Michael Collier

Yeah, I got that impression when I watched jarhead, though of course in that scene the millitary camo netting was there for set dressing, I couldn't help but think that in the production Dekins used the net on purpous to make the dappled light (of course, its dekins, I don't think anything he shoots is a 'happy coincidence' he seems very methodical and incredibly inteligent...if only he wanted to mentor someone, I'd be on that bus in a second) the scene I am talking about is the one shot in video where the soldiers are being interviewed for the news (sit down interview, not the later scene where they demonstrate the gas mask football.) Interesting idea to add the visqueen.

Hes just saying that since he shuttered down he had to open wide. Most lenses will go soft when you open full wide. MTF I am not entirely sure on myself, but I know its a measurement of the lenses resolution. Modular Transfer Function? Is that what the acronym stands for? I heard that somewhere. 1/500 is really nice, thats my standby shutter when I want shutter look. 1/1000 is good too, 1/2000 is a bit much for me. 1/100 and 1/250 I mostly use to reduce DOF (In my ENG work I don't have the time to slap some ND on there like I should, nor do they provide me with the filters) Those do however impart a bit of the shutter look, esp 1/250. good for a subtle effect. Best part is you can experiement on any camera. Any camera capable of turning the shutter on will show you. It doesn't have to be the camera your going to use, since 1/2000 of a sec is the same on any camera.

While I am new to film, it seems to be a typical thing. Every one of my 16 reels had the same flash on the head and tail, along with the flash everytime I opened the door to check loop etc in the middle of the mag (I did run some extra feet before I opened the door, so I didn't loose any needed footage) I think on the head obviously there will be some fogging from light on its way into the mag before it really hits the light baffle (I am sure small amounts of light can bounce back and forth up the film for at least a few inches, sort of like a poor fiber optic) But you say it happens on every take? That is more pecular. I could see two things possible. One would be the shutter is not properly parking itself when you stop. That might let light into the gate, which then bounces around and exposes film above and below the take. This would have been more obvious though, since if its not parked, you'd likely not see anything through the viewfinder while not running, something I am sure you'd be more upset over than a little flashing before and after. The other possibility is did you open the door after every take to check the film threading or gate? I have heard the reason the flash is red is because the light hits the emulsion at an angle, and so more of the red layer gets exposed? Interesting if thats true...anyone know for sure? the reason I'd suspect the door is because of the position of the flash. Every camera door I have ever seen is on the right, so you'd be exposing the right side of the film. since lenses flip the image upside-down, the right side becomes the left when view (this is correct right? somebody correct me if I am wrong on that), so it seems that any light leak would have to come from the side of the camera with the door. Just a few ideas. Id suspect the latter one, but maybe someone on here with more experience would know. Assuming the camera works, the only time I saw the effect you describe is on the head, tail and every time I opened the door. If it is all you need to do is run a few seconds before opening the door and run a few seconds after.

Interesting david should mention learning about keeping the veiwfinder covered. I learned that point before shooting my first and became so hyper sensative to make sure my eye was on the vf, or to make sure the shutter was closed that for like 3days after I shot, I kept trying to close the shutter on the vf of my betacam at work! I got a little too used to film way, way too quickly. it was a shock to the senses to see a zebra-patterned b/w standard def imageb while shooting again. It was cool though to see the effect on the shot since most takes I would have my eye off the viewfinder when it rolled up and only covered it just prior to the slate. Day exteriors were the most interesting, esp on the shots I had already overexposed in rating. now I have my k3 on its way, and hopefully if I win the ebay 4 rolls of 7218, 3 rolls mixed double-x kodachrome and color neg. Also I have 300ft of 7218 16mm and 250ft of 8mm cut from 5205 (250D) in the fridge (my first dedicated film fridge). More film on the way too. I have commited myself to shooting at least 100ft every week or so to really bring me up to speed quickly (not much but I can really experiment). I feel left out since people like david and hal shot 8mm as kids like it was nothing, and the closest I got to 8mm was in hi-8 (not quite the same). I think from my first experience shooting 4063 feet has me hooked. To think there was a time less than 3 years ago when I thought I never would shoot film or want to. Now I look at my betacam with disdain.

Call it a club. Then your not hiring people, their joining the club. Nothing illegal about that and there is no reason to file for a business liscence, workers comp, etc etc. now I am sure if your budget excedes a cerrtain point, it would be hard to call it a club anymore, but for most low budget films that will cover you.

No I am not entirely sure. The way I heard it told they were both gentleman, and he had a passing interest in photography. At that point photography was a specialized skill, so I am not sure technically he was a photographer by trade, but he took an image (or series of images) that lives on, so for that 1 second at least to me he was a photographer. I am not a history buff, just a history sponge. I absorb a lot of history but do not get hung up on knowing all the details. It helps me bend stories to fit my likeing....like a TRUE storyteller.

They discovered that all its feet did leave the ground at one point, winning the bet for the photographer. I forget his name, a google search could find it, but I am lazy.

meh, who cares its TV. tv is crap and always will be. speaking to the actual show, I love that show! we get it here on HBO and my tivo grabs it every time. The dynamic between the agent and andy is hillarious. The dry brittish humor is something we don't get in America. If its not 8 laughs a page with standard set up-knock down rythm, then it doesn't get made. I hope extras continues on just the way it is. The only problem I have with brittish shows is the whole 6-episode season crap. I don't know if its typical to have only 2 seasons per year (or is it only one?) but in America we get either a 13 or 26 episode commitment, meaning most weeks its a new show. That is key in my opinion since good shows are few and far between. I can count on one hand the shows I watch all the time, so if a show is good, I want as many episodes as they can churn out. How the hell is the UK going to surpass our syndication power? Will a show ever top the Simpsons 300-400 something shows? by the way, the way TV operates these days with about 4-5 MPEG compression/recompression cycles away from the source material; I am not sure I could tell what is 24p video and film anymore. it all looks like rubbish. I saw a shot (shot on film) of a building with a slow pan. The MPEG confused the bricks with the windows and trim and within a second it was a jumbled mess until the pan stopped. Who cares how good the source material is if thats the best we can hope for on digital cable! (pluss ending the show with a cat stevens song...brilliant!)

Ok, I posted this about a month ago, and didn't want to retype everything, but its a detailed account of my first experience. Also there are some frame grabs. If you check out the post, leave some feedback on it if you can, either on this thread or that one. My first 16mm experience

Hey, I just pattented the f5.6 appeture. If you want to use a lens with an appeture 5.6 times smaller than the diameter of the front lens, well your in violation of my right. Use a 4.0 or an 8. deal with it. This is lame, its the further over-patentizing of the world. Now adays its possible to patent genes that OCCUR NATURALLY! it seems now artistic expression is up for patent? Heres the problem I see....it has to be an invention that hasn't been invented before right? the very first 'motion picture camera' was in fact....wait for it....an array of 24 still cameras set in a line to make it seem as though the camera was tracking along side a galloping horse. Hmmm sound familiar? I'd argue against their patent right on that fact alone. Not only is it not new, its about as old as motion picture gets! (oh and it was 24 cameras, not under 10, thats why we have the 24fps standard...unless my history is screwy. I know edison later re-inforced this standard with his camera systems)

If you still have that 8mm let me know. I picked up a k3 on ebay (didn't read the bayo thing on your post until later, I wanted an m42 so I can use still lenses, though wide lens suitible for 16mm are hard to come by) but I still need an 8mm (and an eymo or similar cheap 35mm if I can find one) email me or pm me if the 8mm is ready and money will be in your account the following day. Thanks!

I found an HVX-200 on ebay with 17hours left that only cost 12 bucks. that and 3 other items I was watching when I got a bunch of letters saying 'surprise' its a con. I was about to send their info into ebay too. I found not only the exact pictures on other auctions, but one was advertised as 'LCD projector 5000lumens with good remort' I searched for the word 'remort' and I guess several people have problems spelling remote (either that or this scammer was too lazy to change the title. copy and paste genius)

I had a great experience buying from Media Distrabutors. I got 16mm at 17cents a foot.

Yes, white balance is set through a built in filterwheel on the camera and through an electronic balance like any ENG camera. preset balance or electronic balance likewise are set through standard switches (A-B-PRE). ASA I am not sure of, but you can find it precisely with a lightmeter and a waveform monitor. Search these forums theres a post with the procedure explained. Keep in mind changes to the set-up can affect the asa value. Most cameras I have used are between 250-400 on tungsten setting, most landing at 320.

If you still have these cameras I would like to purchase both of them. I can paypal the money by the end of the day if they are still around. Thanks! email me. Mike@randomacronym.com

you can get the stuff to load your own cartridges from B&H or other photostores. Roll your own spools up, shoot a cart then download it to a can and send it off for proccessing. If you tell the lab what you have done, they can usually accomodate it (be sure to provide a lot of handles on each side of the film for them to work with.) most labs have a minimum proccessing, usually around 100ft. If you talk to them they will tell you the best way of going about getting the footage to them. I shot 100ft of stills and got it proccessed for under 20 bucks. Then a quick (and I mean quick) telecine to DVCAM gives you an idea of whats there, though if you can print them you can then crop them and put them in a slide and have a cheap option to see them projected.

Now I gotta take issue with you buick, as my day job is a news PHOTOJOURNALIST (not cameraman) thank you. There are craftsman and artist in that feild too. I know many people who take great care with their news images and it becomes an artform. I see others who are very mechanical in their methods and they are more in the craftsman area. Some just have their heads up their a$$ and don't know a diopter from a dicroic. I personally like to think of my news photography as art (sometimes, depends on the shoot....pressers not so much) You can make anything into art. Everyday I have the most random unplanned shoots that I have to work within (sometimes that includes making art, while 20 feet from an armed hostage situation). Looking at the world through a 12 year old betacam and using every trick I can to set my photography apart from the other two stations shooting the exact same thing....thats art. The goal is to make the 45 second of images each story gets more impactful than whatever the reporter is babbling about. One more thing....if you've never been party to a flashbang go off...its a hell of a time. There was an armed hostage situation I was at once and they threw a flashbang into the room it made a HUGE sound and light and seconds later the swat team was rushing out a very hysteric hostage to saftey. maybe that wasn't high art, but it was thrilling. Ok, my time is done...back to astronaught farmer (great flick. I am surprised it made it up here, if a film isn't on at least 3000 screens it doesn't make it up here)

You have the basic Idea, but if your two clips are equal lenght and the first frame is the same, its much easier to unlink the media (make it offline) and then relink the new clip, the the NLE does all the work for you. Then everything you did will apply to the new clip with just a two step proccess, rather than try and replace everything and not screw anything up.

Lossless codec at native resolution is best for finnishing the film. Try making two clips, one uncompressed, and one with the native codec you are editing with (probably DV) then you can edit without having to render too much, but when you are ready to master the film, you can replace the DV clip with the uncompressed one. You'll have less rendering, but maintain all the quality of uncompressed in the end.

Not sure exactly where it is, but I know I asked the same question a few months ago and David posted a response as to his contribution. I too have the second edition that I got in 8th grade, and was going to get the third, but ended up spending my money on cinematography style. Do a search and you'll find the post. I think it was a section on DI and some updated lighting information. might be worth the buy though. I figure I have learned entire books worth of information from Mullen already...I know just about everyone on this board can say the same.

Doesn't matter what the color temp would be (unless you were trying to make the red light balance into a white...) shoot a test and see if you like the color. Tungsten will work, so will daylight. Daylight will look a bit more redish by comparison. But its colored light, not an object lit with light that needs to be balanced to. Doesn't matter what the color temp would be (unless you were trying to make the red light balance into a white...) shoot a test and see if you like the color. Tungsten will work, so will daylight. Daylight will look a bit more redish by comparison. But its colored light, not an object lit with light that needs to be balanced to.

theres a lot of talk about techno-cranes or fixed arms with moving bases....it could be because my low budgets prevent me from getting anything bigger than a 10ft arm with no possibility of base movement, but couldn't you line the base up 90degrees to the persons face (so if theyre looking at their mark, the base would be far left or far right) then you can boom down while panning the crane and using a remote head to compensate. there would be a small sign of the cranes arc in there, but with the right length, it could start the shot off directly overhead and end with them framed looking just off camera, since the arc would pull the cameras angle to the base side. I hope that makes sense. I don't know what your going for, just an idea. Its what I would do given my low budgets and low gear availibility where I am at. The base wouldn't move and you can use a fairly cheap crane with a good remote head. Might be easier to work with too.

Your confusion lies in your calculation. Fstop is not a relationship of FOCAL LENGTH to iris appeture, rather its a measurement of the FRONT ELEMENT to the IRIS appeture (what troy called entrance pupil) Since the zoom lens does not change its front element, the F-stop remains contsant. Now to explain the entrance pupil and how what I just said is not quite right. As you zoom in the angle of view changes yes? As that angle changes you will see that on the wide side of the lens, light is being collected from the entire surface of the glass (more or less) but when you zoom in, as the angle grows more accute, suddenly the entire surface of the glass is not transmitting light to the sensor or film. as that angle cuts off part of the glass, your calculation needs to reflect a smaller effective diameter, and so as you zoom, the fstop will rise. As was mentioned before, zooms for film cameras compensate to give you a solid T-stop and F-stop reading, video lenses do not compensate (you can see your exposure and typically open up if you zoom in) and for still lenses they are marked with two readings and you pick which to go by based on your focal lenght. so again, fstop is a relation of the effective front element (or entrance pupil...new one to me troy. probably more accurate from an opticle engeneer standpoint) and the iris. if it were based on the focal lenght, then the speed of the lens would loose a stop every time you double the focal lenght (even with compensation, soon you'd be wide open) At most you loose a stop or two in the entire range on a zoom. a 7.5mm-120mm lens would not loose 4 stops over its range.

A quick fix if you have a 220 ballast and you want 120 would be to double the number of coils in the secondary coil on the main transformer. (or half the coils on the primary) Watch out though, since this will double the ampres draw on the supplying line, so you may need to replace the cable. that way your not toting around a step up, and introducing more draw (as the step ups are not 100% effecient)

I am confused about the 'capturing at the DVCAM' level contention. It seems somebody thinks that if you have a DVCAM deck, there is some way to not capture DVCAM in its native state? This is not true. All flavors of DVCAM are essentially no different than dv-25. DVCAM's only true difference is the way it organizes data within the tape structer itself. Also it has more redundancy to keep a drop out from showing (one part drops out, but the redundancy doesn't, so it plays without the hit). At its core this is just reorganizing the dv-25 stream onto a more professional and robust carrier. Once you play it back out of a DVCAM deck, you can capture it with firewire as a regular dv stream and maintian full quality (which is the same of mini-DV, no matter how you capture) The only thing DVCAM is doing is saving a small backup on the same tape, basicly. Also you can record DVCAM onto standard mini-DV tapes and maintain most of the formats superiority over mini-dv (the tapes aren't physically as robust, but the tape is identicle...though if you put faith in sonys claim to having better tape for DVCAM, then maybe you'd disagree) I don't see an issue really. You got the DVCAM deck comming, so why not use DVCAM, even if you need to use mini-dv tapes to do it.