Joseph White

yeah have to chime in and agree - the Z1 has its place but in terms of side-by-side quality, Varicam is a proper HD camera - not HDV which, while nice in its own right, is still recording onto mini dv. if you're sure this is going to air, i'd shoot Varicam - put your best foot forward if you can afford it. best of luck!

don't know how helpful this will be, but it's an interesting read regardless if you haven't encountered it before. Its the online version of the American Cinematographer article on "The Aviator" - a movie that rather successfully emulated the Technicolor look: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/jan05/aviator/index.html Best of luck

have to agree - i've gotten good results with 5246, but 5205 is a pretty remarkable daylight balanced stock. shot in some really contrasty environments (bright daylight on a snowy mountain) and it held pretty much everything. truly gorgeous stock - definitely worth the extra cash.

some of the kodak master class series videos are really interesting - especially the black and white one with allen daviau and denis lenoir and the individual production oriented ones with dean semler (lighting dances with wolves) and john seale (lighting dead poets society). in terms of books, you can't go wrong with John Alton's "painting with light", or "cinematography" new third edition by kris malkiewicz and our own m. david mullen. also check out "new cinematographers" by alex ballinger - it has some fun stuff, including some lighting diagrams from such visionaries as harris savides, darius khondji, and lance acord. hope this helps!

Hi Rodrigo, I just wrote the director an email - as soon as I hear from them I'll let you know right away. Best, Joe

hey chuck! i actually just remembered i used sterno cans on a shot in a movie and found it was only useful in a zero-wind environment. if the air is still, you'll see the effect - have to get way close to the lens though. we had it up against a clairmont anamorphic prime (50mm i think) and it worked pretty well.

also Dean Semler directed a couple action duds like "firestorm" and andrzej bartowiak has made a bunch of higher-profile pics including the forthcoming "Doom" w/ the rock. and don't forget janusz kaminski's "lost souls" and christopher doyle's "away with words". or do. either way. and soderbergh has shot a bunch of his own movies, including traffic, solaris, ocean's 11, ocean's 12, and full frontal.

yeah i just watched a crappy version of this online and yeah, it don't look too great and yeah, its ridiculous. i think lachapelle has a lot of talent in a very limited milieu, but when he's off he's just ridiculous. if anyone is curious to see this weak piece of blah: http://www.hm.com/corporate/inspiration/ca...nd.jsp?clang=us i haven't seen it in any theatres in LA but i'm sure its coming. although H&M did apparently stop running it in canada because of peoples' complaints about the violence being used to sell jeans. yeah i'm really surprised to hear that khondji shot this - but i mean hey, a guy's gotta make a living...seems like most of the visual silliness came from lachapelle anyways - i'm not sure i can think of what khondji's true role in this could have been seeing as how lachapelle is a photographer more than anything and is known for a very specific look.

ive shot a bunch of cross-processed 5285 and i wouldn't say that the color is that unpredictable. it certainly will surprise you more than a roll of 5218, but for the most part if you have your exposure in the right place you have some wiggle room. especially if you're finishing to tape. and you'll certainly get less green in the skin tones with 5285 than with velvia. i wouldn't go with on-camera filtration. i'd say add a little minus green to your units, enough so that you can pump it up if necessary, or remove it. if you are doing day work without lights, i'd say maybe the slight warming filter could work. a lot of it also really depends on your actress' skin tone - i did a cross processed scene with 2 actors, the man a tanned caucasian guy and a fair-skinned caucasian woman, and the man looked perfectly fine while she went a little green. this was for a print finish, though, so i was limited in balancing them - as photochemical color correction on reversal is really really tricky and finicky. if edgy is what you're going for - might i suggest pushing some fuji negative a couple stops? i've heard people mistake a lot of christopher doyle's work with wong kar wai as being "cross processed" when actually he just pushes the hell out of medium speed fuji stocks for extra saturation, contrast, and grain - i've seen 250D pushed 2 stops on 35mm with really gorgeous results - maybe even try pushing the 64d - might give you a bold look with a lot less risk if the director is uncomfortable. and with 35mm, you can push fairly freely and not worry too much until you get PAST two stops - although i've pushed 7289 3 stops and then optically blown it up to 35mm for a film and it looked awesome - grains the size of your fist - but it was the right look. hope this helps - reversal is an awesome tool - hope you get to use it

Greetings Mr. Prieto! There's a music video someone i know directed that used something like what you are describing where lots of moving text and images were projected brightly - i know the video was shot on s16mm, so it's definitely bright enough to expose film. here's a link to the video: http://www.ryanrickett.com/reel/shewantsrevenge.htm if its what you are looking for, i can definitely get you in touch with them or find out what they used. Hope this helps!

i'd say the vast majority of videos airing on most, if not all, music video channels are shot on 35mm or at the very least super 16mm. this is not to say that you shouldn't go with HD - the f900 is a great camera capable of a variety of interesting looks. i shoot primarily videos for a living and even though i'm usually on low-to-medium budget stuff, we still shoot primarily 35mm or s16mm. in terms of the video in question, i'd say pick the format thats most appropriate. a lot of people have gotten good results with cheaper cameras on videos, i think a couple of the Beastie Boys videos off of their last record were shot on a dvx100a. so just pick the format that will give you the look you want, as opposed to what everyone else may or may not be doing. hope this is helpful - post more specifics about the concept and we can help you a lot more.

you aren't necessarily screwed - is it day or night interior? if its day, you can always blow out, although if production wanted to go through the trouble of having a backdrop of any kind, they might not want you to cook the windows. plus, you're shooting 7217 - which has a bit more latitude than the 7274 (discontinued for some reason...yet you can still get 5274 thankfully) so it'll be slightly tougher to blow it out. are you finishing on film or video? i'd be really careful if you're doing a photochemical finish, but if you are going to tape you can get away with maybe power windowing it out if you can't do it in the can. if its night, try and see if they'll let the outside just go dark or if you're going to light the drop, maybe do sometimg other than blue - like try creating a sodium or mercury vapor streetlight look on the drop. bottom line, you aren't necessarily screwed - just approach it as an oppurtunity to take a problem and create an interesting solution.

i've wondered myself if they'd ever go ahead and release another really high speed stock, but with 5218's ability to push a stop and look even better than if shot normally (i think) giving you at least 800 asa to 1000 asa, i can't imagine the immediate need for it (what with the 18's tremendous latitude). now lets get that 5201 rolling....

yeah i've been shooting a handful of low-budget commercials and music videos on an arri-3 with zeiss lenses and i have been really pleased with the results. when using the Super Speeds, sometimes i'll throw on a 1/8 Black Pro Mist to soften them up, or shoot on a less contrasty stock - like 5229. since you're shooting Eterna, you're already using a pretty creamy stock - it has a look somewhere inbetween 5218 and 5229 in my humble opinion - I'd say go with the Super Speeds. But don't be afraid of the Standard Speeds just because they're a little older, cheaper, and well, tiny - i just used them this past weekend on a video with older 5289 and the results were really nice - especially on the 85mm - i lit some high speed (72fps) close-ups to a t2.8/4 split and it looked gorgeous. don't get me wrong, I love s4's if they're right for the job - ive shot a bunch on them and think they're lovely, but if you can't always afford a 435xtreme and s4's, it doesn't mean that your work won't stand up. and remember - its all about the lighting anyways! best of luck!

yeah a lot of this has to do with the specific look of the film. there are a lot of films shot on 16mm that, through a DI and shooting with longer lenses and slower stocks, can look fantastic as 35mm prints. some films look great with the optical blowup process as the optical step provides a look thats appropriate for the film. there isn't much of a point to do a non-photochemical finish (telecine to HD off of cut negative for a film-out) in terms of color if you aren't doing a DI or tons of effects. if you are going to just telecine in this manner i'd also say you shouldn't cut your negative.

just wanted to drop a note saying i just got back from telecine for the Fishbone video in question - where i shot 5289 - and everything came out great. really nice contrast even with the slight overexposure - which helped with the grain a bit (did end up rating at 640 asa) - and the color really did resemble 5279 quite a bit, which i love. thanks to all for the helpful advice!

sounds like an interesting shot - mr. koukas is right in asking what stock you're shooting as this all would depend on such a decision. i'd reccomend maybe shooting 5218 or 5229 as they will handle the underexposure you're talking about well. also - what are you thinking in terms of your going "up and down" on your HMI? you obviously can't dim them - are you thinking of just panning the unit on and off the subject or perhaps opening up on a flag or using louvres? if you want a dim up dim down effect it might behoove you to use all tungsten units and just use a 10k with a dimmer w/ full blue on it as your moonlight - eats more power, and remember your color temperature changes when you dim - but it might be a neat effect. i like amber or straw gels for a magic hour effect, but its all a matter of personal preference. sounds awesome though - happy shooting!

id still go with a flicker-free hmi as it'll take up less power than a studio 10k and you can always add a little cto/cts, whatever you like and still get more punch for your buck. if you want things to go warm in timing, i'd shoot your chart as normal so that things will pop warm when you strike those units. a little 1/4 cto or cts on a 4k or 6k HMI will give you a great look - remember, you can always drop a single or double in a bigger hmi. also remember that if you are shooting 7205 you have tons of vision2 latitude so it'll be a little harder getting the windows to completely blow out - especially if you're trying to do it in-camera with hopes of a future print release - have you considered maybe using 7246? it has less latitude and responds really well to mixed lighting overall - and its a bit cheaper. happy shooting!

yeah i'd definitely say just got with rating '05 at 250asa - ive shot it in bright sun in snowy climate and as day interior on a cloudy day with only a couple of 1,200w hmis coming in through the windows with a little hampshire frost and it always looked pretty great. and since you're shooting in a forrest, you'll probably need the full 250asa to get your stop. the '18 with an 85 looks fine, but with 16mm i'd generally say use the slowest stock you can and don't go wider than 25mm-ish. best of luck tho

also, i just saw dailies from a super 16mm commercial spec shoot and we pushed 7217 one stop and rated normally (400asa) and decided to go a little harder with backlight and rims in general and the results were gorgeous. i pretty much attribute it to the vision2 system as '74 never looked this good pushed.

whats even cooler is that Joe Dunton (with a very famous closet full of interesting lenses) has stated on their website that they'll begin renting out Kubrick's zeiss .7 lenses as a special consideration for special projects. could lead to some awesome looking stuff..wish i was in the UK....:(

Joe Dunton rents really nice anamorphic lenses out of North Carolina and the UK. You can find their site at www.joedunton.com I'd also contact Clairmont as they can definitely ship you glass. They have a pretty decent asortment of anamorphic zooms and primes at an array of rates - from their inexpensive Clairmont Anamorphics to the newer Hawk Anamorphic lenses (personal favorite). you can check them out at www.clairmont.com. i've had clairmont ship me cameras and lenses all over the place, including madison, wisconsin in the dead of winter and everything performed beautifully. since its a commercial, not finishing on film, have you considered shooting Super 35mm? if you're going for 2.35:1 you can get it with Super and you'll have a lot of low-cost choices. and since you're shooting aaton you can shoot 3-perf and save yourself a lot of film. but if you want the qualities of anamorphic glass, then obviously shoot anamorphic, but if you're just looking to shoot widescreen, this might be a good option.

i think one of the main tricks with the whole reel process is to be adaptable to different types of projects. it might be a good idea if you have a decent computer is to learn programs like dvd studio pro so that you can adapt your raw media to projects you're applying for. i've often found that less is more in terms of presentation - don't go crazy with lavish menus and whatnot as people generally just want to easily navigate through your stuff. but i've found that, for instance, when applying for a horror film, i can throw together a quick 2-3 minute piece consisting of darker material custom for that gig. this is not to say that all reels need to literally emulate what you think the job wants - who knows your romantic lighting might get you a great slasher flick - but the ability to make reels in an almost custom manner can help you a great deal. and music is a great thing to have as well. something without vocals is generally a good idea as well, as you don't want anything distracting the viewer from your images.

just saying that the combination of the fine grain stock and high quality lenses gave us a look comparable to 35mm on super 16mm. basically reiterating what most have been stating - about exposure, lens quality and fine grain stock. cooke also now makes wide angle s4's for super 16mm which are supposed to look fantastic too.

http://www.arri.com/entry/products.htm check it out - i think its a wonderful camera - not as fast as the 435x, but still a heck of a camera. you can check out all of their specs here. happy shooting!