freddie bonfanti

very accurate lighting diagrams and good shots!!! thanks for sharing all the info

david i thought the trailer looked good, it seems that the choice of lighting from the outside in the moonlight interiors works really well with the subject matter of the film. its really moody. i particularly liked the silhouete tracking shot. uk release?

sorry, its a long page and i forgot to mention that the part about the lenses is in the middle...i just past it here, there is not much to read anyway "Cineovision 2.35 (Japanese) Anamorphic prime lenses. No longer manufactured. PL mount. Excellent quality. In the last 10 years, I have seen one set sold used. The buyer bought them for the glass and had the mechanic's and barreling reworked. The new prices are... 24mm T 1.4, $ 32,000. 32mm T 1.4, $ 25,000. 40mm T 1.4, $ 25,000. 50mm T 1.4, $ 25,000. 100mm T 2.6, $ 25,000."

funny you said that, a japanese dop i worked with two days ago told me about them...i did a google and i found this. apparently theyre not longer being manufactured http://www.cineused.com/Anamorphic1.htm hope it helps

thanks all coming from a still photography background always makes me wonder if i could do the same tricks in cinematography...a great technique i do for stills is TONING BW PRINTS with sepia, copper or blue color. i insert them into a bleach bath to make the bleach wash the whole image and then i transfer them into water and finally i slide them into a tray of toner solution until i get the look i want. the images look great, especially with the sepia toner. you get a rather melancholy look. would it be too complicated in cinematography?

thanks for the accurate and helpful replies, now things are much clearer

hi what is the best and most accurate technique to choose how much film is needed? is there a ratio or formula conventionally used for this?

china balls, i cant get enough of them...amazing on close ups and very cheap...

what other manipulation can be done on bw negative then?

hi which bw films were bleach bypassed or manipulated during the processing? i remember "la haine" but im sure theres plenty more cheers freddie

hi, metering a grey card was my safest option, the sekonic l 558 has a spotmeter function so i made measurements with both spotmeters. the camera´s one was 2 stops over. the i took an incidental reading in a room and i took another reading with the camera and still, 2 stops over. id rather rely on the sekonic as i always use it

woah, im still in a shock state... if i had any slight doubts about anamorphic they have been erased by watching miranda´s long format advert ALPINE on his website (http://www.claudiomiranda.com/longform.html) now i understand...and it looks absolutley stunning...

interesting, thanks max. at the beginning of the second clip you can notice the breathing as david was saying. by the way i love miranda´s work, i used the heineken commercial´s top ally shot as a reference for my last short

yes, and i also forgot to say that the sekonic is working fine as it was tested not long ago.

hi all im testing my new 814xl´s internal meter with a sekonic 558. i noticed a few stops of difference and i was wondering why...i think that the problem is that i set my meter at 64 when probably the camera´s one is preset to a different ISO number. but then i dont understand why the camera suggests to shoot at 5.6 and the sekonic incidental reading at 2.0, i mean i doubt the camera is preset at a higher ISO number... is the meter faulty?

ive got a question now.... when you choose to shoot anamorphic instead of super 35, you do it because you can afford it and because anamorphic is fancier and a great cinematography tool or for other reasons? a part from the effects that david posted what is the other big difference (in the way it looks) with super 35? thanks

thanks a lot, mate it does help but in case someone finds the xl one please attach the link cheers

hi all ive done some research in the archives but i could find it, does anyone know where can i find it? thanks

If I'm shooting with cineframe 25 should I still use a 1/4 soft F/X to enhance the look - I'm down with the focusing problems that occur with filters - I've shot alot with them and always get my assistant to shout "focus" to me before we go for a take when using a filter - it works.[/i] yes, filters can do magic in video so go for it

hi there there is a HUGE amount posts like yours in the archive just look it up. anyway IN MY OPINION it all depends on the script and on your editing budget and time. answering your questions First of all I'm shooting on PAL and as far as I can I should be shooting at 1080i / 50i and then downconvert to 25p in post...is this correct ? and what shutter speed would I set this to? YES if thats what you want to go for. shooting at that rate will give you a clean and very videoish look which then you can downconvert in post. the standard shutter speed will be at 50. go for this choiche if you have an editor who knows what he is doing and enough editing time OR does PAL cineframe 25 produce a good look? and would I still be shooting at 1080 with that?? i used cineframe 25 all the times i shot with the camera and im always happy about the look, i am always keen to get everything in camera and its a good way to save time in post. yes it would still be 1080. OR Can I shoot at 25p with 1/50th shutter? What would this look like? YOU CANT shoot cineframe 25 with a 50 shutter. the shutter is locked on 25 with cineframe. remember though, you are never shooting at 25 p, the camera does not shoot progressive. Thanks - totally confused & no time to experiment or test. i would reccommend you to get your hands on the camera and start getting used to it before the shoot. its a nightmare to start shooting on a camera you dont know! if you cant, look up the camera´s manual and learn it. here it is http://www.digihire.com.au/manuals/#Cameras, look for the Z1P forgot to ask - usuallly when I shoot on DV I will use a filter to soften the video look, I've used either a 1/4 soft F/X, a 1/4 warm black pro-mist or a 1/4 black promist. Do you recommend doing that with HDV or does it really look great without it - I'd rather avoid filters if I can and get a well exposed clean image - but if it will make it look incredible then I'll go for it - what would you guys do? Use a filter or not? filters that dont have a pattern like nets will do the job, always be careful with the focus though, the closer to the lens the more you will start noticing the filter. good luck

exactly....kick ass lenses and adaptor. they wouldnve made it with just a random xl1

mmmh might be ifilm low res but i couldnt really tell it was skip bleached...maybe im wrong...

again, this neverending topic.... in stills photography maybe digital will overcome but not in the movies. it will depend purely on the project and on the look of the film. believe me i can picture a cinematographer in 2078 choosing to shoot on film for a feature about frank sinatra and another one opting for digital for a sci fi with aliens in it its all in the story