Jump to content

Alex Corn

Basic Member
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alex Corn

  1. Heard about this a few days ago: http://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/red-epic-dragon-arri-alexa-sony-f55-f65-panavision-70mm-camera/
  2. I'll try him, thanks much.
  3. Alex Corn

    SRW5800 Upgrade

    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.
  4. Alex Corn

    About B+W

    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....
  5. Alex Corn

    About B+W

    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?
  6. Alex Corn

    About B+W

    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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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...
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Alex Corn

    Super-35

    That is extremely helpful, thank you.
  13. Alex Corn

    Super-35

    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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. What is the exact effect of the various grades of these types of filters? When it says +1, that halves the distance of close focus? For instance, if the lens close focuses at 3'6", will it now close focus at 1'8"? What would +3 do?
  17. Hi, I was browsing through the various filters where I work and came across a Tiffen Photar +1 filter. I am assuming that it is similiar to proxar or close up filters? I popped it on one of my cameras and it did adjust the close focus to what a proxar would do at the same distance, but I just wanted some more clarification or to see if there is some other purpose along with that of the close focus adjustment. I looked on the tiffen site, to no avail, and a google search yielded only ebay auctions. Thanks guys.
  18. What is the effective latitude?
  19. I was just wondering if anyone could fill me in on the differences between this stock and "regular" kodak stocks in more detail than the kodak site offers. Why can't it be printed? What makes it so good for telecine? Does it have the same latitude as the other kodak stuff? Any info would be appreciated.
  20. Okay, So i have all the neccesary tools for measuring the FFD (They were well hidden by the last tech) and have found that a lot of my cameras are fine. But some are off by one or two hundreths of a millimeter. My question now is, what is an acceptable tolerance? I've read in one place that one hunredth of a millimeter (10 micron) is the nominal tolerance for older arris (which i assume includes the S/SB), and about five thousandths (5 micron) for newer Arris (which i assume includes the SR/2/3). Is that about right? Thanks again, you've both ben a big help.
  21. You guys are awesome, these are the exact answers I was looking for. First, Tim, i too dissassamble the entire thing and lubricate with arri grease, but after that how does one adjust the FFD? At this point i just reassemble. Then, where does one get this piece of metal that simulates the film, becuase this could definitely account for why my depth gauge readings are so off. I have been told that the tolerances of the S's are about 5 microns, and if thats right than my cameras are waaaaayy off. The help so far is great, thanks again. "Do you mean manipulating the diopter or calibrating the ground glass ?" Calibrating the ground glass. This is something I do when all the lenses on a camera are off for no apparent reason. I take a lens from my tech in LA that has recently been calibrated and adjust the ground glass until sharp.
  22. Okay...Just to clarify, the ground glass in an Arri-S is at the end of the viewfinder, and as far the door goes, except on earlier models, the internal glass can be removed and exchanged, therefore enabling one to switch doors or viewfinders. Here is where my confusion arises: I understand how the mirrored shutter works, how the image I see through the viewfinder is not the image occuring at the gate and therefore is not the one going onto my film. But in the construction of the S, the prism that goes to the viewfinder and the gate are at 90 degrees to one another and on the same piece of metal, and they are completely symmetrically contsructed, so when an image is coming from the back of the lens, the flange depth (this length) is equivalent to the distance to the prism. Therefore, I assume (and this is the key word) that if the image that is on the prism is in focus in accordance with the barrel of the lens and real life, since that distance is equal to the flange depth, that the image on the gate will also be in focus at that mark, becuase I have focused the internal glass of the viewfinder onto an image being projected onto a prism from the mirror which in turn comes from the back of the lens which is the distance of the flange depth (the distance from the back of the lens to the gate). Here is where logic seems to fail me. The nominal flange depth of an Arri-S is 52mm. None of my 158 cameras have this flange depth. I cannot figure out how a lens could focus at the correct mark on the barrel, and still be in focus at the gate when the flange depth is off. But, I can manipulate the internal glass of the viewfinder so that my eye sees a sharp image at the correct mark. This could only occur, logically, if I was resolving an image appearing on the mirror out of focus. This is what I am asking, is that possible, or are my images going to gate ok. Sorry for being a pain in the ass, but I just cant get it into my head that I would be seeing an image that is out of focus being made into focus by a sceond lens. Thanks again.
  23. "The ground glass has to be adjusted so that it is virtually at the same distance from the lens as the gate is, so that you see what you will get on film." So in the case of the Arri-S/SB, where the ground glass is at a much longer distance from the lens than the gate, what point would need to be the equivalent distance? The prism? If so, they are attached to the same unit, and cannot be adjusted independently of each other. Therefore, if I can resolve an image at the prism in accordance with the barrel markings of my recently calibrated lens, can it be assumed that, since the distances are inherently the same, that the image is being resolved at the gate as well? In my head, the way I see it is this: If I were focusing at a screen that had a projection on it, and the porjection itself was out of focus, I could not adjust the lens to a point where I will resolve the image on the screen. This is kind of the same situation with the S. I feel like if I can resolve the image at all in the viewfinder, than it would have to be in focus at the gate, becuase the prism I am adjusting to is equidistant to the flange depth. Maybe my thinking is all wrong, though, and thats kind of what i'm trying to figure out. Thanks for the help in any case, as usual you guys are on top of it.
  24. OK, here goes. If the flange depth on a camera is off, will the viewfinder ever be able to resolve an image? For instance, say I test a lens and it is sharp at a distance marked on the barrel different than the actual distance. If i adjust the ground glass length, and it appears in focus in coincidence with the markings on the barrel and in real life, is it safe to assume that it will be in focus at the gate? I guess i'm wondering that if the flange depth is off, than the image will not be resolved at the gate in accordance with the barrel markings, and so I dont think you could adjust the groundglass distance and resolve an image that is soft at the gate. I feel like this is worded poorly, but hopefully someone can help with this little dilemna. Thanks.
  25. As always, you are a wealth of info David, thanks. The classic soft is definitely the filter I was wondering about, I love the glow it produces, especially the way Kaminski uses it. Thanks again.
×
×
  • Create New...