Raffinator

Since their use of Super 8 takes place almost exclusivley outside in bright daylight, I'd assume that it would be K40, although the grain and color often make it look more like Ektachrome, so go figure... despite the fact that I have seen Super 8 look better, their Super 8 footage is still the best looking stuff on that show, by far. It pisses me off because they never hold the shots long enough! Raffi

That wasn't my initial thought when I stated the question, but tell me more, I didn't realize that zooms lose a bit of light when you go to telephoto. Why would this take place, and exactly how much do you lose (1/3stop, 1/2stop?), or does it depend on the particular lens? Raffi

OK, since no one has any recommendations, I've been looking into the Canon ZR100, which retails for about $300. One thing Canon claims is that it can shoot true 16x9, for more pixels and thus higher resolution. I'm not sure if this is just pure exaggeration on their part, since it seems that most high end prosumer video cameras are not capable of true 16x9. Anyone have this camera or have any experience with it? Your thoughts? Raffi

I need to buy a comcorder, to use mainly as a deck, I am looking for something in the $300 range. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but if I could I would like something that has a decent image too, for home movie stuff (family reunions, travel and such). I know, I know, I can't expect much more than crap for $300, but does anybody have any recommendations as to which brands or models are ok ? (panasonic, canon, etc.) Thanks Raffi

If you are finishing on film, then you would want those effects to take place in camera or at the lab. Sounds like you are going straight to telecine, though, in which case it might be more cost effective to do processing like effects (skip bleach look, for example) in FCP. A company called Digital Film Tools offers a suite of plug ins for FCP that mimic a lot of camera filters and lab processing effects. I haven't worked with them before but I think you can download a demo version (with watermark, of course). Their website: http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/index.htm The 55mm series of filters is the one that includes the camera filters (pro-mist, etc) and trendy processing effects (skip bleach). If anyone has worked with them before, I'd love to know whether they liked the results. Raffi

I would agree with the above comments. I am not an expert at giving advice when it comes to reels (mostly being because I am still trying to put my first one together!) so take my crtitcisms for what they're worth. I too feel the best work was towards the beginning (especially the b&W - really nice!). I kept seeing too much of the same actress (although she was pretty), especially the beauty shots in the middle- needs trimming. The bit with the housewife and the repairman didn't look like the caliber of your other earlier work, I'd definitley cut it. I also feel the music was too strong, seemed like the music was trying to force the emotions a bit, and your editing is timed with the song, so you are being restricted by its length. I would try music that's a bit less familiar and a bit less sad/maudlin (that's just my taste). I think it could be really nice after some decisive trimming. Raffi

"Once Upon A Time in America" is also one of my favorite Leone films, shot be Tonino Delli Colli. Maybe I'm crazy, but I always thought it had kind of a Gordon Willis feel, what with the muted period browns and yellows, some top lighting. Maybe its just because he started this look. Here's a still from the movie (hope it works):

Many thanks, guys. I'll draw the conclusion that if your lighting is pretty low contrast and fairly even with the subject, you would be less likely to pull that kind of a move, but if you're dealing with a background that is much darker or brighter than the subject, you might want to compensate a bit to expose for the face-- but be careful not to change anything too drastically or it will look inconsistent. Raffi

When doing coverage, I often hear dp's talk about opening up the iris a bit when moving in for a close up from a wide shot. I'm curious as to why the change in stop for a close up- is this purely aesthetic or "technical"? Or is the practice usually to increase the footcandles about 1/2 stop for the close up and keep the exposure the same? Raffi

Ahh, the great outdoors. No set can match the beauty and poetry of mother earth. Loved "RAN", "LAWRENCE", "BARAKA", "APOCALYPSE NOW" as mentioned before. A few more: "McCABE & MRS.MILLER" -Vilmos Zsigmond: incredible use of flashing, a totally unique look. "THE SEARCHERS" -Winton C. Hoch: Monument Valley, John Wayne on a horse, what else can you say? "THE WILD BUNCH" -Lucien Ballard: great skies, death as ballet. "PREDATOR" -Donald McAlpine: incredible jungle textures, green jungle, red blood. "THE BLACK STALLION" -Caleb Deschanel: fantastic visual storytelling. "BARRY LYNDON" -John Alcott: not entirely "outdoors", but sumptuous, painterly landscapes, and nice use of zooms (normally considered an amateur move) Raffi

It drives me nuts too. Why tease us like you are showing a letter-boxed version (with a pan and scan, nonetheless) and then not show it? It's doubly wrong. More and more commercials use letter-boxing (i.e., IBM, Microsoft), which leads me to believe it has gained acceptance. If their precious advertising can be letter-boxed, why not the movies that they broadcast? Raffi

Cool, I will look for it. I am assuming that this "lateral steadiness" factor is much more critical for telecine to hd ("hd transfer"), and thus the spring loaded rail makes it more exact. Thanks. Raffi

Hi Robert, What is a "spring loaded side rail", and how does it affect the ability to shoot for HD transfer? By the way, I use the ACL quite a bit and like it a great deal, wondering if it has this feature as well. Raffi

Thanks for the additional factoid, Ryan. Gene Wilder saves the day again. To me he was always the best part of a Mel Brooks movie. Raffi

Wow! I would have thought he would have jumped at the chance to shoot in Black and White. I guess shooting in B&W back then wasn't considered the "novelty" that it is now. Then again most of his career was probably B&W work. I will have to check out his book "Image Control". Great stuff. Thank you so much for the info, David. Raffi

I take it that a "waterhouse" stop is more perfectly round than the adjustable iris on the lens, thereby reducing the amount of diffraction? Very cool. "Don't confuse depth of field with sharpness." Sharpness vs. Depth of field definitley seems a bit tricky, because great depth of field, while increasing the amount of distance that's in focus, certainly doesn't always read as being sharp. When I see very shallow, selective depth of field, it often looks as if the object within that depth of field is super sharp, but I wonder if this is mainly due to perception (the sharp object vs. the blurry background/foreground) rather than a truly "sharper image" (no corporate plug intended). Raffi

Thanks for the info, guys. The diffraction that occurs at F11 and beyond really makes me marvel at how guys like Gregg Toland and Welles achieved the depth of field that they did on "Citizen Kane" and other films, while still making it look so fantastic. Raffi

OK, so I keep hearing about the "sweet spot" on a lens, the stop at which the lens best performs. I have been looking for a decent explanation - maybe I haven't looked hard enough. It seems that a stop or two down from wide open is generally accepted as where this "sweet spot" exists. Is this why so many dps choose to shoot close to wide open, or is it mainly a choice of depth of field? Also, does this apply to both primes and zooms? I hear that shooting wide open also gives you the worst lens performance, generally speaking. I generally shoot in 16mm with somewhat budget equipment, so if I can get the best image quality out of my limited choice of lenses it would really be beneficial to me. Your thoughts? Many thanks, Raffi

A few interesting factoids that I recently discovered on the web: "Young Frankenstein" has the same aspect ratio as the original (not quite sure about that one), and even some of the same sets. Director Mel Brooks tracked down Kenneth Strickfaden, a designer of sets for "Frankenstein", and was able to borrow the sets (laboratory, etc) that Strickfaden had kept stored in his garage for over forty years. Maybe that's why it looked so damn good. Still looking for info on the photography... maybe the dvd has got some commentary. Raffi

Thanks, guys Raffi

John, Having done a bit of research on this topic in this forum, I have read (or misread) that this method of slight overexposure does not really apply for film that is going straight to telecine. Is this true? I am shooting a short in low light, high contrast situations, so it would help me a great deal to know. Also, what is a better choice for telecine, 7218 or 7229 (other than their inherant differences)? Many thanks, Raffi

Yeah, especially the one at the end (on Gene Wilder). The shooter in me cringes at seeing that, but the audience member in me thought it was funny. Overall, I guess what struck me was seeing all these great actors that I know and love from contemporary films in a film that (aside from the story and the optical zooms) looked to me that it was made in the 1930's - softer looking lenses and overall lighting, sets, etc. From a photographic standpoint, contemporary black and white films never seem to capture that old look the way this one did (even something like Deakin's "The Man Who Wasn't There", as much as I loved the way it looked). We are all so trained to see in color, and black and white is a totally different language. Raffi

Just saw an archival print of "Young Frankenstein" (1974) in San Francisco recently and was struck by the beautiful b&w cinematography, not to mention the great perfomances. Much of it really looked like the best of the horror films of the 1930's, and, being a Mel Brooks film and a comedy, I thought it was a fantastic choice to go for the classic contrasty, dramatic look, rather than the usual "high key" comedy look. It was shot by Gerald Hirschfeld, ASC who apparently did a lot of television, including "Fail Safe". Does anyone know what stock it may have been shot on? Raffi Kondy

"(literally I had to ask the actor to motivate a lean forward at some point so as to not get wacked as the camera passed behind his back as I squeezed a 35mm Panaflex with a 50mm Primo anamorphic lens between him and the wall...)" David, It sounds like you are doing the operating. Is that something that you choose to do or is that a budget issue? Also, do you find that operating might make your job more difficult (splitting time between two demanding tasks instead of one), or does operating aid your decision making as a DP? "So I positioned a 20K tungsten on a dimmer outside of the windows that faded up slowly as a strong, warm backlight on her head as she read the quote." Sounds wonderful! I will look for that moment when I see the movie... Raffi

I have a recently purchased Nikon R8 that was hardly used and in great shape. However, recently, the black "FOAM CUSHIONING" material that surrounds the window on the film door turned into goo and I carefully removed it and cleaned out the door (using some rubbing alchohol). I am wondering if this might cause a light leak or affect the performance of the camera in any way? I guess putting some camera tape over the window would solve the problem, but I'd rather avoid a quick fix and solve the issue entirely. I will be going to Bryce Canyon in Utah in a week to shoot footage, so I don't have time to send it out and get it repaired before then. Anyone know whether this is a significant part? Thanks, Raffi