Alex Corn

Heard about this a few days ago: http://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/red-epic-dragon-arri-alexa-sony-f55-f65-panavision-70mm-camera/

I'll try him, thanks much.

Hi, This may not be the best place to ask this question, but Sony is being it's vague old self and I figured would at least try here. Can the SRW5800 be upgraded to either the /1 or /2 version with simple board swaps/software upgrades or is it such significant work that a whole new deck is required? Thanks.

So I just got the tests back today, and the results are interesting. First I shot the 7222 and 7231 overexposed about 2/3 a stop so I could bring down the levels and therefore the grain in transfer, and that worked well. The '31 looked great, a little contrasy, but good for what I want to achieve on this project. The 7222 is just too grainy for what I want, which is dissapointing. The second round had me shooting the '22 and '31 again, but underexposing a stop and pushing a stop in the lab. These were both too grainy to use, which is what I figured, but it was worth a shot. The final round was 7217 overexposed 2/3 a stop, and this was amazing. The grain was almost non-existant, I was very impressed. For 16mm, it looked great. So the choice now is whether the extra cost if the '17 will outweigh the need for extra lights with the '31. Decisions decisions....

Thanks for the reply. I'm shooting test with the '31 and '22 this saturday, but my lighting package is not that big and I really dont want to make my life too difficult, so I was considering throwing some color neg into the mix. I probably will at this point. Is there any truth to the notion that color neg is less sharp than B+W neg, all else being equal?

Hi, I am shooting a feature in about a month and a half, and I have a question about shooting black and white. We are going for a clean look with very little grain. My question is this: how is the grain structure of 7222 (200T/250D) compared to 7217 (200T)? Is there a huge difference? I only ask becuase I have heard that color negative is less sharp becuase when developed all that remains are the dye couplers, where as with straight black and white negative the halide crystals themselves remain. I am assuming that the newer 7217, being vision2, has a better (read: finer) grain structure than the older double-x, but I could be mistaken. Is there a big difference, or should I just stick with shooting the B+W? Thanks, Alex

Thanks for the reply. I'm probably not doing much racking, and this will be very low-con, so I'll probably just stick with the stock glass. As far as the 720 out, what format would you have to record to? HDCAM? Thanks again.

Hi, I will be shooting a comedy short soon and it looks like I will be using the JVC-HD100U. I am pretty pleased with most of the footage I have seen from this camera, but I have a few questions. First, I understand that you can output directly to an external hard drive and bypass the tape function, but does this bypas the HDV compression that occurs when recording to tape? Does this external drive have to be JVC's own, or can it be any external drive? My second question is about the stock lens. This is a relatively low budget comedy short, so I do not need top-of-the-line optics, but is the stock lens good enough? Is it worth renting some better lenses, or will it be fine for my needs? Thanks very much, -Alex

Thank you all for your opinions, they will be of great help in making the final decisions about what to shoot. For right now, it looks like the idea of shooting 3-perf and cropping down might be the way to go, but only time will tell...

I am about to shoot a feature, on 35mm, and the director wants 2.40:1 as the final aspect ratio. We will go to HDCAM-SR as our final format; we are not really planning on a film out. I am wondering, as a DP, who has shot on film and transferred to HD. What is the best option? I think that 2-perf with a good transfer (I'm looking at Post-Works in NYC) is the way to go, but the director wants to shoot HD (he is thinking Varicam or an F900), as he has heard many good things about the "panavised" F900. To me, going 2-perf and getting both the fine grain and sharpness of a good film stock (I'm thinking 5201, it is mostly exterior and interiors with HUGE windows) and the advantages of the great latitude of film means that i can expose well (a little over-exposed actually) which will make my life easier in the transfer stage. Has anyone had horror stories, or bettter yet phenomally great stories about 2-perf that I could perhaps learn from? To me it seems like it would be the same as exposing any other film stock, but I could be wrong. Also, we are on a slightly tight budget, but not very tight. We can afford 35mm in any format (save for Anamorphic). I just like the idea of shooting in a format that truly suits our needs and costs half as much as the full frame 35mm. Please give me an argument for this director I haven't aready thought of. I know in the end it's his choice, but I think I can convince him that HD is not the way to gp. Also, what cameras support 2-perf? I'm assuming that both Panavision and Arri have cameras that will do it, but which does it best (please don't say the 235 or 435, though I work with them all the time). . BTW, I am pushing for film as opposed to HD because I want more control in the semi-DI (HDCAM-SR) process, as opposed to originating in digital and having the problems of a tape to tape transfer, which i have had to go through many times before, and do not like, for various reasons.

Hi, I am gaffing a shoot this weekend and we are going to be using lightning strikes units to simulate, surprise surprise, lightning. Anyway, this will be the first time I use this unit, and I was wondering if anyone had any tips, precautions, horror stories, etc etc that may help me become better prepared. Thanks. Note: The specific unit we will be using is 65kw.

That is extremely helpful, thank you.

I've been hearing a lot about super-35 lately and I'm slightly confused as to what it is. As far as I can tell, it's 3-perf with the optical track being used for more image area, and it creates a native 1.85 aspect ratio. Is this correct? Are the advantages to this format just economical? What disadvantages are there? I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, I did a search on the forums and only came up with the topic when it came up in other conversations. Thanks very much.

Hi, I recently came across an old Richter R2 Collimator. It's old and hasn't been used in a long time. I'm just wondering if a collimator can be off, and if so how to calibrate it. I just don't want to start using it unless I know it is accurate. Thanks.

So what you're saying is that by putting a +1 on a lens that its infinity mark would now focus at one meter? And by putting a +2 on a lens its infinity mark focuses at 1/2 meter? Just trying to get it through my head. Thanks.