bouncybabybucket

Well thats a relief!! What I meant was a cinematographer is the artist who controls the image; makes sure the lighting, colour etc is correct in the shot.

This may sound stupid, but I work in television and I'm a tiny bit alarmed with the way things are going. Do any of you guys believe that with the introduction of HD video production for feature films and big budget television that crews will begin to get smaller and smaller? For instance I know now that some television companies (when covering news stories) now send only a reporter with a small camera ( eg PD170 ) and a tripod. Gone are the days when every news journalist had a camera and sound person. Things have to become more cost effective. However I'm concerned that things may eventually go this way with feature film production. If a feature is being shot on HD and the studio doesn't have to worry about the cost of film stock, then is it possible they'll just hire a director and not a cinematographer? I think this would be a travesty of course, but I could see it happening.

I have to record an interview soon for eventual use on tv. Now, I have an excellent old studio camera and a very modern, cheap mini-DV camera. If I use the studio camera to shoot the interview and the mini DV camera as the recording deck (linked to the studio camera), will I lose the extra resolution of the pro studio camera by recording onto mini DV? and therefore make it pointless?

Hmmmmm..... The TV station I work for captures everything from BNC output off DVCAM. I was under the impression that Firewire was best, because it was digital to digital. Although, taking compression into consideration, which will give the best resolution??

Hi guys I am about to shoot a programme for television. I want the best quality to film the interviews and studio links. I have a fair understanding of lights and composition etc. So my question is this.... I will be filming in various surroundings from outside daylight to dim interiors and I have these cameras available to me: Canon XL1, Sony PD150 and a Sony Beta Sp camera. Which will give the best quality? I haven't actually got them at the minute or I would simply test them! So can anyone advise me which to go for?

Hi guys I am about to shoot a programme for television. I want the best quality to film the interviews and studio links. I have a fair understanding of lights and composition etc. So my question is this.... I will be filming in various surroundings from outside daylight to dim interiors and I have these cameras available to me: Canon XL1, Sony PD150 and a Sony Beta Sp camera. Which will give the best quality? I haven't actually got them at the minute or I would simply test them! So can anyone advise me which to go for?

Hi guys I am about to shoot a programme for television. I want the best quality to film the interviews and studio links. I have a fair understanding of lights and composition etc. So my question is this.... I will be filming in various surroundings from outside daylight to dim interiors and I have these cameras available to me: Canon XL1, Sony PD150 and a Sony Beta Sp camera. Which will give the best quality? I haven't actually got them at the minute or I would simply test them! So can anyone advise me which to go for?

Kubrick did over-assist his cinematographers though. I think Robert Altman was excellent and was trusted by Kubrick to do his job. I can't find fault with the majority of Kubricks work. You either like it or hate it, it's down to personal taste - though you can be sure of one thing, nothing on his films happened by accident or luck. Each movie was his own vision, they were exactly what he wanted them to be, except Spartacus of course!

On the Sony PD150, which I think is the best Dv camera out there, what is up with the Progressive Scan mode? I usually favour de-interlacing the footage afterwards anyway, but am I using it wrong or something. It is incredibly jerky, and any light source in the frame is completely messed up. I thought it was only under flouresant lights that it messed up but its anything. I've heard people buy the Canon Xl1 just for it's 'movie mode', is it as bad as the Sony? Am I doing something wrong? It's the PAL camera.

I have both tape decks and have used both extensively. I cann't see a real difference between the quality of the image. The only difference I have found is the Beta SP is far,far more reliable (in terms of drop out) than the miniDV. I need to get some film telecined and as you appreciate it isn't exactly cheap - that's why I ask.

Perhaps this has been covered before, but is MiniDV or Beta SP the best format for a telecine from Super 8 colour negative? It's a night shoot, so there'll be lots of areas of blackness. How does the resolution of the two compare? I have both players to capture from digitally and I know the Beta SP tapes are sooo much more reliable. But which is best for sheer picture quality?

Also, in Volume II, the scene in China - where the picture is extremely grainy... a friend of mine is convinced this is Super 8 blown up, in order to achieve the 70's look. I'm not so sure it looks to me like digital grading, anyone know?

So is isn't really possible to make a house interior at night with only practicals then?

i wasn't lucky enough to catch Eyes Wide Shut in the cinema, but it never struck me as having a heavy grain in it's DVD transfer.

Yeah!!! That's fantastic!! Kodak is my new best friend. John, can you advise me where I can buy Kodak Vision2 500T from? I live in Northern Ireland, it's very difficult to get Super 8 films here. The only place I can buy them is through the camera store Jessops. Any help would be muchly appreciated.