Matthew J. Walker

I remember around this time many photographers, especially landscape photographers on YouTube began shooting on stills film and comparing them to digital. As you know, YouTube has a great deal of influence on my generation, particularly people born in the mid to late 90s and early 2000s so all of these people who were subscribed to these channels were blown away by how, to not start an argument I'll use the word "stylistic" the film looked when compared to the digital image. This took on a life of it's own and although a finite amount, some YouTubers started even shooting motion picture film, primarily on cameras like the Bolex H16 or the Krasnogorsk 3. If I'm not mistaken, later that year the word "Cinematography" also became more and more prevalent on YouTube as loads of channels began to upload these quote "Cinematography breakdown" videos where they would show old movies, and essentially only point out the framing of the shot, without any emphasis on lighting, set design, or direction. I use quotes because in many of these "Cinematography breakdown" videos, the actual cinematographer of the picture was never mentioned, but rather the director. However, it brought new eyes and a whole new generation one step closer to filmmaking. Remember now, before film sort of had this online resurgence, people used to think of film as very blurry scratchy footage until these videos wised them up by saying "By the way there were no digital cameras when this movie was made it was shot on film". It's something so obvious to people like us, but never crosses the average movie-goer's mind. I personally think a generation that has been so subconsciously domesticated to take a photo and naturally plug a camera into a computer, or transfer it through wifi, etc., to the point at which the idea that something that is so mechanical, something physical, or even something perishable can look in some cases better than their modern counterpart is very intriguing to my generation and every one thereof. I know this is why everyone wants to shoot film now. I remember speaking to a woman on the phone at Visual Products last year when looking to purchase my SRII and she told me she is excited by how many young people are purchasing film cameras. It's safe to say this affected the market and the prices are now gauged.

Broken down brilliantly. One last question. Here you say while running the camera, the sync box adjusts the frame rate either using a cable, or like in my case, the provided magnetic pickup while at the same time one would adjust the timing of the electron beam using the phase knob to get each shutter revolution opened and closed so that the electron beam starts and ends perfectly from the top and bottom of the screen without the beam going back to the top a second time during one exposure. However, here you say a prerequisite of filming a CRT television is that you need a 144 degree shutter. I think I'm sort of answering my own question here but does this mean that even with the sync box, a 180 degree shutter is just simply too long of an exposure to fulfill that precise window of exposure needed to film the CRT tv right when the electron beam begins and ends without a second partial electron beam exposure? Or maybe I'm a moron considering you've written to me a proper explanatory essay on CRT televisions/monitors, yet I'm still in enough denial to ask another question.

? This made me laugh.

It's my understanding that to eliminate roll bar from a CRT or 'Tube' TV, one can use the combination of a 23.967 framerate and a 144º shutter. This specific combination, of course, only works with NTSC (60Hz) televisions only. The other PAL (60Hz) methods obviously don't pertain to my situation. Anyway, It just so happens I will be filming a CRT TV, however I own an Arriflex SRII which has a fixed 180 degree shutter. I am able to use a speed controller to set the framerate to 23.976 but that alone won't exactly fix the problem, but rather keep the black bar in a fixed location. I want to eliminate the black bar entirely. It occurred to me that this wasn't a possibility, until I researched the problem quite a bit and actually found out there is actually something called a Film/Video Synchronizing Control Box. At my first uneducated glance I thought it was some outdated equipment which was probably used to change the framerate of cameras before we had framerate controllers. Then the size of the thing struck me and I thought "Maybe this isn't simply for only framerate" because there's no conceivable way to describe going from a giant box to change the framerate to only years later the speed controllers we all know and love that can all fit in the palm of your hand. That's just not the way technology progresses. So after more research, and finding a couple instances of people vaguely talking about how they used to use these sync boxes 'back in the day', I seemingly submitted to the fact that this thing can actually do what it says. But I still just couldn't understand how people can make the claim that this thing could sync any camera with a CRT TV when not every camera has an adjustable shutter. That was until I found this post on here from back in March of 2018. This actually makes sense, given how cathode ray tubes are sensitive to magnetic fields. Now before anyone dismisses the Film/Video Synchronizing Control Box, I should probably point out a few ways I will not settle for fixing the problem. 1. No I do not want to green screen the tv, even with artificial light to suggest television glow. It never looks real. 2. I don't want anything shot digitally, especially since the cost of a digital camera is more than that of the sync box. 3. I can't afford renting another film camera that has an adjustable shutter for merely one or two shots. I have considered number one as an option in the past for shots of the television screen only, however one also runs into the problem of the glass reflection not being there. And probably the biggest problem is my idea of a wide shot of the actor watching the television from across the room, both the television and the talent visible in the frame. Now while real television glow is nowhere near enough for a key light, it would have still been present in the frame thus casting some type of glow that would reflect near objects, even the slightest bit. I went a little off track as I often do, so here are my two questions. How does the Film/Video Synchronizing Control Box actually work? Can someone who has used this before please explain the setup and operation in detail? If applicable to my situation I'd love to own one.

Very attractive lighting. I believe it was Dean Cundey who once said something along the lines of someone asking him once "Well where is the light coming from?" to which he responded to them "The same place the music comes from". It's refreshing to see something stylishly lit in 2020 where many people seem to digest the whole "practical lighting" thing in a far too literal context.

This is for some reason an incredibly annoying trait I find most young people possess. hardly anybody around my age is willing to take risks and fail, which inevitably is the only way to learn unless of course paths are crossed with a more wise person who can spot a dent. Now, this may simply be people blowing smoke up my ass, or me blowing smoke up my own ass, however... more often than not, people of my age are impressed with things I do that are, at least what I believe to be things that are not difficult to do. From something I built, or did, or wrote, or a moderately though-out idea, that people not much older than me are frankly not as impressed with because they've seen it built, or done, or written, or thought of before. Nothing more than problem solving things. And of course being in my twenties, this happens to be the age range I am also subjected to work with. It's no wonder many young people give up before they even get a foot in the door. It's sort of comedic in a way because being in our twenties we don't really have much to lose. I know I don't. *Cut to me working at McDonalds in 2035* Seriously though people my age like to talk but don't like to walk. Well in any event, more room for me!

@David Mullen ASC gives a pretty insightful, and I think, tremendously rational timeline of what anyone aspiring to be in the industry should see regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, or morals in the sense that one should be prepared for it to take much longer than they would probably like yet not let it discourage you from staying full steam ahead. Actually right now there's more diversity in Hollywood than ever before. Back on topic. I can also agree with@Tyler Purcell. Being in the city of topic is undoubtedly giving him a first hand look at the state of the industry right now, most likely influencing what shaped his answer. One could also say while the average young person's relocation would normally play out like a game of chess, anyone's relocation in the current climate would probably play out more like a game of chess against a chess hustler in the middle of Union Square. You sort of lost before you even lost.

I can't tell if this is satire or sarcasm but I like it.

Funny you mention skid row. I once had the bright idea of making a music video for a rapper for free who I saw perform at a club my friends and I went to. The guy's Instagram was strange and full of weird posts that didn't make any sense. Sort of like a manic person's diary who overly liked dark subjects. Ignoring my instinct, I liked his style and his music so I went out of my way to write up a script, gather friends as actors, and hired a gun-fanatic guy from my local gym as security, brought my steadicam rig, the whole nine. In any event it turned out to be what felt just like a setup in the middle of skid row so I booked it and he was in my rearview mirror. Not a fun place to be at 10PM.

I would just go for it. I drove there with $2500 in my bank account, no work lined up, no place to live. I got a hotel for a week, during which I searched extensively for rooms for rent where I eventually found a place for rent for $680 dollars per month, month-to-month rent meaning no contract. I could have stayed as long as I wanted because I found it actually much cheaper to live there than back at home. I find the people who say it's a tough city to merely "get by" in are the same types of people who get right out of film school in L.A. with big dreams and unrealistic expectations, which is fine, but subsequently handle their lack of work as "rejection" as oppose to a sign that they need to work harder. I was willing to live in my car at any moment that's how much I wanted to be there at the time. My grandfather always says "Go with your gut" and "You don't know until you try". And he's always right.

I lived in Los Angeles for two years. I always tell people, I've gotten more done in New Jersey, yet I learned more two years in L.A. than I've learned nineteen years in a small town. You meet many characters in Los Angeles however the best advice I was ever given during my stay was "You have to have something to offer". How I took that statement was "Sure anyone can live in Los Angeles, but anyone can also make a film anywhere."

I'm in Ocean County. Roughly ten miles south of Toms River.

If anyone in New Jersey wants to film something short or simply even connect on any basis let me know. Especially but not limited to someone who knows how to properly record sound. At the moment I'm in essence a student of filmmaking, however I will be self-financing and directing my first feature length film this summer that I wrote which will be shot on only super 16mm film so if that interests anyone let me know. I do have two spare rolls of 250D if anyone wants to film something really short, because I'll probably be using majority of the first roll for lighting tests and various other quirky tests. In any event... I'm here.

Seeing that all four of you agree that it would give me much more freedom during the editing process to film the sequence in color, I think that is the route I'm going to take. Also, you're right @Stuart Brereton I completely forgot that Kodak's only current black and white film stock is the not so current 5222/7222. A beautiful stock on 35mm but in my case I'd be using the 7222. Just too grainy. And @David Mullen ASC I think you're right. My attraction for black and white film may be the gothic nature of a black and white image rather than the narrow degree of nuances that come with a proper black and white negative. So not only would it give me more freedom, but I suppose filming in color and desaturating the sequence to black and white would also keep the sequence true to the texture of the rest of the picture. I've made my mind up... man do I love this forum.

1. Would using color film and subsequently desaturating the image look substantially different than simply shooting on black and white film? If yes, then Is light actually captured slightly different on black and white film or does a black and white image just make lighting look interesting. Depending on the answer to the first two questions, the following question may or may not be inapplicable: 2. I'm 99.9% dead set on filming a sequence in black and white, however there's that 0.1% in me that thinks I may change my mind while editing and want the sequence to be in color. If I decide to shoot in color "just in case" and desaturate the image, am I actually achieving the proverbial "black and white look" or would it be best to play it safe and film using black and white negative to achieve the best black and white image possible if I was so sure I wanted the sequence to be in black and white?

Sold 8/25/2020

As @Phil Rhodes mentioned, the lack of SDI requires an HDMI to SDI converter for most monitors , which of course needs battery power. I own a now half broken Blackmagic Cinema Camera that I used a lot last year. I used to use the 95wh Blackmagic Jukebox battery directly connected to the camera via DC which powered my camera for a solid two hours. On my Steadicam I used a Maxoak 158wh battery on a V-Mount plate with two D-Tap to DC cables connected to it, one Powered the monitor, the other plugged into the steadicam from the bottom which allowed me to power an SDI to HDMI converter from the top via a DC port and connect the converter to the camera since I was using an HDMI monitor and the BMCC 2.5K has the opposite problem of only having SDI, contrary to the BMPC 6K's issue of only having HDMI. At which point I can just plug the HDMI into the steadicam and male HDMI at the bottom of the steadicam would plug directly into the monitor. The 158wh Maxoak would power the monitor and the converter for more than several hours and is the highest amount of watt hours one can legally bring onto a an airliner. When I wasn't using the steadicam rig, I preferred simply using a pistol grip under the camera screwed directly into the 1/4"-20 tripod threads, a simple 15mm rod mount with any matte box attached to the rods, and a very simple viewfinder called the GRID Viewfinder. Simple, lightweight and effective. It is a rolling shutter, so be aware of that. My BMCC 2.5k also had a rolling shutter. Very noticeable with fast moving objects or sporadic camera movement. I've never used the BMPC 6K so I made a point to express only variables that can be insightful for any Blackmagic user. While my personal BMCC 2.5k was fragile internally, I may have just been unlucky. The only thing I noticed that may or be not be just a Blackmagic thing was when highlights were blown out, they were blown out and held zero data. To counter this, I'd set the zebras to 90% or 95% and make sure nothing of importance was bright enough to bee seen with the zebras. This always resulted in great highlight roll off, if anything happened to be blown out. Again, nothing that can't be worked around. My BMCC 2.5k also had an astonishing thirteen stops of dynamic range, resulting in an image that had massive amounts of color data, especially when shot in RAW. My Blackmagic produced a dense, clean image in almost every instance, lighting situation, or anything thereof and I used to baby it. You however, can expect the BMPC 6K to handle low light extremely well because it's a Super35 sensor. Much like @Jae Solina this interests me and is something I wouldn't mind seeing.

https://ascmag.com/articles/flashback-barry-lyndon Here is an incredibly interesting interview with Cinematographer John Alcott on the photography of Barry Lyndon and I personally read the entire thing. However, in the event you don't feel like reading it because it is very long, here is an excerpt consisting of only things related to the entire candle light sequence in the interview. Very interesting stuff. Here's an excerpt from a separate article on how the idea of the candle light sequence came about, their first encounter with the lens, and the struggles involved in figuring out how to mount it to the BNC camera.

8:52

I posted this July 3rd for $999, however I've since saw a listing on eBay for a IIC with a video tap, backp fuse, extra gate, etc. for $1249.00 and realized "Yeah I'm never going to sell this thing". So I'm reposting it. Price is now $650 or best offer + $60 shipping. Shipping will include signature confirmation and insurance via USPS Priority mail and will ship one business day after the payment is made. Purchased last year and never tested it because the cost of testing and potentially fixing at the time would have been too high. I've since purchased a Super 16mm camera. The seller who sold this to me sold it to me as a "IIC", however upon inspection, this looks to be a standard model IIB as the ground glass is not removable and the shutter is not variable. Standard IIC's aren't variable shutter, however all IICs have a removable ground glass, this one does not so it is a IIB. The rotary shutter on this particular model is a "butterfly" shutter as is with every model after the IIA. The mirror is clean including the ground glass, internals look clean as well including the 4-perf gate. The ground glass baffles are still within the glass and unbent. Power cord is not in the best condition and as shown and the 3 pin XLR will often slide out of it's metal covering. The hand grip motor is untested. Upon rotating the shutter by hand, it seems to rotate smoothly and the lens turret rotates normally as well. This model has three Arri Standard mounts, unlike some models which have two standard mounts and a single bayonet mount. The viewfinder compartment door mechanism locks and unlocks as normal, and the mechanism that closes the eyepiece works as intended. The rubber eyecup is unusable as it has dry rotted. The 400ft magazine is again untested, but seems to be in good mechanical condition. The locking mechanism on the magazine locks and unlocks normally. The feed spindles and take-up spindles spin smoothly including the footage counter and the collapsable core functions as intended. The Matte box has signs of heavy use and needs cleaning. Overall the camera body and magazine appears to be in heavily used physical condition. Serial number of this camera is Nr.4221. DISCLAIMER: I CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THIS IS AN ACTUAL IIB AND NOT AN UPGRADED IIA. There were two models of the IIB in 1960. There was the Arriflex 35 IIB which had a 180 degree fixed shutter, and there was the Arriflex II BV which had a 0-165 degree variable shutter. It's very tricky because the serial number starts with Nr. on IIA models and No. on IIC models, but with IIB models, some used No. and some used Nr. It doesn't help that the IIB compartment doors could fit on IIAs and actually many IIAs were upgraded to IIBs by simply using the newer style magazine, compartment door, and handgrip motor. The II series started around 2000 and ended all the way well into the 15000s with the IIC meaning this could be a fairly early model IIB or a late model IIA. Either way it has the new compartment door, magazine, and handgrip motor making it either a IIA upgraded to a IIB or an actual IIB. I will say though, The internals look identical to the IIC at a glance, which the IIB was. The IIA internals were very different in appearance. It's very hard to find information about the IIA or IIB because the IIC dominated the MOS camera industry. I come to the conclusion that it is a IIB, whether upgraded or not, because in almost every instance it appears that way and I don't have an Arri technician to do a serial number lookup. 12 Detailed photos: https://www.ebay.com/itm/293635925639 Again, shipping will include signature confirmation and insurance via USPS Priority mail and will ship one business day after the payment is made.

Bump. Price lowered to $695 or best offer + $120 shipping. Again, Shipping will include signature confirmation and insurance via USPS Priority mail and will ship one business day after the payment is made.

Oh man, I'd love to sit down and have a beer with you.

No. Let's not be silly. This one is a declarative statement I assume meant to be unanswered, but I'll respond to it anyway. Yes it is.

There's also people who think the Earth is flat.

To simply say the words "film" and "digital" is sort of generalized is it not? I'm afraid as of late it is the format that matters wether Mr. Yedlin agrees or not. You are talking an image essentially stamped onto a piece of physical material through a chemical reaction with light, as opposed to a digital sensor stitching an image together through sequential scans, which by the way, vary based on camera model. I'm sure in the fairly distant future this will change and there will be a gold standard of production on digital cameras that will match the very essence of film, rendering motion picture film useless, but from the looks of the article, that's about a decade or so away since film emulation is just starting to become mainstream as of the past three years I'd say. So If you are talking future, talk future, but I'm afraid in present tense there is no debate. They are visually much different until you apply a grade to the digital photograph, which by the way requires a side-by-side image shot on film for comparison anyway. Otherwise we're talking in circles.