Brian Drysdale

For night exteriors you usually end putting filters on the lights rather than the camera. If you're using 500T on 16mm, I'd tend to keep the camera clean. There are some interesting camera filters, but I'd only use them if it's a story requirement or if you're doing a music video where anything goes and the effect suits the mood.

I suspect some of this is cultural. In the UK over recent years almost all film TV drama has been shot S16, so it has become an "accepted" part of the look, especially for social realism material. Last year I was speaking to a BBC drama manager who was expressing concern over the cleanness of HD compared to S16 and how it would effect the look of their gritty social dramas. Shooting S16 I personally use the slowest film stock that the lighting budget/schedule will allow.

Well, nothing that jumps out at you in the Paint menu gammas.

Seems to be a bit of debate over 10 bit log v 12 bit linear. RED are claiming that the advantages of 12 bit linear outweigh the disadvantages. Time will reveal all.

Last I heard they were having problems with the supply of a 4k chip.

They don't need to know, however, some people seem that believe that owning a RED is their calling card into making theatrical feature films. Just because people are giving input doesn't mean they plan to shoot with the camera. Most studios don't force the DP to use a particular camera, that's up to each production to decide. RED is a camera, nothing more. When it comes out it'll have it's niche. However, just shooting a production with a RED won't mean you'll automatically have successful film, those business/creative problems remain the same. What it does mean that films that in the past might have been shot with a SD broadcast camera should have HD cameras like the RED and SI in their budget range. Is RED revolutionary? No, it's evolutionary. Interesting marketing though.

It's important to remember that there is an economics to running a cinema. The film must have an investment in marketing to attract the audiences and for the average cinema owner there's more profit in the popcorn than the seats. Using the studio model, at the very least the film must have at least the production budget invested in marketing the film. This is something that most indie (UK spelling) productions won't have. The best that most indie films can hope for are showcase theatrical screenings in art houses, but the hard economic returns are on the DVD market where word of mouth can develop.

The SI isn't unique in using S16 lenses, both RED and the older Kinetta design plan to use them. However, chances are that older 16mm lenses wouldn't be up to HD. Being a single sensor camera, you can't use B4 video lenses directly on the SI because they are designed to be be used with the optical block that mounts the 3 CCDs. If you do want to use them you'd need a converter like the Abakus that allows B4 lenses to be used on 16mm film cameras and so they would also work on the SI.

This depends if you're a production company or a facility, although there is an element of cross over. If you're a primarily a production company the investment should be in future projects. If the production company business plan is that the camera gear makes a profit on productions other than features that's fine. However, the in house "camera rental" should become part of a feature's budget (as an investment in the production) otherwise you can be fooling yourself regarding costs (even more so if the feature makes a sale). Your comment on success underlines a problem quite a few indie features have. You're left wondering if there's an audience for quite a few of these films and a failure by the film makers to appreciate the importance of marketing the film. Although, perhaps some of the worst ones have better marketing than the good ones.

You should spend the money on the movie, perhaps that's the reason why it doesn't sell well. Spend the money on the script, actors and production values not buying camera gear. The audience are buying into the film, not the camera.

Yes, but is this the RED market? This sounds more HDV than the higher priced RED kit: a shooting RED rig is going to cost as much as a SD broadcast camera. Best bang for bucks could be the SI Mini into a laptop, that would make more sense. Then spend the difference on your movie.

It's important to remember that making films is collaborative art. It's not usually one person on their own. Although an animator can operate on their own, that's not the case with a live action movie. The camera is just one factor/cost in making a successful film and it's usually one of the cheaper items in the overall budget. Shooting in 4k will add more demands in art direction, costume and make up. Things that you got away in DV just won't hold with the increased definition.

Are you sure you're not talking about the camera gate? The camera's door has nothing to do with Super 16.

Yes, that's the GSMO. The CP16R is a camera based on the Auricon, with a 400ft Mitchell style magazine. http://www.whitehouseav.com/cpcamera.htm

I've never heard of an Aaton door on a CP16R, whatever that might be. The door on the CP16R body is matched to the individual camera from memory, so I don't know how the Aaton even fits. I assume the Zeiss (A T2 rather than the old T3?) has been converted to cover the Super 16 gate, the 10-100 then becomes a 12 to 120.

I had an Aaton XTR being mistaken for a video camera by a media studies student. I informed him that it was even better, it was a film camera.

If anyone is interested there is a report by someone who attended the SI seminar in LA here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78520

Successful low budget features have been made with cameras in the same class as the PD170. Spend the money on production values, the audience doesn't care which cameras you use if you've got a good script and good acting. Worry about those things rather than the camera.

You can use this: http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/ref...lenseqvform.asp

Yep, it's viral.

Do know where you find them in the menus on the HDW750? I've only got a 1st edition operating manual.

Why should a new camera create too many cinematographers? It's not just about a camera, there's a whole package that comes with being a cinematographer. Just because you've got a word processor doesn't mean you're a writer. RED is a just camera under development, not a new religion. It needs someone with vision using it, the camera itself doesn't create the vision, it's only a means to an end. Job security doesn't come with raised prices and, unfortunately, you won't find it in this industry.

Recently, I've been talking to a producer about a series of low budget features. They have received more funding and I asked if this means using a better camera - the answer was no. The extra funding allows them to use more expensive actors (ie more experienced and usually that often means better). The producer regarded the actors as more important for telling the story than the higher quality camera.

If you've only got $10k as a budget, I'd go with the camera you've already got and use the money on production values rather than worrying about the camera. You'll have to feed people (a film crew, like an army marches on its stomach and nothing kills a low budget shoot more than poor catering), perhaps hire extra lights, costumes etc., plus numerous other items. The budget will speak for itself, cost everything out in detail.

Bouncing into crumbled silver Mylar works, just gently moving it to create the ripple effect.