Jay Young

YES! Why didn't I think of that first?! It never occurred to me to gel the soft box! Also, if anyone else is reading this, I did discover that they DO indeed make a 3500k CFL blub that works in these types of photo lamps. Thanks!

Greetings! I have been given some of those multi-head continuous lights. They came with these energy saving lights that are SUPPOSE to be 6500K (compact fluorescent). They were a free "rental" from a friend. They came with lovely huge softboxes, but I don't know if I should use them. I'll be shooting indoor and outdoor scenes with Fuji 500T. For the outdoor scenes, I'll have to wait and see what the weather is like as far as lighting goes. But, for the indoor, I have some tungsten lights (MoleQuartz 1k's) which I shape and defuse according to look, along with whatever the practicals are on location. What is the proper way to mix these lights? I love the softbox look (sometimes), and the unit has standard e26 regular base. If I change over to some sort of hot lamp, I am worried about heat, and melting the softbox. If I mix the Quartz Halogen and these weird "6500K" CF's what will be the result? Also, If I ONLY use the softboxes with NO tungsten, can I effectively use an 80A filter inside? Or should I just use all the lights I have and worry about it in post (I hate to do that). I also hate NOT to use the lights, as they were free for the month.

Email sent.

As far as I understand, the Zeiss Mutar 2x teleconverter is just that. It will turn your 10-100mm lens into a 20-200mm lens, effectively doubling the focal length. I have not done any image circle tests, but the camera aperture for Super-16 is 12.5mm, so your 14 will cover that (in theory). I am not thinking that a 2x converter will have any effect on the image circle. Just like when you zoom with your zoom. The physical image circle cast by the light leaving the rear glass, because it's stationary, will not change. The compression of distances perceived (perspection, I like to call it) will change. But you know all that. A 14mm image circle should be able to cover Ultra-16 on down. Of course, I could be totally wrong.

So I've managed to get a hold of this Angenieux-Zoom Type 10x12B F.12-120mm 1:2.2. Same kind that I think were standard on the... Arri 16BL? Anyhow, I have been researching and digging nothing up on the matter. I have a couple of questions. First: How in the world am I going to attach a 2x anamorphic adapter to this? a) Find one of those slick Kowa 2x types and hope that I can find a rod support system that will make it work. B) Find one of those awesome looking square front anamorphs and do the above. (I totally want one of these just cause they look cool). c) Get a different lens! HA! The problem I'm running into is that the front of this lens seems REALLY BIG, like 72mm big (I haven't measured it). I am not sure what route to go at this point. Surly someone has done this before with this type of lens. Maybe I should just find a nice prime lens. I got it CHEAP tho... Anyone have any thoughts to this? I shoot in 39 days with or without the anamorphic. I'd like to test it out first of course. THANKS!

Thats a MUST HAVE for me.

MY GOD! (It's full of stars...!) THAT HOUSE IS GLORIOUS! I wish there were houses like that around here. That's like my dream house (to live in). I bet it will be awesome to shoot in. Or, perhaps not, if the wiring has not been updated.

Since I have emailed LOTS of people in the past few weeks, I can tell you that several companies are charging WAY more than that, even for SD transfer. It looks like the problem comes from the "data handling" fee, and not the actual transfer fee. Some companies are reasonable, and others with the same data equipment are not. I guess some companies have a larger overhead than others. In theory, it should not "cost" anything to transfer data from one disk to another. But, in practice, I'm sure someone has to sit there and watch the little progress bar fill up, making sure the electrons get where they're going. I don't actually know. I do know that I personally HATE watching progress bars.

I recently contacted Cinelicious for a quote on scanning my film. I LAUGHED when they told me the cost for film to dpx. The second thing I thought was that I REALLY need to get into this business. The quote they gave me was 1250/hr and said that for 2 hours of footage it would be basically $5000. [rant] I really don't care that the machine might cost eighty million in R&D and even more millions to build. Especially when some labs have the ability to scan 65mm at 11k, and I wanted a paltry HD scan. I fully understand that the lab has to pay for the machine somehow, and that someone made up some numbers out of thin air. I'm also sure that someone could come up with a big formula to tell me exactly why the cost is what it is based on the number of perforations in seven miles of film. Maximize profit; YAY capitalism. [/rant] Ok, now as far as I can tell, with my projected film costs being $1320 (3600' of 16mm x current Kodak list price). Processing at 0.15/ft = $540. One light workprint = $900. Answer Print $306. Release print with optical sound +- $500. Add all that up = $3600. This could go even lower with short ends. So, it seems to me that the cheapest way to go is to say: "Hell with the Digital Intermediate" and edit and finish on film. Now comes the part where someone asks how I get my film on the internet. It's got to be digitized. The single question in my mind is: Do I spend the extra $5000 (bringing my total to $7000 or so) to go to DVD/Internet and forget all this film business? And remember, I have to buy the film, and then get it processed and THEN pay the $5000 to scan in my 3600'. Surely there has GOT to be a cheaper way to get quality scan from 16mm. I have hard disks, in just about any format you want. I can see why many people go the DLSR route. For $7000 I could make Ben Hur on a 7D.... well, probably. Anyhow, I'm hungry now, so I am going to go eat and await your words of wisdom! THANKS!

I VOTE FOR ARC LAMPS! I LOVE ARC LAMPS!

You will have noticeable grain issues. Intercut between 16mm and 35mm will be interesting, but, in theory, you could intercut something like 500asa, and the 16mm might not be as bad. Just a thought. Someone smarter will know more!

Ok, I watched it twice, and not because of the pretty boys with their shirts off... Well... mostly not. Anyhow, from a shear technical standpoint, I felt most of the scenes were rather bland. Nothing stood out. The flares were nice, the color was nice. But I think the lack of contrast in most scenes was my main turn off. The one thing that screamed "I WOULD DO THIS DIFFERENT" was the scene with the giant window in the back ground (about 1:12 or so). I was really hoping you would just blow that window and all the highlights out so we could actually SEE the people. I think it would have worked nicely. At 1:50, I don't think there is enough separation between the person we are suppose to see and the rest of the "stuff". I think the main problem is the light from the giant window behind him. If it was suppose to be lit by fire, the window is causing all the problems. The bathtub scene was very nice, if a little dark. The exact opposite of that can be seen in the Kitchen footage, where at some points, the window light is almost TOO too much. I can even understand if the two extremes are suppose to be there, because it has something to do with whatever the song is about, but I feel, personally, the parts in the middle of the two extremes are not justified enough. That may not have made any sense. I do totally understand shooting with available natural light, and it can be challenging. I don't mean to be a downer, but I think this could be so much very better. KEEP AT IT! Also, 435? I wish I had the money you spent making this.

Ansel Adams stated "Expose for the Shadows". See: http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00SQxk if you want to read about the difference between this age old "Black and White adage" and Digital sensors. It's quite interesting! Now, the question is, are you shooting reversal or negative? You have only a few choices either way. 5222 Double-X from Kodak is their negative film. 5222 being true black and white requires development in.. R-96 I believe? You may want to check around and see which labs can do 16/35mm black and white negative. Reversal is different, and something I have no experience with, but I have seen some amazing results. Now, from my personal experience, shooting color and converting it leaves the contrast lacking. Basically you are fully de-saturating the image, leave nothing but grey scale. You then have to go in and add contrast (when shooting color negative) or at least I did. The good thing about shooting color neg and doing a B&W post conversion is that, in the event you WANT to, you will have the color negative available, should you need color footage later. If you use true black and white negative, you won't have that color information ever. That might be something you want to think about. One last thing to think about is stock cost, if that is an issue. 5222 (35mm) x 1000' is about $350. 7222 (16mm) x 400' is $78. Reversal is marginally more expensive but only comes in 16mm (or Super8). Sorry, I tend to ramble. Hope that helps!

Does anyone have the technical information for this video? I very much like the color and contrast (or lack of).

As I understand, the only difference is when you go to line audio up. There should be no perceived difference in what you see (from what I have seen). If you shoot 25fps, and then go to do audio sync, in the US anyhow, there is (I think) a 4% different. Someone smarter should chime in here.

A username and password are being requested by https://cpanel25.syra.net.au:2083. The site says: "cPanel" This is what I get when I go to the portal page. It asked me to log in. Anyone know anything about it? Just thought someone shoud maybe know.

I have searched high and low. No one seems to have anything useful to say, other than not knowing how to use buzz words correctly. I use Premiere Pro, I like Premiere Pro. I do not like FCP, I do not like Avid. I started with Premiere Pro and I don't really care to change. Why is there no information out there about using Premiere Pro and film? I'm sure that lots of people will say that Final Cut is so very much better than sugar covered gold, and that Avid is like an intimate moment. I'm not going to buy another expensive software piece, so please don't ask. So, if I have a lab scan my negatives into dpx at 2k, and then edit in Premiere pro, and then render back out to dpx at 2k, is that good enough for a film out? Also, if I want to color correct myself, from the 2k dpx files, I know I don't have something as amazing as Apple "Color", can I use my Adobe suite? I'm sure the DI equipment, and real colorist/grader at the lab will do a better job, and I'm sure that working with the lab, they can use my edited dpx files (I hope). Just in case you want to know, because someone will ask, even tho it really doesn't matter, the project will have the following technical details: Regular-16mm anamorphic 2x acquisition. Final out (hopefully) film, as well as DVD/Blue-ray disk, followed by an internet release after the festival circuit. Final aspect ratio will be 2.66:1 or (2048x771 2k unsqueezed / 1920x723 HD unsqueezed / 1440x542 online unsqueezed) Also note that even tho it is Anamorphic Regular-16, I DO NOT WANT a standard Definition scan. I would like as much information as I can get to work with (although 4k I feel is overkill). Thoughts? THANKS!

My brother and I just made a new one. So now I don't have to worry about trademark. Coming up with something that wasn't used EVER was quite difficult.

Yes, I totally agree about Hollywood liturgies. Perhaps I'll create my own "scope"... my brother is good at that; well, he get's paid for it at least.

Can anyone shed some light on the legalities of using the CinemaScope logo? I have a mind to redo the logo a bit (for my own uses), because I am going to shoot a short in "CinemaScope", otherwise known as Anamorphic, with a final aspect of 2.66. I understand that Fox dropped the logo, and even in the 50's let other companies use the logo. Thoughts?

Well, it is pretty, but DAMN if I don't HATE shakey cam.

I don't know anything about the T2i, but what is the format the camera records in? Is there any way you can get the camera to output in RAW instead of h.264? h.264 is a delivery format, and not the best quality for editing. It IS a good format for final render, as you say, but it really depends on what you want to do. You can output to anything from NTSC 640x480 all the way up to 2k and beyond, in just about any container format you want. The answer is, it depends. You really want the best acquisition format you can get, AND you want it uncompressed. Transcoding is nothing more than changing the container format, and in some cases, uncompressing and then REcompressing the data.

First some questions: Why do you need/want Ultra-16? What would Ultra-16 allow you to do that Regular-16 or Super-16 will not? Have you looked at: http://cinelicious.tv/we-love-film/small-formats Cinelicious is a very nice post house that even works with labs to process your raw stock, and gives you lots of options regarding output for editing. They will do an Ultra-16 scan for you, and you can watch the video of such. I personally chose Regular-16 and will shoot with an anamorphic lens. I chose that route over the others for a number of reasons. Around the interweb, it seems that if you have a competent machinist, he can file the gate of your camera down for you cheap. This topic has many threads here in the 16mm section. I think in reality, it really doesn't matter what the scanner is set up for. IF you get a student discount, you get a discount, no matter what format you shoot in.

Children should not be taught "Bel Canto" style singing until much older. Since I truly believe vibrato is a defect that we have come to accept as beauty, I do not believe children should sound like this. We teach our children that there are things "adults" do that children should not, but in our art, we want our children to sound like 40 year old classically trained singers. While I'm sure most people will find this "beautiful", I for one do not. And, Since I am pursuing a doctorate in the field, I think I have some authority to speak on the subject. While I am a proponent of the "English School" sound, most, I find, In america like what they hear on the radio. Lissening to this child sing, I can tell that someone, most likely a idiot parent that wanted a star child has pushed this kid to learn a style of singing he is truly incapable of. I'm sorry this child has been forced into thinking he can do something, that WILL harm is voice later in life. I'm sorry that most of america will vote him to the top of american idiot idol, and I'm sorry that in about 10 years, this kid most likely will not ever sing a note again. All I can say is that it is truly a shame. I'll continue to teach kids the way I know will produce decent, and healthy musicians. I'm also sorry people find this angelic.

Well I think its beautiful. I personally think the smoke was moving too fast, but that has nothing to do with your work. I like the colors, I like the muted lighting, I like the feel. The rotoscope work looks very nice, and subtle. Nice work.