Michael Rodin

Extra glass... Generally it's a safety measure against underexposure, which is very noticeable. And often it IS necessary. You're 2/3 over on average density, i.e. add 0.1D or so to every density in the frame. So your clouds are 4 2/3 stops over instead of 4 stops over. Will it blow them out? No way. Don't forget about ND-grads, polas and Soft/Ultra/Digi-contrast. You don't always need 18Ks, rags help with that too. If you want tighter grain, overexpose. Lowering lighting contrast will only make it worse.

It's off topic, but why did you have two 0.6s and no 1.2s? If it's a personal filter kit, I get it, you have what you have. But when you rent, it's better to get a set of doubling densities like 0.3, 0.6 and 1.2. Or even better a full set. Have your tests/pratice actually confirmed this is noticeable? 2/3 stops is not much overexposure for a Vision 3 negative, gives about 0.1D extra density. You might push some highlights more into the shoulder but clouds will hold detail. It's not an F900 where you open up half a stop and the sky is suddenly all-white. When shooting color neg, you need to take care of the shadows first. It's almost exactly opposite to shooting video. This means, don't be stingy on fill and check your meter readings in the darker parts of the picture to make sure they don't sink into grain. Do tests or at least take a look at H&D curves in your stocks' datasheets to know how much underexposure latitude you have. Parts where you don't have to see texture can be exposed on the toe of your stock's H&D curve. The rest you should expose in the linear region. Where you can't control the contrast with lighting, you may overexpose if you need to preserve important shadow textures/detail. It's OK if faces are, say, 1.2 density instead of 0.9D (which means around 2 stops more exposure) - you'll still be able to get natural color from that negative. Just keep it consistent across the scene. A bit extra density will help with scanning too. It's not specific to 16mm

How are HMIs going to be different in distro if they use same (and often less) power for the same amount of light? An M18 doesn't require high-current distro and is brighter than any LED spotlight.

What budget do you have for transport? Given the need to have G&E in house, I'd consider building a genny van - preferrably at least a 3-phase 80kVA or a 1-phase 30kVA one that can fire 18Ks so you can rent it out and recoup costs faster. To me it makes more sense than buying weak&ultra-expensive LEDs - which are harder to rent out too. And depending on availiable power will severely limit your location choice - which already isn't easy if you don't have a proper administrative team. You'd need a genny op as a part-time employee though. Then there's a (mini)van to drive your camera crew and kit - or a 3-ton with a 2-row cabin if you throw in G&E. I'd get electric equipment (except distro) used. But that said, when building a G&E package, you must really take into account how you'll be crewing your shoots and your rental deals - you'll be renting additional lights all the time (it's unavoidable esp. in commercial shooting unless you can spend another 100K just on fixtures/distro/stands) and maybe also grip. I'd buy a rather complete filter kit - NDs, grads, 82s & 80s (if you're going with RED), mist, soft, low contrast, pola etc - and a proper tripod head (like a used Ronford Atlas) as these are items of DP/op's personal choice and rentals not always have your preferred kind. Dollies/cranes are rental items, out of question. If you really need a hi-end camera (which I doubt), there are used Alexas for less than 18K. You can even get an S.two or Codex - but I think it's madness at this budget level. P.S. Have you tried marketing film as a way of future-proof resolution-independent way of shooting? This way you could justify a cheap-ass "digital cinema" camera (which is OK, digital sucks anyway ;) ) and an SR.

Actually, HMIs are often more efficient than LEDs i.e. more lumens per watt. But I doubt it makes sense to own a substantial G&E kit unless you're a gaffer or a rental house.

BTW, I'm surprised to see quite a lot a Skypanels going out to shoots with modest G&E budgets. It's the most uneconomical thing to rent. Rental prices are crazy high, at least here in Moscow and now in 2017. Take a set of 3 bigger Skypanels. For their price I could get an Alpha 4K, a big-lens 2,5K Daylight, two 1200s, two 575s and a genny - much more useful for location work. Or a 18K with a genny for an EXT. Or 200kW worth of tungsten fresnels, zips, parcans and whatnot if we're on a soundstage.

Over years LOMO has produced a lot of super-tele 35mm cine lenses. Here is a good site by Olex Kalynychenko: primes http://www.geocities.ws/kinor35/lenses/prime-tele-lens.htm and zooms, including the impressive 30x: http://www.geocities.ws/kinor35/lenses/zoom-lens.htm There were also experimental Design Bureau Ekran lenses produced in (very) small numbers - super-speeds of T1 or less, extreme telephoto zooms, etc. Today's Optica Elite in StPetersburg is the direct descendant of Ekran. Their designs are based on Ekran's experimental lenses and the best of Soviet OKS35 / OKS16 lines. Vantage Film also actively used Soviet know-how when they started producing anamorphics: earlier Hawks were very basically PL-mounted custom LOMOs, with optical blocks produced by Optica Elite. Both Elite and Vantage have fast telezooms - Elite 120-520 T3 and Vantage 150-450 T2.8 (plus 2x scope versions) based on the same Ekran heritage.

Counterbalance does help with light cameras. The force on the handle required to tilt stays constant so it's easier to operate precisely i.e. control the speed of tilt, and diagonal pans are also much easier. Less risk of camera hitting the sticks with the lens as well. Of lightweight ENG heads, Vinten seems to have the best counterbalance. Sachtlers also have more counterbalance steps now, 25-plus has 18 and I find it easy to balance. But Oconnor is better here, of course.

Try to key with larger fresnels from far away. Don't diffuse a lot (251 or a cosmetic gel is usually enough, and often it's not diffused at all) - fill more instead. A small 216 or grid frame by the camera is the easiest as it doesn't introduce visible shadows. You can also try to fill from above with a harder source - also from camera axis, a little to the side of the key so that its shadow is "inside" the key's shadow. DoPs in classic era used the system of "precision lighting" - at least that's how they called it in the USSR. The rules were basically... 1) everything but fill is done with spotlights 2) every spotlight lights a single object, cut spill - i.e. use 3 separate groups of spotlights for 3 main parts of a large tracking shot 3) set is lit independently from the actors, cut spill 4) first place the shodows with spotlights, then set the contrast with fill lights, not the other way around 5) there has to be key and fill The method came from B&W cinematography where it worked really well. In color, it worked different, and DoPs developed their own systems. The great Vadim Yusov made the best adaptition of old precision lighting to color, see his work if you haven't yet. Collaborate with art dept. and especially make-up so that your actors and sets don't look too lit and shiny. Be bold with diffusion - try a BPM 2 or a full White Frost, for example. Are you lucky to have a proper camera with a gate and a movement and not a crap Alexa/Red/Cinealta?

CRI figures are close to useless for cinematography. You need to look at the spectrum plot to see how close it's to actual daylight or quartz and what wavelengths are missing. And the single most important thing - skin tone rendering - you should ideally test, especially if have to shoot on video.

I'd call the film workflow easier as it's standartized and getting a natural (subjectively pleasing) image takes less work - from cinematographer, G&E, art, post.. From a producer's POV it might look different, maybe.

Only at Kodak Moscow. So if you decide to film in Russia, you welcome! :) There's a number of Kodak distributors in US - makes sense to contact them all, I think, as they can all have different deals/discounts. Foma and ORWO you can contact directly I suppose. Slavich, by the way, seems to have quit coating film. Tasma in Kazan still does but they don't offer motion picture gauges.

It's an HMI PAR for sure. Yes you can't orient an HMI so that the ignitor is right above the globe - you'd cook the insuation there (and it's not the best place to damage insulation as there's a hot restrike circuit under 7-10-15kV). Does it come with that Lighmaker ballast?

Not even remotely. Tabular-grain film is extremely diffucult to match texture-wise, old-style B&W like 7222 - plain impossible. Kodak might give you a big discount if you're shooting a B&W feature, and there's ORWO, Foma and Slavich which are cheaper to begin with. Camera rental and offline-quality telecine cost close to nothing. You'll be able to negotiate processing costs as well.

There were Panasonic and Century adapters that screwed onto a filter thread and looked like they had some corrective elements to produce an acceptable image. Now, they're rare and usually expensive. You can buy an HD camera for less, maybe a stills camera with a video capability. Or a used HDX900 if you want to have ENG ergonomics and cheap hi-end zoom glass. Or something like a Sony DSR570WS if you need DV and nothing else.

Don't do it - it's a waste of time. It's a feel-good book for amateurs which lists every excuse for not learning the art&craft. Very disrespectful of veteran pros, camera and G&E guys - R.R. is full of s-t to the extent he blames the crew for his own inability to manage any sort of a film production department. Nevertheless, it sold quite well to its intended auditory of nihilist "we-know-everything-better" wannabes who think they're geniuses. I remember reading an interview with R.R. where he complained about 35mm film "not seeing the color in actor's eyes" and an F900 "seeing" it. I own an F900 and shoot film - I know it's bullshit. But some beginner might believe these drunk fantasies. Maybe learn how to light first, instead of bitching about format you can't expose properly, Mr Amateur?

What's so magical about video tap signal which makes it recordable only to hi-8? Come on, they've invented SSD recorders. I'll repeat, what a director needs is there on the playback. Focus is another issue, and yes, to see if a shot is soft or sharp, you have to print or scan. That's the price of having the absolute best possible image quality on a low budget.

Directorial things and continuity can be observed on video playback. No need for dailies here. Screwed exposure or a missing 85 will be seen on an SD telecine, which can be cheaply used for video dailies. Anyway, screwing exposure on negative is so hard I think it's more often done on purpose than by accident. It's only focus which you need to judge on film dailies or DI scans.

Still I'd calculate and compare the costs of shooting film vs hi-end video. You may be surprised to find out how cheap S16 can be. You can get a huge discount on camera rental for a feature (like a 1 day week). SR2s go almost for free, and Ultra16 lenses aren't particularly expensive. Contact your Kodak rep, they'll find you a discount program so you'll save 30% or more on fresh neg stock. For offline editing, you can do an SD transfer on an old flying-spot telecine at a rate up to 50x cheaper than proper DI scanning, straight to your editing system if you will. 2K scanning has become much more affordable in last 10 years. And a properly graded HD TK still looks beter than anything out of a video camera, at least on small screen. Don't forget, professionally grading Redcode RAW or securely storing dozens terabytes of digital footage isn't cheap either.

Yes, producing a good image is indeed more difficult on digital. On the other hand, getting an acceptable image is extremely simple. The entry level is very low, and video allows for lazy (cheap) filmmaking - quite a temptation for students and executives alike. To know the limitations of the video camera you're currently using is necessary. But then it goes out of use, and you're left with a s-tload of redundant knowledge. When I had to shoot a lot on Betacam SP ENG cameras, I learned the basics of video engineering. The generic things like using scopes proved useful. But camera-specific stuff (say, knee processing) is useless knowledge today. What camera (outside of news and OB) uses knee now? Even the ancient F900/3 I keep for non-profit projects shoots with "hyper-gamma" curves instead (which have a shoulder - like film, by the way). A student would be better off spending time with lighting than wasting it fighting with a low-end camera which will get obsolete in a year and doesn't get used in the industry anyway (film does, however). And learning to shoot film is mostly about practicing your lighting skills, getting to trust your eye instead of taking 50 spot meter readings of a scene; it's about training your visual memory as well. There aren't too much camera- or stock- specific things involved. I'll say an almost blasphemous thing: you can even leave out sensitometery at first, leave densities/gammas/gradients to the lab while you're making your first steps. Develop an eye for lighting and color contrasts - that's more important. Learning the "old way", you are camera- and technology-agnostic. You can become a pro gaffer, lighting cameraman, narrative DP, whoever you may, not a "Camera X" shooter" who has to relearn his craft every time a new toy comes out. That said, I understand the rationale under the idea of basically learning craft on a "bad" camera. You get to learn useful things (like using grippery to control problematic video highlights) along the way. I just think you learn a lot of useless stuff too. In what way have practicals replaced HMIs? And why can't I shoot with practicals on, say, 5219?

Elite is the only one - bacause ex-LOMO engineers were the only ones who managed to design a working lens. And they had '80s equipment and a tiny "R&D" facility, no aspherical elements or exotic glass. It's called Russian optical school. :) By long, do you mean its focal length? You can actually shoot a portrait on one - it's been done. Not useful for wider shots though.

The reality of today's cinematography is that film is a preferred medium, vastly superior to digital. Not because video technology is not mature - HD cameras appeared in '80s. It's the inherent qualities of color negative (subtractive color, nonlinear characteristic curve et cetera) which make for a better image. There are people who yell that film is obsolete - most haven't ever shot on it. And many are plain afraid of film, because film doesn't like wannabes and amateurs - if you're on a soundstage with a film camera and you can't light - you're screwed. Even on EXT, if you don't know your s-t (firstly, exposure, which isn't rocket science), you're screwed again. There's nothing wrong or "obsolete" about film, film's simply for those who know how to shoot. Shooting film teaches you a professional way of working, which is knowing your format in-and-out, being efficient and taking responsibility. You should at least once try to shoot something on color negative, it'll be more useful than a biggest sh-tload of digital camera training. Video cameras come and go, there's a new one every 9 months, but having a solid idea of exponometery and being able to light without a monitor will make you a better, faster, more reliable DP in future. And your analogy is wrong - nobody cares for MSDOS because it's obviosly inferior to modern systems. Film isn't. I'm not fanatically "for film" by the way, I'm for an quality (expressive) image, and it's not that Alexa sucks per se, it sucks compared to 5203.

Last year I shot what you'd call run-and-gun with a Sachter 30-2 on heavy-duty 150mm cine sticks. It was a reportage (for a doc) from a Russian Navy day in StPetersburg. We had four camera crew (DP, 1AC, 2AC, clapper) and moved a lot. On the tele zoom's long end (163mm S16 format) the head was at its limits and didn't feel smooth at all. And we had an SR2-HS with 15mm LWS, which wasn't particularily heavy. Sachtler 150mm EFP system with carbon sticks is no heavier than most older top-end 100mm systems.

The DV head is an overpriced toy - it's for DSLRs and handy-cams, really. I'd prefer a 150mm head. Sachtler 25 Plus is my favourite for a lightweight 150mm head, well suited for documentary (I'm actually using one on a feature doc right now).

Just as expected, a 2-in-1 DP+rental package, RED cameras and "i-know-everything" DoP included. True, cinematographers are artists. Question is, whether this guy is a cinematographer. Neither I insist nor am I going to take this job from him, but you could forward him a couple simple questions if you feel like. 1) Say, I shoot a CU on some ECN-2 stock, overexposed 1 1/3 stops, processed normally @ gamma 0,5. Actor's face (caucasian) reads T4 key-side, T1,4 shadow-side. What's the likely neg density on the shadow side? 2)And what will be my printer lights if 6 lights are trimmed to 0,3 optical density (no coloring going on)? And let's say middle gray gives you RGB 0,8/1,2/1,6 Status M at normal processing and prints 25 all across. 3) then what face-shadow-side density will I have on an internegative? This should be easy for a veteran DoP. If he actually knows the photochemical post, of course. (answer: 0,9/1.1/1.7 on both neg and IN and 33/33/33 printer lights) And, by the way, film's dynamic range (if you prefer to speak so) changes in photochemical post as well. Color balance does too, unless you want your movie to have a fashionable orange tone. ;)