Jay Young

So much emotion in that trailer. I had to watch it twice to get all the little pieces.

I watched it. I found it uninspiring. Some aspects were decent, but most of the film I felt was flat and boring. But I thought the same thing about The Master too.

CP-16R 16mm Cinema Products camera. Its not the best, its not the worst. Its available in a flight case, but I can ship without to save on shipping cost. Includes Angenieux 10-150mm zoom in CP mount. Includes Arri B-mount to CP mount adapter Includes 3 mags Includes AC power cable Includes custom block battery Recent film shot on this camera / lens: https://vimeo.com/222511546 Name a fair price. I would love to get $600 shipped, open to offers.

""Academy of Motion Picture Entertainment and SALES" Fixed that for ya.

Yeah why not: Website: youngpictures.org Reel: https://vimeo.com/180020608 I'm available starting in November.

Those scans look great! Impressed with the XEEN look on 35mm.

Those cameras use physically spinning shutter disk in front of the sensor. The Arri sensor is still a rolling shutter sensor, however the spinning mirror shutter negates a lot of the wobbly effects. This also allows the use of optical viewfinders.

Yes, and remember, the sharpness of the shadow = distance from the object to the lamp is the square of the distance between the object and the surface. At least I think that's correct - have to look it up. Or, the farther away the lamp is, the more distant the subject can be from the surface and maintain a sharp shadow. Big sources are easier to work with. Go with the 10k.

There are a few 416's on KitSplit that private owners will rent to you.

The 70mm presentation of DUNKIRK I saw yesterday was not a bad performance, but it was not correct. Someone had not set the pressure plate correctly, so the film was allowed to shift causing slight brightness fluctuation, and caused the bottom of the screen to be out of focus - generally only detectable and confirmed on credits at the end. I was not unhappy with the presentation, but it was clearly an easy fix and no projectionist was around to check the projector between showings... Cost savings at some levels should be skipped. Its just the same as Amazon putting up old films from very poor scans and trying to sell/rent them for $5. Not worth it. I realise that no one wants to put the time or funds into restoring those older films, but surely Amazon could find a decent print to scan?

I only saw it on the last shot, but I'll watch again with a more discerning, coffee fueled eye.

It has to do with the sun angle against the shutter. On that last shot, it looked like the sun was to the extreme left of the frame. In this case most likely it will flare. I have a bow-tie 16R, does the same thing. You can actually shoot directly into the sun with no problems, but as soon as the sun hits the far frame edges, you get flaring/streaking.

Sure, I'm shooting a feature on it right now! Let me find a dailies clip I can post and I'll forward your way. I still don't understand why rear anamorphic adapters have to squish the image vertically... I need some optical explanations. Although before we wrap, I'm going to flip it 90-degrees and shoot a clip with it just to see the difference!

Yeah, he just did it and didn't say anything to anyone. I talked with him afterwards and everything is fine. I was just wondering how others work with their trusted camera operators.

Who calls the shots? Im still trying to build my team, and i have several guys whom I have worked with for several years. I ran into an issue where the camera operator called for a lens change without consulting or telling me. I understand that the camera operator is there to execute and interpret my wishes and the directors pictorial vision. I trust my operator, and I know he just wants to make the best image possible. However, I am interested in how others politically work with hired operators, and how much interpretation or decision making they, as Director of Photography, allow an operator.

So in theory, if I blast light into the lens then it should streak vertically, is that correct?

Greetings, I have an Angenieux HR 25-250mm and a Duclos 2x Anamorphic adapter. Which way does it go on? I'm a bit confused. There are no indicators or marks on the adapter. If I install it the way I think it should go, with the oval pointing north south, like all other front anamorphics, it looks fine. However, if I flip it so that the oval points point east/west, the image looks more like the anamorphic primes set we have, which may be the correct direction, but I'm not sure. I'd love to know optically how the thing works correctly installed what I consider 90-degrees off axis? Secondly, the Cooke 20-100 I requested was dropped and destroyed, so the rental house gave me this Angenieux, which I've never used, and I think I'm in love.

The UK / British slate system uses slate numbers which incrementally change on each setup, or whenever something major happens differently enough to warrant. The US system uses the SCENE number as the first shot, and appends a letter to each following setup. It gets confusing when you have V166BC2 as a shot number, instead of Slate 455. Add the US complex shot ident with a Pickup or other crazy mark and I feel it gets way out of hand. With a competent script supervisor and 2nd AC, the UK system is magic.

I generally use the British slate system. Everyone I describe the system to seems to fall in love with the simplicity. We have elaborate note takers in both editorial and camera teams, so its not a problem. However, I'm about to start a multi-cam project and I'm a bit confused as to the proper procedure. That, and documentation on the British system is almost non existent. Since I won't use multiple cameras for every shot, I assume I'll just write A or A/B on the slate and do a common mark? Mixed with the notes keeping track of which cameras shot what it shouldn't be a problem, right? Any helpful tips?

This guy has some special brand that he claims is better for "narrative" than "reality" television like "sound devices......" So who knows. I miss the BNCR with the Nagra...............

And here is where Tyler and I disagree. I think the older 4K sensor looks far better than the 4.6K sensor. But the reality is that you need to be able to support shooting at its native 400 iso, which most people are not. Rolling shutter on the 4.6K sensor, and global shutter on the 4K. However you also must take into the entirely new color pipeline in the new firmware. Its great when matching to Alexa color, but if you have an older firmware only Blackmagic camera, and one that runs the newer firmware, you'll have a terrible time matching.

Shooting this week, the Audio mixer demanded that we attach a wireless jam sync box to the camera, except it has to live is its little neoprene case, must be bongo tied on, and he doesn't want it hook and loop attached to the side. Fine. But that causes is issues hourly, its constantly in the way, but he wants to wirelessly jam sync. I don't know if this is the best solution, but it certainly is annoying. I'm not sure what the problem of syncing manually every time we need it is, but this guy... Anyone else have this encounter? Thoughts about workaround? This is the only sound mixer I have encountered that makes these demands. All my other regulars have systems that seem to work without the need to attach one extra piece of equipment that flops around. I don't want to be confrontational about it, and I know his job is extremely important, however he doesn't seem to want to work with the camera team or G&E. I'm happy to discuss the lighting plan, camera movements or other aspects with him so we can get his (in my opinion) way too many microphones in without creating shadows, but he won't talk to anyone. Seeking guidance...

Shooting for the next 5 days. Switching to RED cameras, which I have never used before - looking forward to it! Ditched the old LOMO's for Rehoused Vantage Hawk Lomo's...

I'm working with a producer to raise $5000 for a short, which Kodak has generously discounted stock costs, but... no one is funding shorts, as said. I had lunch with a Producer a few days ago. His information about the state of Kodak, film stock availability, and the industry as a whole was woefully out of date. He thought Kodak was going out of business very soon, and had no idea they had actually turned a profit in their Motion Picture division. His belief went so far as to say that there were only the few big directors who were able to buy film, like it wasn't available to anyone else stating that Kodak made a deal and after that no one would be able to get it. Except that couldn't be farther from the truth. Talking with Kodak, it seems they have stock available, but they are being very careful about what they keep on the shelf. This is a problem with producers that we need to correct.

Now I will argue with you on this point, for the sake of argument. Please show me, in context, a frame from a film released in the past 3 years that has an image that looks standard def or with nauseating lens distortion. The GoPro footage used on The Martian look fine, especially in context. The BM Pocket cameras used on Transformers: Age of Ultron surely look better than SD, or they would have chosen a different camera.