Mike Krumlauf

Most of those log gammas were designed for cameras with more dynamic range and a better noise floor. I'd stick to a very mild adjustment from a Rec.709 base with the F900, something like whatever the mildest form of Hyper-Gamma is, if that.

David, given you used the panavision model quite a lot back in the day.. did you adhere to keeping the knee off and sticking to panavisions default settings or..? :)

If you can go to a rental house with a Sony camera that has HyperGamma, you can point it at a 11-step chip chart and look on a waveform monitor to see how the x shape is modified by the gamma, then you can point your F900 at a 11-step chart and play with the gammas to create something similar (but milder).

I was thinking of that.. if i was still living in my homeland of Chicago where i had contacts at Panavision, VER, Keslow, probably would be a good idea but im really not that familiar with the outfits in Denver here and there are very few of them. If i was still in Chicago I would just take my camera over there and have them help me.

Could you read off the names of the gammas in the menu? Maybe i can track them down online?

I just wanted to say – the film was absolutely lovely. In addition to being a simple, but moving story, the Super 16 was sooo fitting for the film. Very charming, very classic, just like the protagonist of the film. Exactly the medium the film needed. Wouldn't have worked nearly as well any other way.

I still need to see it! Looks great and i've been a lifelong redford fan. even as a director.. that film Ordinary People he shot in Lake Forest, Illinois is one of my favs

If I owned a memory stick reader then yeah I could... but I don't have a memory stick reader...

Dang. Did you make them or buy them/download them somewhere?

Yeah, mine has tons of HG curves from a mem stick.

Anyway you could share these HG Curves? All i have are the Kodak curves and the curves from digital praxis which i think were more Log like or cineon emulating?

I hope somebody eventually remasters old shows like Little House ect... Bad video of film has given film a bad rep, they could look so good if done right. Sad part is that old shows could look so much better than new shows on HD, but producers probably don't want to raise the expectations

if you want to see a good example of a show shot on film that has been remastered from the negative.. get the blu ray box set of Pee Wees Playhouse. Beautiful picture!

I will add though that with the mans budget of $100,000 i think in 2018 he is better off getting a used alexa package of somekind with a nice set of primes. Alexas are going for 10K on ebay for the bodies and he could get a seriously nice PL lens, tripod, etc... Just me but for 100K i would not invest in RED.. not a big fan of red but i admire what they did to continue the movement forward in digital cinema. I think Panavision and ARRI are the kings of cinematic tools.. aaton is up there as well but they i believe shutdown once film no longer was standard

I've heard of people shooting in used genesis' or regular F35 bodies with the Blackmagic video assist 4K or the Oddesy monitor recorder to get 4:4:4 out of it. Always wondered if there were any internal modifications to the image block in the genesis from the F35 like how they changed things in the F900 for their HD900F? I honestly think their partnership with Sony was great! I think they panavised the F55 as well?

Knee compresses the highlights ,as you know I guess..which Panavision deems to be NG it seems.. without it I suppose its a straight Rec709 camera .. 6/7 stops.. ?

Yeah my thoughts exactly.. I know that the gamma curves Sony made with Kodak seem to compress the highlights.. gives you more room up there but then they compressed the darks so unless you are shooting in daylight as you would with 250D stock, you are really limited to what you can do. The HD900 in panavision's default settings actually has about 10 or so stops but those highlights clip so damn fast, i know there is a happy middle ground but from professional studio level things ive seen done on the panavision model like spy kids 2 and collateral (granted collateral was shot at night) it seems like they were getting more ladditude out of the camera than what the pana settings allow? I will say that the tonal range with the pana settings are the best i have seen but the highlights just clip hard, they dont roll off like what ive seen out of the camera in older films. Maybe they were sneaky and just shot interiors with a crap load of ND on the windows or something?

Are you talking about the auto knee or the internal manual menu settings?

The internal menu settings. I never have used auto knee. I'm just trying to figure out the reasons as to why Panavision stressed to just leave all KNEE circuits in the camera off.. im a getting a better image by leaving knee off? Ive already realized that leaving detail off is best but it just seems like the dynamic range on the panavision camera is limited as hell when no knee support is applied. you have to be very mindful of highlights.

New Question: Panavision listed in the 900F manual to keep the Knee settings off.. my question is why? Do you get more tonal information if you leave the knee off and just expose accordingly? Did most features that used the HD900F abide by panavision's suggestions?

Well you can get any of the modern digital camera,s to mimic ENG shoulder style.. except the C300 of course :).. but instead of it being like that out of the box.. you have to give a fair chunk of coin to Arri/Vocas/Zacuto et el.. . 5 years or so after the change over to s35 CMOS there are actually a ton of very good 3rd party accessories around now.. and even a bit late to the party .. the manufactures themselves are doing it.. you pay for them.. but the camera,s themselves are massively cheaper than ENG,s were new..

True, but I have never been a fan of frakensteining cameras, its just not my interest.

Having only seen the trailer I find it a little hard to believe it's S16. Too sharp, looks more like 2-perf 35. I'd also like more info... was it actually cropped for widescreen, or is that just the trailer ? Or did they use anamorphic ?

Indeed it was shot on super16mm using the Arriflex 416 camera so, believe it :D

Crikey, did I never respond to this?

 

The only "real" moving-image camera package I've ever just gone out and bought was a Panasonic AG-DVC200 with Fuji 20x6.4 zoom.

 

 

I don't know if there's any way to access posts from the early 2000s on this forum - the software has changed since - but I probably talked about it when I got it. It wasn't something I loved, particularly, I just needed something. I still miss the ergonomics - the grip, the zoom, the location of the controls, the way you could flip open the viewfinder, the balance and weight, even the way you could throw it onto a quick-release plate on a tripod. I'd learned these things on other ENG-style cameras. Most modern cameras are terrible by comparison. About the best thing at the same price is something like an Ursa Mini Broadcast. I still use the tripod I bought to go with it, the quick-release tripod plate that came with it, and the (much-recelled) PAG battery system.

 

I should have bought a DSR-500, or even the DXC-D35 docked to a DSR-1 DVCAM recorder, which was then becoming cheap. I knew that at the time, and might even still be wringing some value out of a better lens, but fresh out of college it was a financial bridge too far.

 

It was occasionally pressed into service to do something creative (this is my early work - as we say on the internet, plz, no bully.)

 

 

The DVC-200 paid for itself, but when it became time to upgrade there wasn't an affordable way to get an HD equivalent. Eventually I'd become used to not owning anything and the DSLR revolution was in full swing, and as other people have said things move so fast it's hard to invest, so I never have.

 

I did buy an EOS-40D to demonstrate raw recording with Magic Lantern. The pictures are wonderful; the user interface is not.

 

P

Completely agree with you on the ENG form factor, it truly is the best.. most modern cameras dont even compare! It's one of the reasons why I still use and own an F900.. i just love the image and the ergonomics of the camera body.

Love shooting on film. Cameras I own:

 

Arricam LT 3perf

 

Arriflex 235 3perf

 

One lonesome Master Prime 25mm

 

Looking to add an Arriflex 435Xtreme 3perf as soon as I can find one.

One of my dreams is to own an Arricam LT/ST at somepoint in my life. Even if it just ends up being a conversation piece in my home. One day, in the words of Wayne Cambell "it will be mine.. oh yes.. it will be mine". lol

Here is an interview of Hughes...

 

https://archive.org/search.php?query=John%20Hughes%20Teoli

edit: got the link to work. i have heard the AFI tape many times :)

Here is the problem.. "I don't discriminate against what can and cant be used for a project and i know there are others like me who think the same.".. thats great for shooting your brothers footie team games..or a mates music video.. but in the actual freelance world..that statement is Im afraid a bit naive.. . you dont discriminate but guess what.. the production company does very much so..and you will find that 99.9% they will want s35 sensor size and 4K capability ..

 

​.. .. you have work thats great.. but 99% of wedding/real estate video is 5D/Sony A series on a RoninS and a drone.. you are probably in the less than 1% that is using a ⅔ inch ENG camera for this type of work.. ENG is dead in the water..doc,s and corps the same.. its just an un deniable fact.. I had 5 of them over the years.. all lovely but they stopped making any money..

 

​My only point or maybe even if I dare say advise.(.I read you are looking for more work in another thread.). was that if you want to make a living as a freelancer .. ie not just shooting your own or mates stuff.. any ENG camera as your primary camera is a losing hand.. you need 4K and s35mm sensor.. and your way better off buying that gear than renting.. over and out.. :)

You have your opinions and I have mine. I get work from "non friends" with my equipment. I watched for 8 months as people were shooting real jobs on older equipment that they rented. I am telling you that I agree that a lot of people want newer equipment and thats fine but im telling you that you are wrong in that people do not shooting gigs on older gear that puts money in their pocket.. ive seen it and i am apart of it. Maybe in your experience you havent seen the same and thats fine.. but I have seen different and you cant discredit it because you have not experienced the same... go over to DVXuser, you will see people talking about how they are using older cameras (most notably the F23 and 35) on both hobby and paying gigs. Also, The gigs i had in Chicago with my older gear were not friends of mine.. to think the only work i was getting was for friends is a tad insulting, as if i were to ever shoot for people i know its an inferer job.. no, i was hired by people who knew me only from my work and i shot with older gear, got paid nicely and had a satisfied customer.

to each his own :)

What sort of work are you getting with ⅔ inch ENG cameras.. ?? I haven't or anyone I know .. had a request for them for about 4 years now.. I would be totally broke if I had hung onto my PMW500.. / HDX900.. again Im not arguing quality and it shouldn't matter what it is.. but thats not the real world..there is always a camera requested or they want to know what you have.. Im doing corps and doc.s/broadcast.. in that market ⅔ has gone completely .. not just for 4K..

 

Buying gear, if you are an owner operator is actually far more profitable .. as long as you buy the camera that is the popular one.. my camera/lenses have paid for themselves many times over in just 5 years.. now that cameras are so cheap its even more of a better idea.. each day I work my gear makes alot more than just me with a pulse .. that would all go to a rental house.. you have less hassle picking up etc .. you know it works !! .you can customize the rig to your liking.. and these days maintenance is zero.. seriously if you shoot and supply the camera..and know your market ..or the work you want to do.. buy the gear you need .. and you will be quids in.. every single freelance dp I know who is hired for work that includes the camera package.. own their own camera. /lenses/lights/audio/tripod etc .. and a van to put it all in .. and you charge for it :).. its even tax deductible when you buy it.. the problem is some production companies have discovered the golden egg and buy their own gear too now.. no one is making money renting gear.. the rental company is .. :)

I'm getting sports, weddings, music videos, and real estate tours. Thats the work I was getting before I moved to Denver. The great thing about my situation is that the varicam i had paid for itself in about 2 or 3 jobs given the camera cost a hell of a lot less than in their hayday. I sold my varicam and used that money to buy the Panavision F900 along with some tax return money i got. So in my situation, i am not delinquent money for what i have invested in. I am shooting football games for a team my brother is head coaching and the team is very very happy with the images i am giving them. Like i said, rental companies like VER still have revolving clients taking out the F800, Chain CCU sony packages, EX3s and so on.. older gear is still very much making its rounds and thats great. There are people on both ends of the spectrum and there is nothing wrong with either. If you want to invest in older gear for a hell of a lot less than what it was new and work with that either for hire or hobby thats okay. If you are more into modern gear and you want to invest in it, cool, the option is there. I dont discriminate against what can and cant be used for a project and i know there are others like me who think the same. Hell, the good ol HVX200 was renting out at VER Chicago at least once a week in the eight months i was working there, same with those EX3s and F800.. even the tape varicam model i owned was going out. We had old XDCAM and HDCAM SR decks transferring and going out.. and in my eyes it means there is still a market for this gear, even if its going to a business convention at a hotel or something.. work is work.

Mike.. in the freelance market you are dead in the water with CCD now.. thats just the reality of the situation.. in all markets.. except maybe some sports coverage still shot with ENG .. Fs5 is rubbish 4K ,unless to EXT recorder.. in HD its totally fine.. 10 bit 422 HD .. the MkII even has the improved REC709 color set up.. its price is tiny.. and many many people are making a living using it.. there must be only a hand full of people making a living as freelance DP shooting with F23/35 as their primary camera.. if any..except for shooting their own projects.. Im not arguing quality .. but reality .. want to make money.. get a CMOS camera.. renting is a mugs game finically ..

I understand where the market has gone. But to say that freelancing with CCD cameras wont get you hired is a load of bull. Maybe getting hired by people who want something specific like 4K or something I can understand, but like i said, all you have to do is rent. I boarded the 2/3' camera train a little over 4 years ago and for something to own i have not looked back. Contrary to your belief i had plenty of freelance work with my Varicam and F900s back in Chicago. I think that as long as you get an image out of your tools that the client who is paying you likes, it shouldnt matter what it is.

If i had the money to finance a camera like the new varicam or the amira i would, but i dont and in my budget for something to own i prefer CCD cameras and im getting paid work with them. Saying renting is a mugs game is pretty stupid if you ask me. Tons of people rent gear around the globe and make money doing it. I worked at VER i should know ;). We had cameras going out left and right.

I have to agree with Sam. This camera is not worth its price at all. Then again i'm a bit biased in that other than the Arri CMOS sensors and some of the newer Reds, i really for the most part can not stand how CMOS looks and have remained faithful to CCD technology in the cameras i own. I will only rent newer gear when a cilent asks for it but for my personal work.. CCD all the way. Seems like im not alone in this either.. lots of people seem to be using older cinema cameras like the F23/35, varicam and the like.

Just wanted to make note that for all who need answers for my questions, yes, the front plates on the cameras are perfectly interchangeable with minimal work needed to do it.

You cannot buy a Panavision camera or any Panavision equipment, they are strictly a rental and services company. If you ever see such things for sale, they are almost certainly stolen.

I just wanted to make note that Panavision does recycle some of their older digital equipment to a company in LA that then sells it. I own a Panavision HD900F and made sure to call Panavision and they told me the process and steps in which it got on the used market. They do not sell any of their 35mm cameras or lenses though, but, if you are diligent enough, you can come across their HD900F and Genesis. So in theory, yes you are right, but there is some wiggle room within their "we dont sell anything" statement. I'm sure if you flashed enough money in their face you could purchase anything of theirs lol

Saw a really decent indie flick staring some major talent called Masked & Anonymous. It was shot on the F900/3. Available on Amazon Prime for all who has it. check it out!

I once did a test comparing the two cameras. The sony is 1080P and the Varicam is 720P and... it was nearly impossible to see the difference (for detail). Each camera records the same amount of data. I'm not sure the custom curves in the Sony still allowed access to the full dynamic range that the camera could see though. But, if you're shooting for (getting the look in camera), then I can see how the sony might be more desirable. For post color correction, the Varicam had the edge. I will say, if you've got a Panavision version, with the Panavision lens to go with it, the Panavision lenses were quite good. And they had the advantage of not having the distance scale shift with the ambient temperature as the Canon and Fuji lenses do.

I def see a difference in detail and overall quality between the two cameras. I have the Panavision Body and viewfinder but I am using an Optex Cine HD Zoom, HJ9x5x5. The varicam is a beautiful camera and i had many fun years with it, but, once i got behind a 900 and did my tests with one, i was hooked. Like i said, to each his own. Both cameras offer great pictures in the right hands, after experiencing both, i like the 900 more.