Jay Young

I was prusing ebay today, and I discovered something I have known for a long time: Prices are out of control. I'm still looking for a solution to shoot 2x Anamorphic on my CP-16r. Round front, square front, rear lens adapter... I really don't care WHAT the format is, I'm not paying $6000 for a 60 year old lens of questionable quality from Czech Republic. Not happening. Further more, I'm not actually going to pay $6000 for the same lens from a reputable dealer ANYWHERE. An example of what I mean: Isco Iscorama 50mm f 2.8 anamorphic lens for Nikon $3999 (NYC) ISCORAMA by ISCO 50mm f2.8 Anamorphic Lens NIKON Mount $293.88 (NYC) The same EXACT LENS in the SAME CITY from two different sellers. Guess who I'm not going to buy from. Now I understand that there are idiots everywhere that will pay for poor quality lenses for their 5D and RED cameras because to them they are cheap, and I suppose all that is relative. I also understand that this has been going on for a long time, but that (above) is the largest gap in price for the EXACT SAME item I have ever seen). Does any one know where I can build an anamorphic setup for my CP without spending stupid money? If it's not possible, then let me know so I can stop looking, and I'll just do the best I can with a cropped image. I still will not conform to the 1.78 world.

The problem I find with most editors is that they will not allow me to do very specific things, such as set the exact pixel dimensions I want to use, or have very intimate control over the frame placement. I find that I like some of the features of one but one others. For Avid, it's the real time playback ability, but I don't like how I have to dig so deep in the program to find options to work with film. It seems they WANT me to shoot digital so I can make use of the tools THEY want me to use. No Avid for me. Final cut seems like a nice program. I own several Macs, and just sold my Mac pro. I have no need for a laptop in a box, OR an over priced dell (since they are now made in the same factory). I'll not vent my frustration on Mac here. I found Final Cut pro very cumbersome to use. It did not like some of my footage file choices, and (of course) wants everything to be in ProRes. Edit: However, if Final Cut Pro X is as good as it looks, AND still allows me to do what I need to do, I may start using that because it LOOKS fantastic. But once again, it also looks like its geared towards people shooting DSLR. Premiere Pro I find fantastically easy to use. I love the integration with other programs in the suite. It is what I use most often to edit. I don't like the fact that you have to have specific hardware to obtain full realtime playback on ANY codec, but that goes for the above as well. I love the ease of use when working with the timeline, and for a non-linear editor I think it's the best one! Of course it get's no respect because somebody who knows somebody else used Avid or FCP. But, I'll tell you this: If the program you use has all the features and sparklies that you need, then fine. After all, when rendered to a DVD, it's not gonna matter which program was used. A hard cut frame to frame splice looks the same on every NLE. They all work with DPX and seem to all be able to edit PRoRes 79.45.8 or whatever the current flavor of the month is.

Not sure what kind of feedback you are looking for, but here goes: The lighting is fantastically natural. The "Newspaper" scene looked like a bit TOO much light was coming from that candle, but still looked good! I like the camera movemnts, which felt very natural. Even though I HATE shakey cam, I thought it added stress to the conversation on the phone. Very ell done. Some of it however looked a little under exposed, but that may be the digital compression or color grade. I felt a little jarred by the sudden change to florescence lights. Color wise I didn't work for me, and the skin tones were a little washed out. The theatre sequence was fantastic, and very natural feeling. The texture on the bear fur was great! I would love to see a digital shot of that to see if it could cope with the chiffon/translucent orange and green dresses and the great silky texture of the black bear. My complements to you, Nick, it was very good work! I'm going to watch the rest of your films as soon as I get back from rehearsal!

No, manual states 17-24v with a firm max (and likely destroyed electrics) of 27v. 12v is not enough.

Visual Products quoted me $150 per battery and $100 for the charger last week.

I actually metered this very effect yesterday. While I was sitting at my desk, I noticed a patch of sunlight fell across my hand. I had my trusty meter nearby and was very surprised at the results. My skin (which is very pale from my being a ginger!) in the sun patch through glass, read f22 @ iso320/24fps. Skin in the ambient room light/shade read f1.4 @ iso320/24fps. That's a full 8 stops difference, and very likely beyond the ability for a digital camera to hold latitude. I would have never thought there would be that much difference. It's just a thought, but you may want to think about which side you want to expose, like blowing out the highs or underexposing the shadows. Also if you are in a very controlled studio space with your music video, you may want to think about your lighting ratio on skin.

Why do you want to convert 24p to 30p? I think the easiest way to do this would be to shoot 60i and deinterlace (with pulldown) to 29.97. To answer your question, you will need to speed up your audio 4%. So in Premiere, simply unlink the ganged video/audio (R-click > Unlink), R-click on the audio > choose speed/duration? (I'm not looking at it now) and type in 104%. If you haven't moved the tracks they still should be in sync. Another issue you may run into is the audio recording. Are you recording with an external device, or using the D5's audio track. If I were you, I would import all the footage and audio, edit at 24p native, THEN when I was all ready to go, let AME (Adobe Media Encoder) handle the conversion to whatever format you want. If you have Production Suite or Master Collection, you also have the option to just sending it directly from Premiere to Encore for burning. Hope that helps.

To the OP, for less that $300 I purchased a while back one TASCAM DR-100. I sometimes record audio for different things, and wanted something very portable with the ability to record uncompressed. I personally use 48Khz @ 24bit recording. Now I don't know if it's for real actual 24bit, but sure seems that way. It also has the ability to do 96k @ 24bit... if you need that, and can do MP3 stuff, which I despise and shall not speak on. The TASCAM has runs off a rechargeable battery AND/OR 2-AA type, has 4 built in microphones (some work better than others), and two TSR/XLR connections with 48v phantom power. Each channel in stereo mode is actually two separate channels instead of some weird computer phase blend, and you have the ability to record mono if you wish. It does not have the ability to sync/slave with a camera timecode, but a good head/tale slate should be fine. Now I know it doesn't have any of those Neav 1073's that the professional people use in the desert recording audio for Ben Hur or whatever, but it sounds ok to me. (That's a little bit of a joke...) I'm actually going to use this recorder in mono mode with a nice shotgun in my next production, just to see what the quality difference is between it and my tape machine. If I had the money for a Nagra, I'd buy one, but I have to pick and choose sometimes. I think it's a fantastic little recorder for the money. It may not have all the fancy awesomeness and thousands of years of service life in holy-wood, but it works for me. I am very interested to see how the little TASCAM performs in real world. http://tascam.com/product/dr-100/

I totally agree the battery is flat, but I powered it directly from AC/mains power. I thought that 20v DC from the converter would output enough power, but nothing happened.

Didn't want to start a new thread... Can anyone help me with why my CP will not run? I have a 24v battery with XLR adapter on the camera. I get nothing from either switch (run/stop or front thumb button). I even tried to power it with the charger for the battery pack (outputs 20v) and nothing. Well, after playing with it I decided to call Paul over at Visual Products and send it on down. He couldn't figure out anything over the phone, so it must be something internal. Since I need it for a shoot at the end of the month, better let him look at it now. Anyone have any thoughts otherwise? Is there some secret to getting these to run?

God, I can't wait until the iPhone falls out of favor. Then, I'll wait until the next ubiquitous device falls out of favor. The i-device is not a camera, was not a camera, and is not even a really good phone. I guess it's cool.

So finally, I bought a CP-16R #1291R (Actually it's a CP-16R/A but didn't include the sound head). It's very clean on the inside, and 4 hours with alcohol got the outside clean. As my understanding goes, the fiber optic viewing screen can be removed to be cleaned. Since it can be removed, I was wondering if anyone had tried to change it or update it. I really don't need TV Safe markings anymore. The 1.85 markings are nice, but the TV safe really get's in my way! I would like to keep the 1.85, as it translate well over to 16:9. Another question is if I do as I have planned, and shoot 2x anamorphic, will the TV safe be useful in that instance? I can't see why it would, as with the anamorphic I'm going to use the entire frame (or hope to). Also, It seems that the Angenieux Zoom that I have (the 10 - 150... 10x15 B) vignettes at the following (just in case anyone wants to know): 10mm + focus at end of red line (closer than 5 feet), Severe but outside TV safe. 10mm + focus 8 feet, no vignette. 50mm + focus at end of red line, no vignette. 30mm + focus at 5 feet, no vignette. Between 12mm - 20mm + focus at 8 feet, very slight vignette. On this lens, anything past about 35mm will not vignette. Also, this lens states the aperture is 1:2_2.8 - I have no idea what that means. I do know that I would call this lens a T2.3, since that what it is wide open.

Well.... I'm sure they were good. I think I saw a cat once? And some perforations. If I had to choose, I would say the first one is my favorite. At least you can make up a narrative to go with it. The one with sound made my face hurt.

First please change your screen name according to the forum rules. The opening shot is very nice. The score suits it perfectly I think. The 'Walking Outside' sequence seems to be a little muted/pastel color wise. Not sure if that was the intent. The good thing is that even with the (Vietnamese/Tagalog?) dialogue, of which I didn't understand a world, the message of the film comes across. I understand what it's about. The 'Walking Outside' sequence, which I think is suppose to be the memory is a little long for my taste, and I like long takes. Overall I thought it was nice. The only thing I didn't like was the transition between the opening sky and the interior rocking char deal. I don't know if it was the movement of the rocking chair, or the color shift.

Well I thought it was FANTASTIC! The wide shot of the girl at the end is great. All that mixed lighting. What I found interesting is the detail in the old man's hair shows up nicely, but in the woman's, it's blown out. Don't know if that matters, or if it was intentional. The only think I found I didn't like was the camera push in. It's a little jarring for some reason. It may be due to all the locked off shots before hand. Still, I Think it's fantastic. Any chance we can get the juicy technical details? Shooting ratio for a 1 minute short? Amazing.

Can anyone tell me what the actual name of that score is? I have looked for YEARS, and as a student of composition, would like to analyze it. I have never been able to find a reliable source as to who the composer was, what the original use was, or what the title was.

I'm going to do a couple of tests. I don't like the idea of green screen magic myself, but such is the way of things now. I'm still toying with the idea of syncing strobes with the camera. I am thinking that a strobe capable of of flashing 24/sec. would be unimaginably expensive when you also take into account that more than one thousand watt/seconds is required. So maybe if I get a whole bunch of those cheap novelty shop strobes, I can have them sync to the camera, and build the power needed from multiple units. The second test I am thinking of scriming the entire background, and hope the mesh doesn't show up. Here are excellent examples of the style: Misha Mikhaylov is a lovely photographer.

http://reelgoodfilm.com made me a great offer. They had everything I needed. I didn't go with their offer because I got a better one from a forum member. Always check the sales forum!

It can be done! (See, Robert Rodriquez) But I have some questions: You have a boom operator/sound guy? Why is blimping it out of the question? Can you not just throw a blanket over the camera to cut down on sound? Obviously this may not work if you are shooting handheld epic battle sequences, BUT if you ARE shooting lots of action, the camera sound may not make it through the mic. If you do have a mic, what kind is it? I would test. Fire up the Arri, throw on some headphones and have some one talk. See how much camera sound comes through.

The gigantic main sequence star (G2V) that is about 1AU away from the shooting location.

Well I thought the trailer was FANTASTIC, but I love old school. Congratz on making it to post. Can't wait to see it!

I did just watch "The Virgin Suicides" last night and this morning. I saw mostly locked off shots, using dolly/track and maybe a jib in use in this Zoatrope film. I thought that I detected a handheld scene, but most of the shots look like Steadicam use. What I personally feel, is that I don't like the dialogue coverage scenes that look like they were shot 300 feet away with a giant 500mm zoom handheld by a 5 year old. There is too much unneeded movement (See Bourne films). Tracking/Dollying shots can be beautiful, and I wish I owned a techocrane. I very much appreciate steady-cam footage and the operators. Personally, I prefer there to be a need for moving the camera. The artist in me says the camera needs to move ONLY when necessary to complete the vision. That means if some outside source would naturally shake your head/eyes (like the wind, and explosion/shock-wave, the ocean, a violent acceleration such as a car crash), then naturally the camera frame and the scene it photographs would move. The weird thing is that even in violent movements, or if a person is attached to a machine which moves, our eyes seem to compensate for that vibration or movement. Totally off topic here: In my undergrad, I played Contra-Bass Clarinet a lot. Since the tones produced from this instrument extend down in the the 13Hz range, it is obvious that this will impair your vision due to your skull actually vibrating (since your teeth are on the instrument). This had the added effect of me having to memorize all my music, because I could not see the notes on the page. Now would be a good time to bring up the thought of whether the camera is seen as a window into the story you are making, or it being as a person actually there, watching the story take place. Mind you, if you think of it as a "viewing through a persons eyes", most people hold there head still during conversation, and rarely move it about as if they were on LSD. In the above example, you can see some of this technique appearing in Gaspar Noe's film "Enter The Void", where the camera is actually the characters head. Even the blinking of the eye is shown! If someone were to make a scene in which the character played a giant instrument that shook the skull, I would expect the camera to shake equally (well, I would expect the camera to shake at the exact same frequency as the tone produced, but that's just me). Now I can't speak for Aronofsky; whether he was trying to put the audience into the mindset of the character or simply trying to create an atmosphere of uneasiness, only he knows. What I can say is that he was half successful. A lot of theatre-goers were unsettled, and this has generated a lot of discussion. Who is correct here... well opinions are like that old saying which we all know too well.

That is true, but the f/22 would be cut down by several Neutral Density filters. I wonder if I could find a strobe that could blast full burn 12 times a second. Or four strobes six times a second. That way, as long as I have 24 strobe flashes per second, I could record the effect through all the ND and hopefully be around f/11. Of course, the talent is still going to have to ware some ND sunglasses.

A while back most people would use the "Selsyn" interlock system, if you're shooting an actual 16mm or 35mm projector. I would assume that most people today would use a digital projector, along with a digitally produced image. You may want to read through this thread: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=968 The above topic has some of the same questions answered you ask here. It deals with 16mm projector. I don't know if I follow you or not; are you projecting 16mm or recording on 16mm?

I may be crazy insane, but for some reason I KNOW we had a discussion on this very subject. Yet, no matter how much searching I do, I can't find anything. So here is a question: How much light would be needed in order to have the subject lit properly, shooting directly into the sun, while having the sky, and sun mostly underexposed? If I were shooting a still photo, I would throw on a ND filter and setup a few 1200Ws strobes on full burn. Couple that with f11 or 16, and you have a pretty cool effect. I can not find one example of this in motion picture. I only have marginal better luck in the still world. I guess I could use a couple of those old school carbon-arcs! HA!