Joe Sexton

I don't really see the problem with that. The Duke played one character his whole life. Jimmy Stewart was basically versions of himself.

 

Certain personalities like theirs just work on film sometimes.

Jack Nicholson has three academy awards for playing Jack Nicholson.

I had a chance to see this movie a few days ago. I was impressed with overall look. I just wanted to say congratulations on a job well done.

Why not try an anamorphic adaptor designed for shooting 16:9 on a 4:3 camera, this will give a 1.33 squeeze resulting in a ratio very close to 1:2.35. (1.33 x 1.66 = 2.20 or 1.33 x 1.78 = 2.35). I think there is a thread about this on one of the forums here...

I tried this with a panasonic adapter made for the DVX. It worked with wide lenses but not long ones. I was successful with up to my 28mm lens. But when I tried it with a 50mm lens I ended up with some weird color separation. I included a photo below of the result with the 28mm lens. Sorry the image is so dark it was supposed to be a dark scene. I can see if I still have any footage with the 50mm lens if you want to see what problems I had. To answer your question I wouldn't recommend it.

I shot a plasma a while back, I didn't have any problems with flicker or syncing. The camera I used did have a 144 degree shutter though.

I could be mistaken but I believe they used rear projection in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The scene where Indi and Henry are in the car being chased by an airplane, and they go into a tunnel and the plane follows them. When the plane goes by them and the pilot looks back. I remember hearing that they used rear projection.

I know it doesn't mean much but the IMDB is reporting the cinematic process as anamorphic.

I seem to recall that if you looked at book rates for new stock, you're paying for real estate, so 4-perf 35mm is 4X the cost of Super-16 (being twice as wide and twice as tall), so 2-perf should be 2X the cost of Super-16 in terms of stock.

Last time I purchased film stock, The price per foot was the same for either 35mm or 16mm. But this wasn't new stock. I was buying short ends.

Yes, it does, unlike the other Sony HDV cameras (it doesn't use the "CineFrame" process to create a fake 24P look in 60i).

 

But it records true 24P capture to 60i/1080 with a standard 3:2 pulldown.

I stand corrected, Actually I had my cameras confused. I haven't used the V1U just the Z1U. Thanks for pointing that out David.

It's really a matter of opinion. If it were me I would choose the HVX any day. First off, the V1U doesn't have true 24p like the HVX. I personally thing that the HVX has better color reproduction and better gamma curves then the V1U. As far as in low light, the HVX is a bit noisy. I just came off a shoot using a V1U with and SG-Pro 35mm adapter. I really don't like the way motion looks with the 24f function, and the colors were, well videoish. I thing that the look of the HVX, while still video, is a lot warmer. If you're going to be renting rather then buying I would see if the renal house will let you perform some test with each camera first, maybe that way you decide which will be better for you.

This kind of stuff is what makes me want to stay off this board. PJ had placed an order(s) for RED cameras last year. Peter invited us down to shoot test footage so he could be included in development and on the workflow. Peter volunteered to shoot this movie. We had no idea what type of test footage he would shoot when we showed up in NZ. And he has since upped his order for cameras. You can try to paint this some other way, but you would be wrong.

 

Jim

Jim, don't get discouraged or feel like your being run off because of a few cynics. I and I'm sure most of us on this forum appreciate your input. This is a forum to discuss cinematography, its techniques, and tools. It would be completely ignorant of us to dismiss any tool. The first hand knowledge you offer has been a valuable resource.

Why is everyone so passionate one way or another over this camera. As I see it, Red is just another tool that can be considered when planning a project. Yes, film has a number of aesthetic advantages over video, but video or in this case 4K have a number of economic advantages. From a producers stand point, maybe your working on a really tight budget, consider that by alleviating the cost of film stock and possessing you may have more to spend on production design, costumes, postproduction, or what ever. I know this is the wrong place to say this but, the cinematic process is only part of the film not the entire film. My point is, what ever tool allows you to make the best possible movie with the time and money allowed is the better format. If you have the budget and time to shoot film do so, but it?s nice to know that we also have another acceptable choice if needed.

Choreograph the hell out of it. Make sure that both actors know every punch and move that they are supposed to make. I can't stress this enough. From a directing stand point, make sure they throw realistic looking punches. I find that most actors slow down their punches and kicks so they don't hurt anyone, but this always makes the fight look really terrible. Shoot the fight from two opposing angles, and if the budget allows, get as many close ups as possible. Coverage can make or break you fight sequence. You can hide a lot of bad moves with a new angle or a close up.

i tink spel cheker whood be grate!

It would take a huge investment in developing new equipment to make this actually work. I don't think it would ever get off the ground because there is already a good system for printing digital to film, the Arri laser. Also as more movies are shot digital I think that we will start to see more theaters offer digital projection, and then there wont be as much need to make film prints of digitally acquired media. But I could be wrong.

[Either way, everyone has to begin somewhere -- maybe the DP and crew were incredibly inexperienced so this short was the beginning of their education process.

The problem is, this wasn't a short it was 97 minutes.

I was at the premier of a film last night, that was shot on super 16. I must say the look of this movie was terrible. I am somewhat familiar with the production because a friend of mine was the lead actor. I came down one day while they were shooting to help out and was an extra. At the time I just shook my head at some of the things they were doing. So last night I watched this movie and thought to myself, it may have looked better had it been shot on video so that the DP could see how bad the it looked. The lighting was terrible, half of the film had a soft focus, and the colors looked very washed out and unnatural. (Probably from trying to correct the mixed lighting) I have come across a lot of movies like this one lately. I posted this because I really just wanted to vent but also thought I see what everybody else thought, and give everyone an chance to vent about some movie that you have seen that was bad too.

I think this would be ideal for many low budget productions. Do you know what kind of work flow would be involved? Is a D.I. possible with 2 perf? I am very interested in this because right now I'm basically limited to s16 with budget I'm working with.

Depends what your final output will be. I usually transfer to mini dv and simply edit away, but there are a number of different, better, and more costly options.

I assume that you are talking about field of view, and if so a 50mm slr lens, on a super 35mm camera, would have about the same field of view as a 90mm lens on a slr camera. If you want exact conversions there is a field of view converter on panavisions web site.

Car mount would work. I did a similar shot a few years ago with two people driving a golf cart. I put the camera on a tripod in the back of a mini van with the rear door open. This worked surprisingly well, and if you have access to a van that would work, I think it would be a lot cheaper too.

Thanks for the Ideas. I have a week of so before I have to shoot this shot so I will probably set this thing up in my kitchen and do some tests before hand. I will have a bit of a budget to work with so I can probably get some silks and or a few flos.

I have a shot that involves two actors sitting at a table with a large chrome finished oxygen tank. Does anybody have a ideas as to how I could light this shot without seeing the reflection of the lights and the camera in the tank?

I shot a plasma before and it looked fine, but I had a 144 degree shutter.

Lenses. Cheep lenses = soft pictures. I have never found the film to have much effect on sharpness. I have noticed that cheep film seems to have poor color reproduction and are a little more contrasty, but as far as sharpness, a properly exposed film should be sharp regardless of the brand. Technically speaking you should be able to get a sharper picture with still film then motion picture film. In fact Seattle Film Works used to package motion picture film to be used in still cameras and the pictures never looked as good a consumer grade Kodak print film.

I believe he had his film telecined with time code and used a couple VCR's to edit it. I think he provided the distributor with an EDL and they actually cut the film. I could be wrong about this but that's what I heard.