - they're amateurs. Just look at that light: people who designed it have never been on a film set. The knobs won't survive a month of location shooting. That indoor-appliance power socket is completely unapproriate - it doesn't fix the plug and is prone to shorting/arcing when dirty. Touch screen is a nonsense - how do you use it wearing gloves? Then look at the second video. The camera guy calls that "fresnel+octobox through light grid" a booklight! Then at 1:11 he's complaining about the shadow on the face. The key is obviously a little low - he could have brought it higher to a steeper angle, diffuse to taste, fill with foam, add eyelight and get a "proper" flattering interview portrait. Now this would sell a lighting fixture. But he just "fixes" his light with lots of diffusion, getting spill all over the location. Maybe that's a new way to light, and I just don't get it. P.S. Reread the thread - Phil has already commented about the "booklight".

From their site: 20 Degrees 1 Meter / 38,220 Lux 2 Meters / 10,000 Lux 3 Meters / 3.095 Lux 50 Degrees 1 Meter / 18,265 Lux 2 Meters / 4,675 Lux 3 Meters / 2,000 Lux 70 Degrees 1 Meter / 14,240 Lux 2 Meters / 4,000 Lux 3 Meters / 1,442 Lux That's nowhere near a 4K Compact fresnel, let alone a big-lens Arri Apollo or a par light. Neither does it match a tungsten 5K - it's roughly 1/5 the output. This light is barely brighter than a good studio 1K.

If you want your shot to look like Solaris you don't just pick the right lens. Obviosly, it was Ekran/Lomo anamorphics for this movie and DoP Vadim Ivanovich Yusov used wide focal lengths a lot throughout his career. There sure was a 50mm in his set, then either a 35 or a 30 and maybe a 22. Longer 75 and 100 as well. Yusov has also got a very special lighting style. He's a father of classical/academic realism in cinematography and has a big influence on modern Western cinematography as well, i.e. Roger Deakins stated he followed Yusovs principles and style, and you can see lots of Yusov references in Nykvist's and - later - Lubezki's work. He's basically taken the old "precision lighting" (which for example Mr Mullen referenced in "Love Witch") method and made it more subtle. His lighting was motivated and "invisible" but still very "emotional", using fine accents and modeling on faces. It was all realistic yet highly tasteful. Read up on his work and see his films, it'll be an inspiration for sure.

Well, those long hand-held shots. Sergei Urusevskij did it splendidly, then the French New Wave did it less so, now everybody does it, usually not splendidly at all. I worked with a first-time director who would prefer to shoot everything hand-held. I kind of respected that choice, but kept the camera on sticks. Once the AC changed the batteries on the camera (F900 w/external recorder), cycled power, which triggered the recorder, and carried it to the location on his shoulder. The resulting shaky-cam shot was screened and impressed the director. "This is how you should shoot". The guy wasn't joking. Edit: Phil, you were faster :)

To judge how film reacts to light, you look at its characteristic curve. A density is just a point on that curve corresponding to some specific exposure. So a normal and an underexposed/pushed negatives can both have faces at 0,7D but densities in shadows may be very different - the pushed film turns a steeper characteristic curve (hence the higher contrast).

Digital can only to an extent. A lot of people think you somehow get a "film image" out of flat/log/raw digital in grading. From that comes "why bother with processing and scanning, pay more, hire a DP who can shoot it when you can replicate it in post". Sure you can get pretty close on carefully shot footage. But you can't always fake it - eventually there'll be a scene where limitations of digital will show up on screen. And film stocks generally have different color and textures compared to video.

(2) will get you a brighter positive image on a scanner since it's more dense. Once you bring it back in brightness to match (1) using printer-light-like controls (i.e. "exposure" in Baselight, "master offset" in Avid Symphony) you just get a more grainy/contrasty/saturated image. That's why we use NDs. Again, why not just put an ND on camera? NDs are straightforward on film, no need to worry about IR pollution. Just get quality filters for the movie. There's 1) Schneider 2) Formatt and Tiffen, plus some specialty firms like Mitomo. Cokin and cheap Chinese filters are useless.

Can't edit, so... "If not, and you're stuck with a mixture of over- & underexposed footage on a roll, you decide how much UNDERexposure you can tolerate on the underexposed scenes and PUSH accordingly. Don't worry about overexposing other stuff on the roll" Meant overdeveloping. Also, when doing exposure test, don't forget to include a grayscale in the scene, so you can see when you're reaching into the toe or shoulder portions of the characteristic curve. And you can do a sensitometric lab test. The lab will expose a row of frames on a 2 meter filmstrip cut from your roll, each to different level of light, then plot a characteristic curve and calculate an ISO for you.

Yes, really. In pre-production you do exposure tests, shooting the same test scene(s) (representing what's the most important in your film, like skin, costume, maybe snow or foliage) with normal exposure based on EI written on the can, then with +1/3, -1/3, +2/3 stop and so on. Then you process and scan on the exact same system you'll use in post. Project and choose a base exposure which gives you the best image and see how much you can deviate from that (what's you usable latitude). For example, you found normally processed 5203 looks best on Arriscan exposed 2/3 stops over (real-world example), so you rate it EI32. That's the "proper" way of finding the EI but considering the huge latitude of modern neg stock you'll never be way off with a recommended EI. And with basic sensitometery knowledge and some experience you'll pretty precisely predict what over-under exposure and push-pull will to to your image. They'll simply run their machine slower, so that neg will ideally get 0.15 points denser. 0.15 because exposure difference of 1 stop translates to optical density difference of 0.3D and with a coarsely 0.5 gamma (which means 2x tone compression) of a negative it equals 0.15D. Sometimes you desperately need that density. Say, you shot the leading lady on 5219 rated 500T at you Zeiss Standarts' maximum T2.1 but there wasn't enough light and her face read T1.4 on a spot meter. You don't want her face whole 2 stops under because it'll be like 0.4 density (it's murky mess which gets you fired). So you either request a push-1 and get a 0,55D with reasonable grain/contrast or do a push-2 and get "perfect" 0,7D, albeit very contrasty and grainy. When you go for a "pushed" look, it's not about the density but contrast and grain. BTW, pull-process is used much less and mostly for "artistic" reasons rather than technical. Overexposure doesn't really ruin your images unless you hit 4-5 stops over. As long as all the shots print/scan well and yield a quality image, it's OK. If not, and you're stuck with a mixture of over- & underexposed footage on a roll, you decide how much UNDERexposure you can tolerate on the underexposed scenes and PUSH accordingly. Don't worry about overexposing other stuff on the roll unless there are important details shot 4 stops over (say, window views). But why did you do that if they're important? Usually you keep some densities (like actor's faces) consistent and ensure there's always some black and some highlights in any frame. But everything other changes from one lighting setup to another. It's OK for a subject to render different densities under different light. Even a face can go from -1 to +2,5 stops relative to middle gray in a really bold movie (but unlikely within a roll). Just make sure the audience sees the eyes (at least some reflection in them) in your portrait CUs/middle shots. There's no best-light processing, only best-light print and telecine. If you're in real trouble, you can try to splice your roll into parts and process them differently. Theoretically possible given you had a nice complete camera report. Don't expect your lab to do it! It'll be 0.15D more dense. Plus grainier and more contrasty, won't have a noticeable "overexposed" look (like overexposed video would).

In push processing film is ran slower through baths of ECN2 chemicals and gets overdeveloped. Technically nothing to do with the EI. Labs don't use EIs, they judge negative by densities. Pushed neg is more contrasty and builds up more density so you can underexpose it when shooting but still see shadow detail and adequate density on processed film. So you are able to light to a higher EI.

Ikonoskop a-cam wasn't an affordable "student" camera, rather an expendable camera for regular productions. It was for those who had access to Arris and Aatons but didn't want to risk them. And you couldn't really use it other than as a crash camera - it just didn't last, film channel (not sure about the English term again) wore out very fast. It was cheap for a reason. I think what draws people away from 16mm is not the lack of cameras (416s are cheap to rent and LTRs/SR1s will soon go for free), but expensive scanning and very few labs. And many (even in camera dept.) are just plain afraid to shoot without instant preview on a monitor. Or don't know how to...

I'm afraid there's only one working MKBK-SR in the world, owned by a St Petersburg DoP, but Sergey Astakhov (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0039945/) may have a couple more similar cameras - he had a LOT of custom cameras in 2000s. It's a Frankenstein of a camera - made of different SR parts with a custom gate, movement and electronics. It has an on-board wireless lens/motor control and a built in SD video sender. Gate is hairless with rounded corners, the camera takes regular (non-highspeed) mags and goes to 200 fps. Viewfinder is very bright with a fibre screen, and you can change intensity and color or frameline glow. Shot on it, loved it. The only limitation is a fixed 180 degree shutter, which is because the camera is actually based on an SR1, I think! Otherwise it's as advanced as a 416+, just louder. This particular camera is available for rent. But no more advanced Arriflex conversions: MKBK was made bankrupt and closed thanks to a couple of morons ('efficient manager' type of scum, remains of Yeltsin team) in the local administration.

No bike comes close to a precision of a production camera movement. We are talking millimeters vs microns, and some optics are made to wavelenght tolerances (500 nanometers). Pressure plates, gates et cetera are milled and grinded/superfinished to micron tolerances, mirror shutter are balanced not much worse than aerospace gyros. You need some really special and expensive machinery and rigging (not sure the English term is correct) which you don't use on a bicycle factory. And a 0,1 mm tolerance is quite typical, pretty much a norm. Actually in Soviet metalworkers' slang everything looser than that was called "kilometeres". You need much more than a couple of CNC mills and lathes to make a camera. Look at MKBK (Moscow cine technology bureau) - they had it all, experience, aerospace grade materials and precision machinery. Their SR2 Hi-speed conversion was best in class - hairless gate, bright viewfinder with glow, 200 fps (!) movement, full remote control and wireless operation before the 416Plus had it. It was almost a new camera inside an SR2 body. Why they didn't make their own camera? Too expensive and not enough sells to justify. Not easy to compete with Arri, you see :)

The most important safety issue I forgot to mention is UV protection. Fresnels generally cause less trouble than open faces where safety glasses break all the time and get replaced with God knows what. Just make sure the lens is original or an adequate spare (with UV filtering) and not taken from a tungsten light. Magnetic ballasts are really a problem only with high speed or film cameras with a fixed shutter angle. But if you can afford film or high speed, why use magnetic ballasts? And even though I'm pretty comfortable servicing old HMIs, I personally won't touch a knockoff since I don't know what to expect from it. They fail from defects and poor design, not wear or aging - very difficult to predict what to repair or replace next.

Never get close to a knockoff HMI if you value your life. Filmgear is Chinese and OK, but the eBay no-name stuff is absolute garbage: poor materials (think insulation), amateur electronic design (think fuses, safety circuits), cheapest glass for lenses (UV protection? or 2 kilos of hot cracked glass falling from a boom or truss-mounted light onto an actor) and the list goes on. As they say it here, don't touch it, let it lie and stink. LTM Luxarcs actually were cinema workhorses and will remain in use for years and outlive dozens of chinese lights if properly maintained. They do rust nevertheless (they're a lot of sheet steel & some cast silumin unlike Arri), so need to be repainted on times. And since they're mostly steel you can do welding repairs. Repairing a magnetic ballast or an ignitor is not complicated if electrics/power electronics aren't than foreign to you. They're simple circuits, albeit high-voltage. I've rebuilt HMIs as an electrician, even sort of upgraded them with better insulation and heavier wiring. Many old European HMIs like ARRI Daylight, Kobold, or (less known) Cinemobil, Blossl, Schulz, Auer, use pretty much the same components i.e. May&Christe inductors, so you can swap parts. An 1,2K fresnel is perfectly adequate for a day interior, diffused or bounced, key or whatever. You can even fire it through a window into a small room to simulate sunlight on an overcast day. If you want to balance a small int. and a sunny ext. you'll use at least a 6K fresnel through 251/250 or a par through heavy diffusion.

Try "white" diffusion which halates, like White Frost or regular ProMist.

Deakins? Then we should mention the man whom (not only) Roger considers the best DoP ever - Vadim Yusov. He didn't get much work after the fall of USSR, neither in Russia (no wonder, our film industry was destroyed by the "Eltsin team" in 90s) nor abroad. Why? - colleagues say, because foreign producers thought they couldn't afford his work! They estimated around $500k for a feature, while in reality Yusov had a very low rate by Hollywood standards - people like him just weren't interested in money. Maybe that's also the Storaros case? Producers being plain afraid of hiring a DoP like him, who'll need a bugdet, a lot of freedom and shooting days - and, in case of Storaro - a siesta.