Dan Cordle

Bryan, I've used many antique still cameras and was always interested to see what results the old, sometimes damaged lenses would yield. Some of the resulting images were spectacular. I've always wondered what it would be like to shoot with an old hand cranked cine camera, but know the attempt to do so, would provide my wife with the last bit of evidence she needs to have me institutionalized. She nearly did so when I spent two days trying to build a camera out of a flat-bed scanner. A brilliant idea, (someone elses), and it would have worked if I had known what I was doing! To my credit, I reassembled the scanner and now we have two scanners -the one we used to have, and the one I bought... so I could turn it into a camera. However, there is something rational and interesting, (at least to outward appearances) about using hand cranked movie cameras. I don't know the song you're looking for, but in the spirit of the camera you're using, why not use an old wooden metronome? You've probably seen it, but if you haven't, check out "Lumiere et Compagnie" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113718/) You'll see many interesting little films, all shot with a hand cranked camera. It would be great to hear what results you get. Best of luck with your experiment,

What an awful situation. Mr. Myles, you should have every right to the footage and I'm appalled that anyone would deny a cinematographer access to his work. It's people like that "director" that give the rest of us a bad name.` Whatever you decide to do, I hope it turns out in the best possible way.

I'm considering what kind of video assist to use with my Konvas 2m. Has anyone used the variety that replaces the viewfinder? (I know RafCamer sells these.) My biggest question is: How difficult does focusing become when you can only reference the monitor? I'm assuming this would make camera/subject measurements very important. Do you constantly find yourself swapping out the assist for the viewfinder? The video assist will be used mostly for steadicam purposes with a wide enough lens, so I guess the focus problem won't be as great as I fear. However, if I purchase video assist, I'll probably wind up wanting to use it at other times. Any advise would be appreciated. Dan Cordle NYC

I think you need to decide what you want your short to look like before you decide what to shoot on. I saw a brilliant short last summer at the Palm Springs Short Film Fest that was shot on a digital still camera that can record a short burst of video and sound. The camera's awful video was perfect for that particular short. I realy loved it. Other films were beautifully shot on 35mm - the perfect format for those productions. Do you really have to buy a camera? Why not find athe best DP you can afford who has his/her own camera? If you must buy a camera, and perhaps you must, I guess you should buy one of the newer prosummer cameras that offer "HD". In your current position, I don't think you'll find one camera advantageous over another. Just remember, in two years whatever new prosummer camera you buy will have lost a lot of value compared to the newest toys. It makes more sense to borrow, rent, or employ unless you're really sure that it will be cheaper to buy in the long run. The money you save can be used for the production. But whatever you do, good luck with your short!

I suspect you, and your director, want the walk through the alley to be somewhat disturbing, frightening, or foreboding. There may be creative ways of enhancing the scene and at the same time compensating for the lack of lighting instruments. Not having read your script, it's impossible to say, but I would consider ideas that would not only compensate for your lack of instruments, but could strengthen the scene. Figuring out how to do this is interesting. You might put a burning trash container in the alley. You wouldn't need to explain why it was there. It could just be this strange element that the character encounters and passes by. Another idea might be to to put a couple of strange kids with flashlights on the roofs that border the alley. The kids could flick on and off their lights toward the pedestrian as he walks through the alley. You wouldn't have to see the kids, although you might hear them running along the roof. These elements could add a lot of tension to your scene. Again, they wouldn't even need to be explained. They could just exist as part of the character's passage through the alley. Together with sound, they might add significance to the alley while at the same time providing a way of using fewer lighting instruments. Obviously, the best solution is the one that contributes to telling the story in the most effective way. Working within budgetary limitations can create interesting situations. I recall hearing about a David Lynch film where a sudden rain shower threatened to shut down production for the several hours. A parking lot that had been shot as being dry, was suddenly drenched. Not having time, or money, to wait, or reshoot, Lynch solved the problem by having a couple of extras grab water hoses and pretend to have a water fight in the parking lot. It was just enough to explain why the pavement was suddenly wet. It's kind of a dorky solution, but also kind of strange, and, well, very David Lynch.

After reading an article on the film "Primer", I bought cheap flouresent lights (including some of the coil variety) and used them for a short as an experiment. The camera I used was the dvx-100. The coil bulbs that were balanced for daylight looked okay. The normal flourescent bulbs looked a little strange, but were easilly color corrected in Final Cut.

I absolutely agree. You have to give the producers and investors a little credit. They're no fools. When deciding what movie to see, your general audience member will ask "who's in it?" or even "who directed it?" but rarely "who produced it?", "who DP'd it?" or anything else. The bias against actors is that they have it easy, but in reality they don't. The best are highly skilled, struggled to become succesful, work hard to keep their careers afloat, and are worth every penny they're paid. That's not to say there aren't blockbusters made with unknown actors. Of course there are. Sometimes it's wiser to use unrecognizable talent. But what it comes down to is this: If you were dragged to a remake of "Barbarella", who you you rather see in the title role? Angelina Jolie? Or Nancy Piscatelli from Kalamzoo? Hmnm...been a long time since I saw "Barbarella."

The older panasonic ag-dvx100 are still great cameras to have. They are cheaper to buy than the dvx100A's and newer models. They can be bought at a resonable price and the images they produce at 24p can look pretty good on a small screen.

My mistake. Didn't know I was in video only. I'm using a Konvas 2m with the anamorphics

I just rented saw Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev". What an amazingly shot film. I heard that it was shot on a Konvas 2m. I'm assuming they used the old russian square anamorphic primes and/ or a square anamorphic zoom. Any thoughts on the use and virtues of these old square anamorphic lenses when they are in good condition?