Jay Young

Hearing this leaves me somewhat disappointed. As someone who almost never shoots wide open, that part of the test is not so important to me. I wonder why these tests are never done at a decent shooting stop. I assumed this would just be another wide open test, like everything else on Vimeo these days, but no T5.6? And I am bummed about the Baltars, as probably my favorite vintage lens set, it would be nice to see them in a side by side. Again, they don't look their best wide open. Did you really shoot the anamorphics wide open? What is the actual purpose of that then? Did you do any tests with motion in the frame, as I suggested on your Reddit post?

The Walking Dead? That's the most recent show that has the same sort of form. All the other shows are 35mm and don't quite have the same look that we're going for - not that TWD has that look either. I think television has a pretty standard format as far as producers/money is concerned - I could be wrong, I've not done much in the television world.

Yep. I've got two! I've not seen 800' loads in the kodak catalogue, but I can always ask.

I opted for 3 sections of scaffolding and a three riser stand. It's going in the forest with plenty of big trees to anchor things too - I guess, the key grip says its fine. That Home Depot 'towable boom lift' is awesome! I didn't even know that existed. I'll definitely be using that in the future!

yes, S16. Script calls for Exteriors, Practical interiors, and one scene in which I have yet to figure out the best way to actually smash a truck into a doctors office... that might be a set build. The script reads like the cast will leave the current setup, so I think building the set pieces for the interiors would be a waste if they are only going to be seen in the pilot. The pilot is actually 56 1/2 pages, with 3 pages devoted to the teaser. I'm just going with 60 for a little padding and because a lot of action takes place on a single page in some acts. My idea is to have two operators, likely myself and someone else, but on days when two operators are available, I'll run around with a Arri 16s on 100' loads or something else equally tiny to get something interesting - camera 3 will be whatever camera I can find that's not a 416, and hopefully smaller than an SR. That may not work out, and I may be too busy to bother with it.

I'm a single camera type guy. I've signed on to do a television pilot and am pushing for film over digital - director is on board. I've never really done much multi-cam but I also believe that's the most efficient way to go for this show. Is there a general guideline for gauging/estimating how many rolls for multi-cam? I'm figuring I'm going to use about 1 roll per page, but then if I shoot three cameras that 60 rolls jumps up to 60 x 3 cameras. Except I don't expect to use camera 3 for everything. I guess I can always order more than I think would cover it - there is also the issue of Kodack's back order, and what is available. So do I order 180 rolls, or do I order 120 rolls assuming that I'll use camera 3 for about half the time I have the 2-cam setup going? Thoughts?

Hopefully this will be a workable link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B52adpn6c2ulSldCU1BtUkc5bzg The above link is 20 year old XTR 500t Kodak stock that was a short end I forgot I had. It sat in an non-climate controlled building for 5 years with temperature fluctuation and spiders and all, after I discovered it I promptly stuck it in the freezer. I rated this at 320, and should have rated it at least 200. This is a one light prores scan, with no correction. Somewhere I have a scan of frozen since new Fuji, but I can't find it. viz. I have not had any issues at all freezing film. I take the cans out at least 24 hours and lay them on my kitchen table to stabilize. I have never had any moisture/condensation issues.

I have been impressed with the image quality too. There are now two people who have created replacement elements for several BM cameras which fix one of two problems. Some chaps from mosaic engineering have created a new optical anti-aliasing filter that greatly reduces the Morie issues, and a fellow from Norway (Sweden?), created a new IR-cut OLPF which fixes a lot of the IR issues. I am almost certain one could not use both at the same time. But a nice IR filter in front of the lens works well too.

No, it jumps to 48 after that. If you are shooting normal subject matter, it wont really make a difference. The difference is literally .02 of one second. (1/48th vs 1/50th) If you are shooting very precise things or working in 10ths of a stop, perhaps it will matter and you need a different meter.

Got the box in today. Yes, you are correct. I also did not get the arm, but for $60 its a great start! This thing is AWESOME, I love it! Also came with a Tiffen 81EF 6x6 filter, so.. not that I have any reason to use one but, YAY! I assume (havnt measure yet) that the spacing on the matte box support rod side is 100mm? Seems that way. I wonder how much it would cost to have a another one of those plain 15mm rod mounts made, so I don't have to worry about finding rare parts. Secondly, any Idea where I might be able to source an arm? I guess I could have one machined, but surely someone makes a 100mm matte box support arm??

So the little black deal on the back holds the rear element in. Did you just tape yours in? I could try that. Needs more testing.

That's a little steep to read articles, in my opinion.

Thanks. It's been suggested that I use scaffolding as well. I'm sure we will get what we need accomplished!

I need a 1200w PAR HMI 30-feet in the air, without renting a condor/genie. Will a Mombo-combo hold a 25lb lamp head, 30 feet in the air, with guy lines and a bunch of shot-bags? I don't have budget to rent a condor, and I'm in the middle of nowhere? The guy at the rental house is being a real [genuine people person]... Thoughts? I have a Sky-High here, but that only holds 50lbs and I feel like the Mombo-combo would work better as it has a much larger footprint and built in mounts for tying off guy wires. Thoughts? Is there a better light stand to use?

Please see the attached file. The large part doesn't move, the small part moves in and out and interfaces with the mirror - and possibly the ground glass holder; but, as I can't see anything LOL, I don't really know.

Usually using two adapters results in the image circle being too far away from the film plane. Even if back focus is still correct, you'll get sever vignetting.

Sorry! Here's a hosted picture.

Sounds like a great way to kill 20 seconds

Can anyone identify this Arri Matte Box? I just bought it for way cheaper than new. Its an older version, but I wanted a 6x6 so I got this. It looks like an MB-14 - well it actually looks like an old Studio Matte Box but the pictures were a bit deceving. I guess I'll find out when it arrives. I also hope it comes with the side L-bracket for rod mount, otherwise that's one more part I'll need to find.

Did anyone else notice it says "Kodak Gold"? I must have shot 10,000 rolls of that 20 years ago. It's not a Vision stock, its a C-41 process still film stock. Wonder if they used the same formula? Anyhow, Kodak Gold was a consumer 35mm negative film that was higher in contrast, and printed with very punchy colors, as that's what consumers of the day wanted. Of course, this would be toned down a bit on VC print paper (or dye sub. at the Wal-Mart) but still get a little punchy color. On your digital version, you don't have that physical paper to affect the color pop.

That lens appears to be constructed differently than mine. The rear element is held in with three screws (adjusts back focus? surely not...) so I'm a bit confused on the process for this specific lens. My lens is bayonet mount, so it does not rotate while focusing.

Could you post a picture of the complete job? I would love to give it a go on my 25mm.

I was recently listening to one of the ASC podcasts where the presenter asked the cinematographer how he lit a scene. "Brutes", he said. The presenter asked him to explain what a "Brute" was so the younger listeners would know and he proceeded to describe the operation of an Arc Lamp. I always understood Brutes to be these: The cinematographer on the podcast described these as a "9-light Fay" - Except he (as far as I know) wasn't British. And that confused me greatly. Type in the words "Brute Lamp" to the internet search, and you get the standard 9K Mole Maxi-Brute. Type in "Brute Arc" and you get arc lamps. So when does a Brute become an arc lamp and when does it refer to a multi-lamp "fay" type fixture? And how is one to describe the type of lamp one needs if the terminology has become mixed? I never referred to Arc Lamps as "Brutes", and now I'll have to think about the types of lights used by some of my favorite cinematographers when they use words like this. Thoughts?

I have a 25mm in that configuration, and I was advised that the later serial number do not interfere. I don't know what the difference is. It seems that on some of the Russian counterparts, they did exactly this; cut a big diagonal section out of the bottom of the lens so it would not interfere with the mirror. If you try it I would love to know your success - Need to try it on my 25mm....

It's either Arri Standard, or Bayonet. Depends on the serial/date of manufacture. If it looks like it has locking tabs inside the mount, its bayonet. If it looks rather smooth, it's standard as the lens has to rotate in the mount.