Brian Drysdale

Maybe I have the name wrong or something but I'm talking about the scanning kind with no gate. It should not jump because there is no claw or anything. The type I'm refering to wasn't around when they used newsfilm.

The Rank Cintel flying spot TK was around for spliced news footage in Europe. In fact it was used for numerous TV programmes that were shot on reversal and they transmitted edited camera original before video took over. It doesn't jump (in a projector sense), but you do notice the splices passing through. The editors used to clean the film before taking it to the TK.

If you've got the neg, it would be better to use that for the final master. Unless, of course, you're just planning to use the workprint to create a viewing video copy for funders etc.

I wouldn't go near the project until all of the previous terms are settled by contract between the producer and previous director. This will take attorneys. These guys are right. You can sign into a pile of legal hassles on this one. Not that every deal goes sour, but when they do- Holy cow!

I'd get an entertainment lawyer, this is a specialised area. Unfortunately, they tend to be both busy and expensive.

Our film commission insists on contracts for everyone working on the productions that they fund. It can be over kill at times, but it saves any problems down the line. Certainly people like directors and writers should always sign contracts because of the copyright.

I am sorry. I am not familiar with that acronym. I am interested in how a high definition production is different from 35mm. Presumably it is nothing like a 2nd assistant cameraman, right? I am totally lost in the world of professional HD.

Check out http://jkor.com/peter/engineer.html

Peter Gray has a lot of HD info on his site.

What do HD engineers do exactly?

Do you mean DITs?

Does anyone know which films have been made with Kinoptic 35mm prime lenses?

Thanks.

I recall the 9.8mm being used on "A Clockwork Orange".

Another editor friend of mine was a big fan of the old Premiere, but he now has the latest Final Cut Pro. He never took to Avid.

However, the one to go for could depend on the kit around you. I've heard that within the BBC using Final Cut Pro for the producers editing their own material has caused real difficulty with the post production workflow in regions set up for Avid and have been for years.

An editor friend of mine loves Lightworks. He thinks that Avid has been written by software engineers so that you can use it on a computer, rather than ease of use.

Funny enough, he has a degree in computer science.

thanks for the advice. Why should I overexpose the stock?

 

My lens goes down to F 1,9 but from what I've heard don't work at their best on their minimum and maximum f-stops. Would it be a good idea to stick to 2,8 or higher. I guess the depth of field will be very narrow, too narrow?

 

adam wallensten

I've done the car headlights during the magic hour trick a few times. It seems to work best the closer to you get to darkness, however, you can't print up for the reasons already given. If you over expose at least you have an option of printing down, it depends on how bright your headlights are and how the road surface is reading.

The best time to shoot depends on the sky. Dark clouds in the background sky and a clearer sky over the subject can help lift the foreground slightly. However, you need to be careful in making a judgement call on when it's getting too dark - the light meter usually says there's nothing there.

At 200 ASA I'd normally use a T1.3 lens, however, since you only have the F1.9 I'd shoot wide open unless you know this particular lens is soft at this stop. It's nice to get the lens stopped down, but sometimes these things are trade offs. If it's a modern prime lens, it should be ok; an older zoom lens you'll need to check it.

Alternative would be to use 500 ASA stock if you want to stop down.

Richard thanks for the PM. The project is huge, ambitious and commissioned. i'll give you a call next week. Anyone else out there have some ideas and want to talk? Ted

The big thing I came across in LA were the new 3D HD cameras developed by Pace for James Cameron. They use the imaging blocks from two F950 cameras mounted side by side. However, I'm not sure how they'd fit into a normal 2D programme.

Hi all,

 

Since I have experience with the F900 I would love to hear how it compares to the HDW-750 since my clients is obviously pushing towards this solution because of it's smaller rental-fee.

 

The project in question is 25p and heavy CGI (lot's of Green Cyclos). I recommanded them testing the 950 but the director and the un-experienced HD DoP aren't to found of 4:4:4 optical cable hooked to a VTR. Anyway that is another whole issue.

 

I've lurked the forum, I've seen a couple of entries similar to mine asking comparaison between the HDW-750 and the F900. Although I could not find any opinions based on an intensive use for a CGI tv-serie.

 

Any advices would be lovely.

 

thank you,

 

-s

____________________________________

Sebastien Dostie :: VFX Director :: Ice Corp.

I've used both cameras, but I haven't yet shot any green screen with them. The HDW 750 isn't quite as subtle in it's handling of colour compared to the F900, looking at the camera output in the monitor, I preferred the F900. The good points are that the HDW 750 is smaller and uses less power than the F900.

The menu settings are different for both cameras, so you can't just transfer the same settings. They also have a different menu layout.

However, given the choice I'd go for the F950 and 4:4:4 for the green screen material. The fibre optical cable isn't that heavy and the director and DP will be the first to complain about poor mattes.

How about the Varicam? It is the same rental as the HDW 750, however it is 4:2:2 (but with a similar level of compression to HDCAM).

I suspect it's more than bits of foam, best give the experts a ring and ask for a few guessimates.

I accept that, and if T-stops are more accurate, why doesn't Hasselblad (Zeiss) use them on stills camera lenses? Or Leica (Zeiss again) or Nikon or Canon? No one except high end product photographers measure depth of field using any sort of ?-stop algorithm (that I know of, and I know quite a few) so why not make ALL lenses with T-stops?

 

I'm not trying to be thick, I had never heard of T-stops until I joined this forum, being a TV (and stills) guy and all.

I suspect the use of T stops increased when zoom lenses became common on film cameras in the 1960s. For example the 9.5mm to 95mm zoom has a f stop of 2.2, but a T stop of 2.8 - that's quite a difference. With fixed focal length lens the difference is much smaller. Modern lens coatings reduce the transmission loses in zoom lens to about a 1/3 stop.

Perhaps the still lens manufacturer's feel that the difference won't affect any one but high end photographers, who will do test exposures (which will factor in the difference) and who also often bracket their exposures.

You don't really need to know the T stop of a video lens because you're not using an exposure meter to set the aperture. If you do set a ASA rating for the camera, you'd be already factoring in the lens transmission loses when you're determining the camera's rating. Studio TV camera's aperture are set at the racks by a vision control engineer using a waveform monitor, who doesn't need to know the T stop, just the f stop.

I used to do this at night with the room's window blacked out and the house lights out. Everything was cleaned on the editing bench and used the standard rewind arms and spilt reels, turning the handle rather slowly.

A follow on from what David has said. How about they have a torch (I'm thinking Blair Witch here).

You could shoot the wide shots at dusk just before darkness (standing in for night), when you could power a Dedo light from a 12v battery standing in for the torch (or a powerful torch) moving to register them moving in the landscape. You'll just see the light moving, not the figures and the night sky will just have the last register of light ie a very dark blue.

Pick areas close to a road for the close ups, hire a small generator (5K), backlight the guys with some blue light from the redheads (getting the lights as high as possible - make use of any higher ground etc) using full CTB, use the Dedos to pick up some details. You won't get a vast landscape, it'll be a localised effect, but you might get a suggestion of something lying in the blackness.

The generator may have to come out of your own pocket, but talk to your uni about hiring one for a weekend, or perhaps their maintenance department might have one. This is where your producer skills come in - any good wanna be producer could put this together.

You'd have to post sync any sound, but that's part of the fun. Re-record any dialogue after each shot (after switching off the generator), the timing is usually surprisingly close, but will require tweaking in post.

Take a 12v monitor, you can't tell anything with the LCD on those cameras.

.

 

I don't think that the fact that there are a lot of chefs stirring the pot explains the problem with film. There are a lot of chefs when a play gets produced, yet artistically challenging plays do make their way to the stage. I think that the problem is that most of the people who are producing and packaging films lack both nerve and vision, and that people like Field and McKee are their handmaidens.

I don't think you can blame Field and McKee, these are smart guys who want interesting narrative films to be made. Unfortunately, writers are well down the pecking order in the film industry, you just have to see "The Player" to get a hint of the process.

However, top writers can have a lot of power in American TV, a few of the top award winning series have producer/writers in charge. It's beginning to happen in the UK with the main writer being the producer on the latest Dr Who series with the BBC.

By their nature challenging films will always have a smaller market than the mainstream Hollywood product. It sells to theatre owners who want to sell popcorn and soft drinks because there's a bigger profit in those than the price of the seat. All you can hope for are good films within their genre. A good blockbuster beats a bad art house and a good art house beats a bad blockbuster.

If you want to use this song check out the Joe Cocker version, personally I think he does it better than The Beatles. Also, you may also find it easier to do a deal.

You should find a sample to listen to at Amazon.com

You are really limiting the life of your film by using a piece of music that you only have the rights for one year and one territory. A short film can have a life of 2 years, if not 3 years on the festival circuit.

I know some people who have managed to do a deal for a year. However, unless the music really hits the mark, it often doesn't much extra to the film for the cost involved. I know one film where it ended up feeling like a scene from an Australian soap opera and wasn't worth the effort. The director felt the lyrics added something - they didn't.

Mordechai Richler once said that when he wrote a novel, he didn't have any idea, when he was finished with the first sentence, where the book was going. In other words, the first sentence helped him find the second sentence. If one writes from the language, and from character, this makes perfect sense. I believe that it is how many, although not all, great works of literature have been written.

The one thing that these writing gurus do drum in is that writing is about the rewriting. You need to edit and rework your writing because inconsistencies do come in and the writer doesn't always notice it at the time. Also, just because the writer knows something it doesn't always follow that the reader will pick up the same thing. Hmmm... that sounds like someone in Washington... Basically, the writer needs good feedback, not just friends who say it's wonderful.

William Goldman's books are worth reading about the politics that come into play during development. How a script can be changed by who is starring in the film.

Robert McKee is played by an actor in "Adaptation", although it would be hard to tell them apart.

Good stories are always about the characters and their struggle to achieve their needs. The plot is how you tell this story.

Can anytone help me out out, i am shooting my final degree project in febuary, most of the locations are outside at night and i need to shoot it as if it was night. The problem is i want to keep the lighting naturalistic. And it has to be naturalistic because the university has no portable lighting rigs, how can i achieve this? I will be using a sony PD170 to shoot if anyone is familiar with this camera .

 

Cheers jim

 

A very stressed out student in sheffield, uk

Where are you filming? Is it in the city or the countryside? What do you mean by no portable lights? Do they have Redheads or theatre lights?

You can film using the street lights, take the camera out and test possible locations. Most street lights are sodium and will be an amber colour, there's nothing you can do to correct this. However, you can find locations that are bright enough, I've seen shorts filmed in a bus shelter using it's light.

If you can get Redheads or small theatre lights and you can arrange power at your locations these lights(combined with the street lights) can light a reasonable acting area. You could use some 12 volt lights from a DIY using a car battery or high powered torch by putting diffusion over the torch light to smooth out the light pattern to give yourself some fill into the faces under the street lights. A Chrome Orange or Bastard Amber lighting gel would also help colour match to the sodium street lights.

After reading 'Story', 'How NOT to write a screenplay', a few other screenwriting books, and more importantly, a boatload of made screenplays, it seems like the only "rule" you really need to follow is to have a good story to begin with.

 

The act-structure seems to balance itself out if the story is strong enough to hold interest until the ending credits roll. I tried using the three act structure when I edited my own screenplay for the third time rewrite, but no formula in the world can give a screenplay life unless the story itself is rock solid, somewhat universal and for lack of a better term -- not boring.

 

I read a screenplay a while back on scriptswap.com that was so well written (a fun, easy read) I couldn't put it down, but when I reached the ending the story just collapsed. Fell apart. The ending sucked so bad it instantly turned that wonderful prose and by-the-book formula into absolutely nothing. There was no way to save the story because none the events leading up to the "climax" (<_< ) made sense anymore.

 

I pity the studio reader who has to sit through something like that.

You don't get anywhere without that story. The head of British Screen ( They used to be a script development funder in the UK) said that out of 200 well written scripts they usually only found one that was worth pursuing. Everyone is looking for that universal story, all the structures won't solve that.

"Story" is better as a tool to sort out why something isn't working in your script rather than coming up with the story itself. I know a film editor who uses the principles to sort out the problems that have arrived on his door because they haven't been fixed during the script writing or shooting stages.

An old Hollywood scriptwriter described the process as getting a man up into a tree, throwing rocks at the man and getting the man out of the tree. It can be applied to any length of conventional story. However, the acts are not equal of length the 2nd act is the longest and the 3rd act is the shortest. It's the basic stuff that screenwriters learn, but it doesn't give you the story that millions want to watch.

Check out Kubrick's "The Killing", a B&W Noir heist film released in the mid 50's. It's very similar to Huston's "The Asphalt Jungle", except for the way Kubrick shifts time around. The robbery is told through the eyes of the participants, through use of flashback, which is not uncommon. What IS uncommon is the way he does it. "Once a charachter is established, the film leaps backwards, and picks up another character until all the component parts come together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle." While it's a little hard to stay with now, it must have been totally bold and shocking 50 years ago.

One interesting take on flashbacks that I read in one screenplay book is not to regard them as "Flashbacks" but "Flashforwards". Regard them as devices to drive the story forward as if in present time - not to just give some background information. Basically, if they hold up the flow of the story don't use them.

I'm tempted to recall Godard's answer to a journalist who said "Well, surely you must admit that at least a story needs a beginning, middle, and end?!?"

 

Godard replied "Yes... but not necessarily in that order."

 

Kubrick spent some time thinking about screenplay formatting and structure. He had this idea that the descriptions should be indented and the dialogue be full width to place emphasis on the non-verbal aspect of the script, not the talking. He also had this idea that a movie needed six key transitional scenes to structure the rest of the movie around, something like that.

"2001" is the purest form of this idea. It has been suggested that the "unsubmercible units" in "2001" don't have strong connections is the reason that the film has this mysterious unknown quality that people love.

Some of his other films like "The Shining" may have the "unsubmercible units", but a 3 act structure lies beneath the surface. It's a matter of using structure in a creative way to tell the story. "Momento" is an example of how far things can be stretched.

Kubrick could get away with things that others can't. Unfortunately, you really need to use the standard script formats when dealing with funders, but fortunately good writers can use it to tell the story in a cinematic manner with both visual and audio elements.

If you are writing a screenplay you should start with a treatment, this allows you to work out the pacing and structure in story terms without falling in love with the dialogue. Also, you shouldn't be mechanical about this by having on such and such a page must be happening.

There are a few theories out there, but the three act structure is the classical one, There are a lot of writing gurus out there telling writers how to do it. However, the first thing is to work out the story that you want to tell and telling it in a way that the audience wants to be involved with it.

"Chinatown" went through a lot of re-writing, it wasn't a case of just putting down a few structure points and filling in the spaces. It's great to look at the structure after the scripts completed, but things can change as you become involved with the characters and sometimes your original ending isn't going to work, so you have to adapt to where the characters taking you.

This is where the treatment comes in (some people don't like them), but more time often goes into that than writing the first draft script. You use the structure as a tool when you're reworking the material. I know some people prefer to just write a full draft screenplay first, but they'll also need to spend time re-writing a long form version of their story as they solve problems.

Unfortunately, there are too many films that just work to a formula.

can someone explain to me the pros and cons of a digital meter against an analoge meter? i can get a new sekonic analoge meter cheaper than a digital but without knowing the good and bad i can't make a definate choice. thanks for all the help.

The Sekonic is a good first meter. However, it isn't as robust as the digital meter, which (unless you've got the slides for the Sekonic) will also give you a direct reading of the stop. Having said that, the Sekonic will take a lot of hard use.

You don't need a battery for the Sekonic. If you don't have the slides you'll have to use the calculator, which makes it slower to get your exposure setting.

It can also depend on what your objectives for the film are...keep in mind that in almost all (American) festivals, the juries/judges/critics view the films BEFOREHAND on the submission screeners (DVD, sometimes even VHS). Sometimes festivals don't even tell you about this, they just make copies of your screener and pass them around in the weeks before the festival.

 

?

I also know some festivals where the jury views the films with the audience.