Matt Irwin

Hi Tim, Pelican seems to be selling exactly that: http://pelican.com/miscellaneous.php (bottom of page) If that doesn't fit, I have seen long-loop TSA locks at travel stores like Magellan.

I stopped by Entertainment Post today and talked with Glenn. Really nice people over there. They recently added an HDCAM-SR recorder and have a Lustre suite for $250/hr. I asked about direct-to-HDD telecine, and he said they'll have it working in a few weeks.

I really liked this! I can see what you mean about the interior shots. The cream color cast and somewhat flat lighting... BUT, I thought that look worked extremely well with the mood set by the story and the music. What we're seeing on screen is not normal (people with giant smiley heads), so if you went with more stylized "hey look at me" lighting, it would have detracted from the mood, IMO. I loved your dolly moves and compositions. And all of your prop work. I think my favorite shot is the slow push near the end where Mr. Smiley is quivering in the arm chair.

Minolta still makes a color meter: See bottom of this page. The Color Meter III is the most common one I've seen. Only seen Gossens a couple times, but that says nothing about which is better (could be Gossens everywhere outside the US for all I know). I haven't owned a color meter, so I couldn't say which is "better." They both read color and give a correction factor, don't they? ;)

Sounds good, thanks guys. How would you compare it to 7217?

Just curious how 8653 is on standard 16 with regards to grain and contrast-- Never used Fuji stocks before and I'm thinking of trying it on a project coming up. Tape finish on Pro50 or digibeta, going for a 50% desat/hi-con look.

Sounds great, I'd love to hear the results.

I have a low budget music video coming up where we're mixing 16mm and DVCProHD for two distinct looks. (Finishing to SD and DVD) We're looking to transfer 800' of 16mm to DVCProHD and Pro50 or digibeta. A friend of mine recommended Entertainment Post in Burbank as a good affordable telecine house, but I've never heard of them. Anyone used them? We're trying to find a low rate, but not at the expense of a quality transfer... Along the same lines, are there any places in LA that do telecine direct to a hard drive? I know about Bono and SpyPost, but I'm looking for something local. Thanks,

To get an equivalent 35mm focal length for a 1/3" size, just multiply by 7. So, 6mm x 7 = 42mm in 35 Of course, equivalent FOV will differ depending on the aspect ratio you intend to shoot in 35.

Hi Greame, Not sure I can help you with your math, but I have shot with the HVX in low fc. What you've worked out may be true for minimum illumination, but in oder to get decent images from the HVX, you need to give it plenty of light. I wouldn't push gain unless it was absolutely necessary. The camera has a bit of a noise issue between (roughly) 10-25 IRE, and that's at 0db gain. I had one scene that was to be played in slhouette and with the gear we had available, the best I could get was 5 fc on the backlight. Shot using Cine-D, which is normally noisy as hell, but since shadows were reading uniformly zero it wasn't a big issue. After boosting highlights during the grade, it looked good... but not great. Based on that shoot, I'd recommend sticking with Cine-V or Black Press gamma settings since they are much less noisy than any of the others. And give the chip as much light as possible. Working with minimum fc was not the best idea for this camera (not that I had a choice in this case ;) ).

4 perf super35, according to Bill Bennet.

Check out Pro8mm. They created Max8, a 16x9 8mm format, and sell modified Max8 cameras. Not sure how much help this is since I see you're in the London (Pro8 is in Burbank), but at least it's a start.

Well, opinions differ, but I felt that the DI footage - both film projected and 4k projected - was lacking in shadow detail when compared to the contact print (which was literally neg to print, no color work). As I think about it, this shouldn't really be a surprise. Both the 65 and 35 footage were scanned at 4k, and 65 has WAY more information in the neg than 4k will see. Bill Bennet had some interesting comments: If you were to equate 65mm to the digital world, you'd be looking at something like 33 megapixels, 150+ Mb per frame, 7+ Gigabits/sec datarate @24 fps, with 1000' equal to 26 terabytes of information. So, it's not surprising that some detail was lost in the 4k scan! As for the color, it was wrong of me to refer to the DI footage as "over saturated." "More saturated" suits better. It looked like there was some color work done. There was a lot more red in the sunset shots, as well as the warm tones in the rocks and dirt in Owens Valley and Death Valley. The contact print was absolutely beautiful. The color felt much more natural and soft, less red and more yellow. The blacks were rich, but the overall image had very smooth contrast. It's really hard to describe without a visual reference. Honestly, I'm still kind of reeling from it since this was my first time seeing 70mm projection. Needless to say, I want to see more.

Both. The same footage was shown as: - 4k projection, DCL compressed 4k file - 4k projection, uncompressed RGB 10 bit log - 35mm projection, traditional DI workflow, 4k out via Arrilaser - 35mm projection, 4k out via Arrilaser directly to Vision Premier 2393 print stock ("zero-generation"), apparently something never before seen publicly.

Sorry, should have been more clear: Kees was referring to costs for his film (George Wahington) specifically. They only used 65 for a handful of shots, and the only lab work done was processing. In (roughly) his words, "Once it's scanned for the DI, it's all the same [as 35]." Should also note that the sequences he showed involved composites and stitches that used elements originated in 5-perf 65mm, Super35, CG, and 6X17 stills. It all blended very, very well. In my case, I know an ASC member who invited me. There were quite a few students present from UCLA and other schools around towb as well as industry reps and non-ASC DPs, so I guess they send invites to schools and reps. Couldn't really say for sure though.

I had the good furtune of attending an open ASC presentation at UCLA last night about mixing 65mm and 35mm in feature production. Bill Bennet, ASC and Kees van Oostrum, ASC spoke about shooting 65mm for wide shots / landscapes and 35mm for coverage. Examples were projected in 35mm, and 70mm, and 4k (with the new Sony SXRD projector). Kees showed two sequences from "George Washington" in which he shot 65 for wide landscapes and establishing shots and 35 for dramatic coverage. Bill Bennet shot tests using 5201 in the Owens Valley on both 65 and 35, projected at 4k from a DCI file as well as 10 bit log, then in 35mm/4k DI, then in a 35mm "zero generation" print which was recorded directly on to Vision Premier 2393 with the ArriLaser. I've got to say they made a very good case, and the footage was phenominal. There was no noticeable jump in grain from the 65mm wide shots to the 35mm coverage. The dramatic jump occured, of course, when comparing the 65mm wide shots with 35mm wide shots... at least double the visible resolution on 65 from the back of the theatre. Kees van Oostrum made a surprising point: stock and lab costs for shooting 65mm (5 perf) are less than 50% higher than shooting 35, so this really isn't such an outlandish idea in the feature world... The icing on the cake was a 70mm contact print made from the 65mm neg that Bill Bennet shot. This looked by FAR better than ANY of the DI footage, not only in resolution but also color reproduction and shadow detail. Incredible. It wasn't stated whether or not there was any color grading done on the DI footage but compared to the 70mm print, the 4k stuff was very red-- almost oversaturated-- and there was a considerable amount shadow detail that was missing. All in all, a very inspiring evening. (Other treats inlcuded a screening of a clip from "The Sound of Music" in 70mm, as well as the trailer for "Mystic India" shot by Reed Smoot, ASC in 8-perf 65, scanned at both 4k and 8k, and projected at 4k. Well worth the $8 parking to say the least...)

http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pres..._hd_zoomxl.html I wonder what they mean by "manual" iris ring, this being a servo lens and all....

For film dailies, you have to limit yourself to only using Photoshop's color balance and density adjustments that effect the overall image (NOT only highlights, only shadows, etc). That way, any changes made in Photoshop will translate to what the Hazeltine can do. Sometimes the DP will establish what certain written printing instructions for the lab mean during testing. So "warm" may be X amount of yellow and X amount of red, etc. But this is still a subjective method. With a still, there's no guesswork.

The big advantage for shooting digital stills on set is that doing so provides a method for the DP to visually communicate the look that he wants to the lab/dailies timer/telecine colorist. When I was a camera trainee, it was part of my job to handle the digital stills. We would take the picture from the camera position (usually of the stand-ins), go back to the truck and load the image into Photoshop, make a print, show it to the DP, then adjust and reprint the image based on the DP's notes. Once the DP approve the print, we would mark the scene number and printing instructions on the back of the print and send it off with the exposed film. So instead of the timer getting only "print low key and moody" from a camera report as his reference, he sees a visual representation of how the DP wants the shot adjusted. Once we started doing this, all the dailies and tape transfers instantly looked more accurate.

You might look at the History Channel's program "The Mexican American War." Varicam A Camera, HVX200 B/C/D/E Cameras. They intercut very well.

In short, the Mini35 and the M2 both use a spinning or oscillating ground glass as the image plane, and require battery power. The Movietube uses a "micro-crystalline screen" that does not move and has no grain; no moving parts = no power required.

Anyone know what the shooting format is? It looks like really good HD... the highlights give it away. Not 100% sure though.

For a low cost hood rig, I've used this with great success: - 1-2 sound blankets over the hood -2 sheets double plywood, stacked and glued together. (4x3', 5x3', whatever) -Attach metal loops at the corners and sides of the ply. -Hook ratchet straps to the loops and attach to the hood, wheel wells, etc. -Get a hi-hat or lo-hat and screw it onto the plywood. (ball-level works best) Once the plywood is rigged, changing camera positions only takes three screws-- very fast, less complicated than pipe, more secure than suction cups. Add some flat black paint to the plywood and producers won't be the wiser! Works for bigger cams too. As for the door mount, I know a guy that made a surprisingly solid hostess tray for a similar sized camera out of PVC pipe and hardware store brackets... Wish I had some pictures.

Look up Guy Maddin. He's a Canadian director that's made several modern-day silent films (shorts and features) using old 35/16 stocks, super 8, etc.

You could always use the new Kelly Wheel DOF for HD. http://cinemasupplies.stores.yahoo.net/kehidecaakak.html