Michael Collier

I shot some 7274 (200t, color)a few weeks ago, that was likewise about 3 years old (freezer stored) and didn't encounter any problems at all. Especially if your going to telecine this film, you have lots of room to correct small drifts in contrast and density. I would overexpose normaly (a stop or less). Being black and white you shouldn't have much problems with it. Either way, its his film and his wedding, so shrug and enjoy the free film! (by the way, you say 7278 is 200t, but I think its 160t, 200d B/W reversal...unless you meant 7274 which is 200t color)

Well, I think you answered one of your questions, 40watts is consumed to run those at full brightness. How many amps depends on the voltage, but its probably driven off 12v, so you can do the math. maybe 4 amps? it might be driven off more or less, so check the transformer if it has and external, or the power rating tab on the back. it will list voltage and wattage used. In comparison to HMIs or Kinos, I would say they are closer to Kinos in terms of quality. I am guessing your looking at the panel type LEDs, so they have a soft light output, since its spread over the surface of the light face. You can roughly estimate output by comparing it to a floro or HMI of the same wattage (they are all rougly as effecient, LEDs being slightly less so than HMI, though good luck finding a 40w HMI) I am not sure what brand your talking about, however, but it confuses me why it has such a range in operating frequency. Unless its frequency modulation as apposed to pulse width modulation (or they count the frequency as just twice the on time, not the combination of on and off time) but it should be useful in just about any frame rate. The higher the frame rate, the less you will want to dim though, if you cannot test it. You will never get the phase shift that floros get when using high frame rates or short shutters, LEDs turn on and off in mere nano-seconds, and do not have a pronounced color swing when turning on (also why it has such a low frequency range confuses me, I'd imagine it would be around 1Khz PWM...but I am no expert).

What I find amazing is that I read theres a machine in London that actualy tests the posibility of a seizure being triggered. The article said they ran the spot through the machine and it failed. Does every bit of video displayed in london have to be passed through a 'epilepsy tester'? Only the Brits would come up with a machine like that. We beta test everything on the populous. If seizures are possible, we'll find out...eventually.

I'm going to respectfuly disagree with troy. It may be true that all things being equal a one chip may suffice, but lets not kid ourselves. A one chip will almost always be far cheaper than a 3 chip, just by price point comparison. One chips are designed to be quick, dirty and cheap. Cheap chip, cheap DSP, cheap lens, Cheap recording section. Most 3chips attempt to produce a usable video signal. Better lens, better chips, better DSP, better lens. The only exception I would put on this is perhaps the new HDV cameras that have only one HD CMOS chip, but if we are talking about a prosumer 3chip v 1chip sub-prosumer, the choice is obvious. The simple rule: choose the camera that looks sharpest and least contrasty in color. If its low contrast, it probably has a good dynamic range (or a knee adjustment to fake it), and if its sharp in color, it will be sharp in black and white. Make selection based gut reaction to the cameras capabilities and you'll be set. making a selection on numbers and feature charts is terrible way to choose any camera for any end.

Looks great olex! we will be anouncing our K3 intervelometer soon, I just gotta work out a few bugs in the software.

Check out the book 'reel to deal' by dov s. simens. Good book, and will probably give you a great starting point for further research. I got it on amazon for around 10 bucks including shipping (to usa) so you can get it cheap. Its 400 pages, but I found it so interesting and insightful I breazed through it in a night.

I think this question has been asked elsewhere, so I will reiterate what I said there: You can expect student discounts for services like processing, edit time (maybe on off hours), rentals and sometimes certain limited items, like software. You should not expect student discount on things like cameras, lights, grip equipment, consumables, etc for purchase. There is no reason for them to do that. As far as the H1, I think your their target demographic, so they won't be giving you a discount on that. As for as who sells to students, they all do! they are ready to take your 20% margin. Plus they don't really profit (much) on those items. Cables, batteries, tapes...thats where a lot of money is made, since thats a lot of their gross (and they have huge margins on those items) you might find modest discounts on those if you beg and beg and beg....but you won't find a cent off a camera because your a student.

Call up their marketing dept. and ask for an electronic press kit. It may suck if you had specific clips you wanted to use, but if you get the EPK, then you know you won't need to clear the footage (all clips and interviews and b-roll is pre-cleared for television use) That may cut some red tape, and save you some time. Doesn't help if you are in need of specific clips. The EPKs are ready to go, and someone far lower on the totem pole can throw a label on one and toss it out the door. Beats trying to get the attention of the producer who has to approve the use (or one of their subordinates, who have much more pressing things to do)

It was that book, but the first edition (I still have no idea why we had that book laying around...I don't think we have used film for anything past the 1970s when Umatic came out...we have tons of Umatic decks, but not one old film camera...and trust me I checked.) First edition seems a bit out of date, but not terribly. I imagine their product line doesn't change much from year to year, or even decade to decade. I think it has the Platinum camera in it, but not the mellenium...I need to double check though. Second edition should have it all. Eitherway, any panavision camera I will be renting in the next 10 years will probably be covered by that edition. The cool thing about that book is that it was writen by a guy with 20 years matenience at panavision, so you can tell the wealth of knowledge in there. As for the design compared to arri or aaton, from what I gathered the advantages are mostly to the producers rather than the camera crew. It seems in the event of equipment failure, your more protected no matter where in the world you are, and there is more done to prevent equipment failure. This is my opinion, mind you, based on no first hand experience with panavision, its just based on conversations I have had with people and things I have read.

I found a book (literaly found it laying around the tv studio I work for) that had tons of good info in it. I know you don't want to purchase a book, but really it had way more info than a manual ever would have. It also has comparisons between different models, different setups, virtually all the accessories and their use, panavision operations and practices, even write ups of the technology inside. It was really worth it compared to a user manual that just has threading diagrams, lube points, and scematics. It really goes into the use and possibilities of the cameara. This book is on the panaflex line, so its a little outdated it seems, but I know every camera mentioned in the book is still availible to be rented.

case in point that even newer batteries suffer from memory, I have seen just recently a NiMH battery (a 140 watt-hour anton bauer unit...quality pack) go bad in less than 5 months. I couldn't believe that it could happen so quickly. The photog responsible only shot a story or two a day, and after every shoot they would put the battery on the charger (I assume this is what happened, I cannot see how it could be otherwise.) A cheap (though low quality) discharger can be built by putting 2-3 diodes in series along with either a high watt resistor of lower ohm value, or a lower wattage unit of high ohm value. The resistor limits the ability of the current to flow, and the diodes cut off the battery before it gets to drained (it takes .7v to bias the average diode, so three would cut off the discharge at about 2.1. a zener diode could also be used, with the reverse voltage being the cutoff) cost: about 3 bucks at radio shack, $.08 in wholesale. Add another resistor and an LED and you have a status indicator. Be careful of the ohm value of the resistor though, discharging too quickly can also damage the battery.

One thing I encountered on a short once was the makeup girl would look at the makeup under the sets lights. The problem was I had harsh toplight for dramatic reasons, and she was concerned that the makeup didn't flatter him under that light and wanted me to change the lights. Make up for film (like for stage) is not meant to always flatter. Sometimes its the opposite. Try and gear your work towards what the DP is going for. talk with them about the look of the light as it may relate to makeup. I don't ever give explicit instruction, but will occasionaly say, emphasize the bags in the eyes, double chin, etc, and then it would be up to you to interpret what that means. I don't think many DPs really have a good working knowlege of makeup technique, even at its most basic level. also don't push makeup as far as stage goes. Stage your trying to reach the back audience. In film your upclose and personal. Sometimes even closer than you would normaly see someone, if you stood at average conversation distance. Less is usually better (I really only notice makeup when its too much, and distracts me)

Don't set it to 0 unless your inteded output is internet or film out (or possibly pal, though u'd shoot with a pal camera if that were the case) also I think the japanese market might be 0 based. The reason is simple, namely keep it simple stupid. Your going to ultimatley land in the +7.5 IRE setup realm at some point if its main target is NTSC televisions. So when you change it to 0 and change your broadcast monitor accordingly, you've just increased the dynamic range of the monitors, and your seeing a bit more in the blacks than you would in NTSC. It doesn't help at all because you may think you have some wiggle room when you don't in terms of blacks. You want your referance monitor to referance the system you plan on using. I don't think that the switch will physically affect the data, it should be the same as always. The problem is you may forget you did it. Imagine on set your rushed, you set it to 0. Then the next day you forgot you did it and set it to 7.5. In the edit bay one day's blacks would look different, and I doubt an editor will immediatley recognize the problem. It may never be caught. So to keep it short....kiss...keep it simple stupid.

Yup. ND. you just answered your own question. Or use a different shutter, if your going for that look too. But its no different than video. Video same as film you place ND the same to control DOF. You have your filter wheel, at least one of those is an 85b with an ND on it (or in smaller cameras, they might have an ND selector switch on the body or lens) and you can always turn on your shutter on video to take advantage of lower DOF, though you get the look imparted by having such a short shutter, so ND unless short shutter is something you want.

I guess I don't fully understand your question. I reread your posts, and you want to know: 1. how much to time to budget for; and 2. what can go into making the ratio higher or lower? I'd say about 3:1, but anything can change that ratio. Its really more how many shots you have. If they only need to do a few very long takes then it will go down. If your asking them to pick out a ton of 2 second reaction shots it will go up. But in general 3:1 is what I have been told, and in my experience its about right. You also said you don't understand how it will take 50 hours to transfer 2 hours. I don't fully understand how your going to transfer just 2 hours runtime to complete a 100min movie. from what I understand this telecine is your first (and only?) telecine on this film? How do you plan to transfer just 2 hours to make a complete film, esp. when you shot 15 hours? I think at least I need clarification on your workflow. Your selected takes only account for 2 hours of the 15? I could only see that if you shot only masters/long takes and did multiple retakes of each setup. Otherwise if there are other camera angles you'd have to transfer certain portions of the movie at least twice (select master take, select CU) If you only have 2 hours, I would think that 6-10 hours should cover you, and I don't see how they would say 50 hours, that seems a little out there too. Maybe they were basing that off scene to scene on all 15 hours? Here are your options I guess: 1. one light SD for EDL purposes: 15 hours (33,000ft) @ .16/foot = $5,280 + 2 hours supervised HD matchback @ 500 hr x 3 = $3000 = $8,280 2. HD supervised for first edit: 5 hours of footage (your 3:1 ratio of selects) x 3 (lab ratio) x $500/hr = $7500 3. HD telecine of everything: 15 hours footage x 3 (labtime ratio) x 500/hr = $22,500 Obviously you aren't intending to do three (I think thats what they must of assumed when they told you to budget for 50 hours, its the only thing I can think of that would take 50 hours) It sounds like you want to do #2, but want to only transfer 2 hours of footage? That doesn't seem very practicle if you haven't yet done an edit (unless have you?) I assume you would need at least one of every 3 takes. At a 15 hours, that aprox. 5 hours to transfer, and then multiply by the hours it would take to do that work (3:1) you have to pay for 15 hours at the HD rate. Your other option not fully explored here is a onelight of the selects at the lower rate, then a matchback in HD, though you probably wouldn't see much difference in costs between that and the first two options. Those costs are assuming 16mm. Option 1 might be a bit more if you were shooting 35mm. Also keep in mind that the less you transfer initially, the more open you are to added costs. If something needs to be cut around and the editor doesn't have the shot he needs, then additional shots must be pulled to get something for him to work with. One light it all for SD edit and HD matchback and your price is more or less locked. Telecine just 5 hours in HD and you still have 10 hours of footage, any bit of which might be needed at any point, adding costs. I guess if this doesn't answer your questions, I would ask you to explain your workflow up to this point, and how you plan to procceed. 50 hours is too much for what your talking about, they must have been confused in what you wanted.

yes, I wouldn't worry about it. I am considering taking mine off as well, since it never seems to want to auto load. The film always gets stuck between the exit of the top of the sprocket and the loop formers. Those really don't do anything. Even after you have your film loaded, once you put the cover on, they push out (the black plastic button just below the lower form makes them push out, and brings the film remaining meter probe down.) so even in a properly working camera the formers do nothing during actual operation, they just aid the loading of the camera. Load with gash film to make sure you know how big the loops should be, but really its pretty easy to figure out.

I think the difference comes in with the supervision. If you telecine everything at once, then your only paying them to set up the machine and send it through. If you do selects, then they have to charge you at a supervised rate, regardless of if you need any scene to scene correction or not. With the labs I looked at, the numbers usually work out in favor of a onelight of everything. I was told a ratio of 3:1 is a good estimate. 3 hours for every 1 transfered. Why would someone do selects? I suspect that is an outgrowth of the printed dailies model. If you have to print rather than telecine, the savings associated with selected prints will exceed the cost of the extra man-hours to do it. Since telecine is relativley cheap compared to printing, a full telecine is not much more expensive than selects (a full one-light is much cheaper per foot transfered than a supervised session) you might find it to be a better option than selects. Now if you plan on printing dailies then selects will reduce the amount of print footage you'll pay for and be cheaper. Thats just a comparison based on research and experience from some of my projects. I have never printed material, just telecined and did an HD match-back from the original keycode.

Most edit programs have simple tools to animate zooms and camera moves, check your software. At the TV station I work at we used to use a program that was stand-alone, but for the life of me I can't remember it. I always used after effects because its easier and high quality. I would recomend against using a camera, since you probably can't get a quality camera to do it with. An XL-1 or DVX-100 is not suitable, since its close focus capabilities keep you from really zooming in with sharpness. I have a fujinon 6.7-110 with macro, and still have troubles with documents that size. Also when shooting things that small you'd better have a good tripod, since very little moves will look like shakey-ness on camera. Post is definatley the way to go for just about any still object, unless you want to impart realistic light effects (When forced to shoot docs, I do a lot with my lights just trying to make it look interesting, once I got asked why I needed 3 lights to light 1 doc. I do not allow myself to move the camera because the tripod isn't great and the floor is soft, which makes things even harder.)

chill the room as much as you can, and make sure the humidity is as low as possible. then throw something heated enough to steam, but not enough to be uncomfortable for the actor.

I am also interested. I have a guy interested in being an Executive Producer, but he doesn't really know the film industry, only how to sell, so I need to package the project for him. Also any solid data on other markets for films made under $1million.

Its an artifact of the cosine compression in DV. Any mini-DV camera will have this. Some are less apparent becuase the chip has less resolution, or the glass is softer, etc, but any DV camera is capable of generating this artifact. Its not truely a result of having too few scan lines or interlacing or any of that, its just that the codec is trying to reduce the amount of information in picture. With any cosine compression the first noticable effects will be in high contrast, high frequency detail. No real way around that. reducing the detail softens the image and reduces both contrast and detail freqency, but it does nothing to mitigate the way the compression attacks a scene like that. You could try running the analog out into a (non-firewire) analog capture card, or get an adromodized DVX-100, or get a beta-sp/beta-sx/digi-beta camera, though all those options are costly and have logistics issues.

After effects also has a great ramping tool. In the end though it will always look like your trying to get away with something. Is there anyway to incoperate the limits into the edit? maybe start a disolve during the pan to end just as it comes to rest, or a quick edit, jump cut, etc? anything to make it look like it was planned, rather than trying to ramp it? Just an idea, may not fit the project, but and idea none the less.

I know Ed Wood has been discussed in other forums recently, but I just saw this film on IFC channel and really fell in love with the movie (skyrocked to mid-20s of my top favorite films) I was struck both by the acting (depp does excelent, as does martin landau and bill muray) and the photographies emulation of the terrible wood films (great work making the miniature hollywood hills to emulate paln 9's) But in particular I found a tale of the inner struggle of the artist (not the cross dressing part, but the self-doubt part) It seemed ed wood was terribly concerened that the world was passing him by and he would never measure up (note the orson wells referanced scenes). It struck me that we all suffer from this drive to be better than the best, to advance our art, but deep down most of us feel like we are the next ed wood (those who do not are foolish or able to ignor nagging self-doubt better than I) I ended up feeling sorry for wood. He failed in spite of his obvious drive and passion, he just lacked talent or understanding of the art form. It seemed as though he was quite dedicated. Now, obviously this is a dramitization and not gospel truth of his life, but in reviewing documentary interviews it seems like his drive was, if anything, downplayed. I think there is a truth to the film that shows that talent really doesn't affect the level of self-loathing or doubt that all artists have (wood seemed to have a healthy level that). Maybe I am off base here, but it seemed to be a very touching film of a person so passionate he could not see how truley horrible his films were....and it should make us all think. I am not saying I am self-loathing or insecure...no wait, I am. I think all artists are, its the turf we live in. We are the Eeyore's of the world. It also made me feel like its the pitfalls of the dangerous course of art. We can all fall prey to huberis, greed, deceptions, or crippling depression, as some artists fell too. IE cobain, Van Gough, etc; that rob art of what it could be, and the film should give us all a second to think of why our art says something other than how future events will effect us in the future. Note that this is not to knock wood, he was an artist, in spite of the fact his art was terrible; rather this post is to make us all think about the world of art and what it can mean. Also my aim is to point out the insecurities and self-loathing that a lifetime as an artist can induce. Its not a bad or good thing, but a part of the lifestyle that we all take on. I don't know, any thoughts on the film or the themes? I can't be the only person to second guess myself or doubt my talent or potential. (note, after I saw the film, I immediatley rented plan 9 from outer space....terrible terrible film, but it inspired my latest song 'beautiful failure' so it can't be all bad.) anyways thanks for noticing me.

also while using the K3 I have noticed that a shutter release sometimes causes the trigger to stick. It seems not to be a problem with the trigger, but rather an effect of using too long of a cord. It seems to take a lot of force to depress the shutter release (much more than an average slr) and if the trigger pushes enough to release the shutter, but not enough to reset it, you'll have problems. Take a paperclip and press as firmly as you can, and as you release the paperclip, press on the trigger to coax it back into place. That usually works for me. Its odd though since it seems like its only when going from cable to trigger that the problem becomes apparent. This tip only works when the spring is wound, like Venhaus noted.

Hahaha. I was waiting for the first person to say the 'who are you' is over the top. It sort of is (in the context of the trailer, less cheesy in the film itself) I wanted to see what people thought of that one, I was on the fence about leaving it in or taking it out. I figured why not, its the point of the movie is who is the stalker. I can see the argument for screen direction, it does sort of switch sides a lot. My biggest problem cutting was keeping it from being all about her. Its a short so she is in every scene and some are only her. Cutaways didn't seem to work as most that are in the film either need too much set up or gave too much of the story away. Maybe I will try reversing a few of the shots for the trailer and see how it plays. Theres no text in shot, so it shouldn't be a problem to flip it. Sweetman, thanks for the kind words. Yes I found out that spelling is off. Its my akiles heal (sp?) and was probably working too fast to do a spell check on my work, though that doesn't excuse the mistake. It will be fixed tonight and reuploaded. Tom was great in that role, though hes a stage actor and sometimes he leaned more towards the stage acting tradition, but my co-director did a great job of working with him, and he did well. It was his first time on camera. Man can he project, we dialed it down most of the time, but sometimes it was great to have him really put some gravitas into his lines. Just had to make sure the recorder levels were ready, since theres a lot of dynamic range in his voice. Shortly after this wrapped (like 3 days after) he flew to pheonix to start a new stage gig, so he is out of Alaska unfortunatley. I can see what you mean with the 'go on' edit. In the film, she is leading the conversation and it seems to cut to her early to allow her time to react, and to let her set the pace (which by that shot has started to quicken). Doesn't play that way in the trailer because its her first apperance. I will look at triming that edit line for the trailer. I just didn't want to dig the original shot out of the synced tracks. I was trying to kick this out the door since I won't be able to in the next few weeks and the writer and actors all want to see a taste of what we did. David Mullen, thanks for the view and critique. I definatley respect anything you have to say regarding my or others work. I tried to keep it naturalistic not to keep the sureal story for becoming cheapend by overexerting myself photographically. The contrast could have been upped a bit, but this was my first attempt with neg (or any film for that matter) and actually thought I was pushing the capabilities of film....oh well live and learn. Next film I am sure will be nuclear white and velvet black with no in between. Oh and good call on the actress, I thought the same thing when I cast her. Didn't seem like the part for the femme fetale buxum blonde. Thanks for all the replys and keep them comming!