Elliot Rudmann

Hi Joe, Working at a DI house in Chicago, I think I can sufficiently answer a few of your questions. There are many considerations to take into account when deciding to scan at 2k vs. 4k. I would say that the majority of feature films and commercials shot on 35mm (at least in Chicago) are scanned at 2k or HD resolution (or scanned at 2k, then down-rezzed to 1920x1080 HD) simply because you get great quality with cost-efficiency. And this is regardless of the aspect ratio. You're correct in that with 4k, you do gain a noticeable amount of detail, how much is difficult to quantify for a number of variables like film grain, focus, etc. Even with the most powerful computers, 4k footage is extremely a difficult, if not impossible, workflow to deal with on a personal level. This is something a lot of RED camera users just can't seem to grasp - yes the camera can shoot 4k, but it's nearly impossible to finish 4k without a post house intervening. 2k is still the most manageable (professional) resolution to deal with today, so it's what most companies deal with. The DI house I work at uses an Arriscan, which can scan at 2k, 4k, and even 6k. We've never scanned an entire project at 4k. We have scanned 4k selects for shots that were going to have heavy VFX rendered over them, and other times we have scanned at 4k because the client wanted to significantly enlarge a portion of one shot without making the image too soft. For our Arriscan, it takes 1 second to scan 1 frame of film at 2k resolution. It takes 4 seconds to scan 1 frame of film at 4k or 6k resolution - clients factor this in when they decide whether or not they way to pay us 4x the amount for scanning time...guess which one they usually end up choosing? The genre of the film usually makes no difference for how the film is scanned - again, it's the budget of the production that determines it. I guess if a certain genre like sci-fi where there might be lots of CGI and visual effects may end up scanning more footage at 4k than 2k - but again - that depends on the production. It isn't so much a hunger for resolution as it is a desire to get the best possible final product for a reasonable cost. We have done 2k film-outs for features that look great on the big screen. For most producers, that's enough. "How can one get the maximum image detail out of a 2K DI process? What parameters should be set? " Well, a great scanner helps. I'd say the Arriscan does a phenomenal job, because it can also self-calibrate its settings to correspond with the type of film stock that is being scanned, allowing it to pull out the maximum tonal range and right color balance for each specific stock. It outputs 10-bit log dpx files which give colorists a great deal of range to work with. It doesn't offer real-time scanning like a Spirit 2k - but I've seen examples and talked to enough colorists to know that 2k images do look better on the Arriscan. I think it will take a bit of time before we move beyond the hi-def "standard" - I put that in quotes because it still hasn't standardized for many popular channels (MSNBC is just starting to upgrade in a few months). Broadcast companies make considerable financial investments to go the 1080p route...they're going to stick with it as long as they can while others still catch up. Hope this helps clear up a few things. Let me know if you have any more questions. My advice in a nutshell: finish on 2k.

Hey Tim - try giving Optimus a call www.optimus.com phone# 312-321-0880 - I don't know their rates exactly, but they may be able to offer competitive pricing

Hi David, thank you for your feedback! I think I will ditch that first fast shot as you suggested!

Hi, I recently cut together a 2 minute 15 sec demo reel that I am using right now for added leverage when I start interviewing for internships. I am a 20 year old film student at Emerson College (Boston) and although my primary interest is in cinematography, I am trying to secure an internship at a post production house which is why I added "editor" at the end of the reel. From the other reels I've seen posted at this site, I feel a bit intimidated posting mine because the quality of my footage doesn't really compare, as it is comprised of only 3 student films (2 on 16mm and 1 on DV) with some very small budgets. Nevertheless, I am still motivated to improve it but in the mean time this is what I have and I would appreciate all of the honest feedback/suggestions/comments I could get. you can view the reel here: http://www.enzymefilms.com/erdemo.mov Thank you very much! Elliot

Just a little out of my price range. :)

Time and Again by Jack Finney or possible a TV series adapted from the book The Last Ship, by William Brinkley.

Hi - I think the versatility of formats you have on your reel is good and will end up being beneficial, however, I feel that there are too many exterior shots with all natural light. And if you're advertising yourself as a DP/cinematographer, or even as a "lighting cameraman" you want to show how well you can control and shape light, most of which your reel does not have, therefore it relies too much on angles and composition. Even if using this reel as a cameraman I would cut out the steadicam shots (most of which I found to be unflattering). The interior stuff looked ok, a little flat in contrast, but I did like some of the black and white, particularly the wide shot of the man looking out the door. The closeups I feel, especially in the shot-reverse shot scene between the man and the woman (in black and white) I feel need a stronger key light, perhaps to add a catch light in their eyes, but that's purely an aesthetic opinion I have without knowing any context of the scene. I'm the process of editing my reel right now, and it's very difficult trying to show how creative you are in different situations. But overall, I think some diversity, in lighting styles, compositions, and settings would greatly benefit your reel. I wish you the best of luck.

This post has been really informative, thank you David and everyone else who has given their input. I really wish I had known this information 2 weeks ago when I was shooting a sunset scene. I took a normal incidental reading pointing back at the camera and stopped down 1 stop, but the sky still ended up being really blown out. Luckily the colorist was able to bring down the exposure and pull a lot of information in the sky, but not without making it really noisy. :(

Tomorrow, I will be doing a supervised transfer of a 16mm film I shot and I am thinking about trying to emulate a (partial) bleach bypass for some scenes. The stocks I used were 7217 and 7205 if that matters - but what concerns me is that throughout the production, I did not underexpose (significantly) any of the shots, I rated the film normally throughout filming, and I've heard that the bleach bypass look works better when you underexpose the images by 1 or 2 stops - or is that only the case when you're doing the BBP/ENR photochemically? I understand that clipping highlights will be a concern with the added contrast, but are there other things I should know about and/or tell the colorist? Thanks! Elliot

I completely agree with Frank. I've had 16mm projects transferred to Beta SP and they look significantly better in quality (they retain more latitude than the MiniDV). I never even thought of using a mini DV for a low-rez edit , I always just down-rezzed the Beta SP footage when importing it into Avid.

redying is not an option for her, as it is very expensive and (according to her) could damage her hair a lot -- right now our best option is to go for a wig, assuming I can't minimize the red color with any light.

I'm shooting a film (16mm) next weekend and one of our lead actresses decided (without telling the director) to dye her hair dark red. This has created numerous problems for us, as now she does not fit the "look" of the role. Is there a gel that I could use on her hair-light to subtract some of the red in her hair? Or is this a hopeless idea? Let me know. Thanks!

holy crap that Fortia stuff is expensive, $13 a roll for 35mm!?!? Let's get that film back on the market so those prices shoot down. I would definitely be interested in this new stock if it could offer sharpness comparable to (or better) than the current Vision 2 line, because that is really the only thing that keeps me away from the fuji 16mm stocks.

Sorry, another question - because I'd be using 35mm lenses, does that mean the focal length would increase by about 2x since I'm shooting on 16mm? Like my Canon 50mm F1.4 would essentially be a Canon 100mm on a 16mm camera?

That's great to hear, can you tell the lens itself is being stopped down because it gets darker in the view finder as you go to minimum aperture or do you just have to trust that it is working?

Not all labs are created equal. I will be in the same dilemma as Luke in about a month, as I will probably ship my film to Fotokem and I am in Boston. I have shipped film via UPS ground and had no problems. Fran - would you suggest Fed Ex ground? I see no reason why they would x-ray stuff shipped via ground. I have heard that they do random x-ray checks.

Ian - did your adapter happen to look like this one at B&H? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...&sku=116732

Instead of starting an entire new thread, i decided to reactivate this one, because it deals with virtually the same issue: Bolex shutter angle. My question (this time) involves the exposure compensation needed when adjusting the shutter angle knob. For my upcomming film, I want to acheive a strobe like motion effect by manipulating the shutter angle. I just checked the Bolex cam we will be using and on the shutter angle knob there are the numbers "1/2" and "1" - as far as I know, the 1/2 means that the normal 133 degree bolex shutter will be reduced by half if I set the knob there, which means I will have to open up 1 stop for compensation. This is what I have read from manuals online, but they don't say anything about how to make exposure adjustments for the "1" setting...I assume it would be an extra stop? So open up 2 stops if I set it at "1" ? Let me know what you think - thanks!

Where can you find this Manual Diaphragm Adapter?

While we're on this topic - i've heard of some cinematographers completely staying away from daylight stocks completely, preferring filtered tungsten stocks instead. Why is this, and would this be a wise path to take? I've heard that tungsten stocks are a bit sharper than daylight but I cannot cite any sources on that. Brendan - you should really try to get your hands on some 200T 7217 - in my experience using it, the grain is significantly tighter than '18 - and like others, I would prefer to use the 85 filter rather than relying on it being corrected in post. Good luck

Thank you everyone for your responses, and Rob, I really appreciate your honest advice. I have had many great experiences with Cinelab, last semester I sent out 1600' of 16mm to be processed there and it looked fantastic. Interestingly, yesterday I saw some telecined footage from cinelab (scene-by-scene color corrected to beta SP) from a friend's project, and while I did feel that the colors were a bit flat, i had no other problems with what they had sent him. Ultimately I think I will go the same route that I took with my film last semester: process the footage at cinelab, and transfer at Finish.

White foamcore works well as a VERY cheap reflector. Get some.

I will be shooting a short student film (roughly around 15-20 minutes) in Boston in about a month and I am trying to do research on what would be the best lab to get my telecine done at. Cinelab is very affordable when it comes to supervised transfers, and they use a Rank Cintel Dav Turbo machine along with a Copernicus color corrector (more information here http://www.cinelab.com/post_telecine1.php). Another film I shot earlier last year was transferred at Finish Edit in Boston, and I was very pleased with the results, but it burned a nice big hole in my wallet. They used a Ursa Diamond along with a DaVinchi color corrector I believe. So my question is, how comparable, in terms of quality, is Cinelab's Rank Cintel vs. Finish's Ursa Diamond + DaVinchi? I should also mention that for this project I intend to isolate certain parts of the frame and manipulate their color (which I think is called power windows..?) Would the rank cintel/copernicus be capable of doing such things? I know Finish was. I appreciate any advice you could give to clear up my confusion when it comes to the whole telecine process. Thank you! Elliot EDIT: Also should mention that this project will be telecined to 480p, not 2k.

Go by the rules and rate the '65 at ISO 80 if you're shooting it under tungsten lights (even at night), just be very cautious about overexposing, as it only has about a 1/2 stop tolerance for overexposure before you simply lose information in the whites. Given my experience, I really like the smoothness and look of plus x over tri x, but for night, I really would consider shooting Tri-X when it comes to the actual shoot - this extra stop of light you would gain using '66 can be really helpful, especially if you aren't using powerful lights. It will make things a lot easier for you. The reason why those reversal stocks need that extra 1/3 stop of light is because the film is less sensitive to the color red, and the tungsten filament in the bulbs output a higher spectrum of red then daylight does. Someone else could probably explain this better than I can.

Here are some grabs comparing my shots of 7201 and 7217. I'm pretty sure that there was no exposure error in the 7201 shots, I over exposed it by 1/2 stop. 7201 grabs: http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7201a.jpg http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7201b.jpg http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7201c.jpg 7217 200T grabs - I think these look a lot better in terms of having less noise (or grain?) in the image. http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7217a.jpg http://www.enzymefilms.com/pancakes/7217b.jpg let me know what you guys think. Is a spirit transfer machine a good way to go next time?