Mark Lyon IMPOSTOR

As was noted above, you should check all the prices and test, if possible, before making decisions, but here are two thoughts: 1) Shoot super16 and transfer to HDCAM at 23.98p. Then you'll have a nice HD digital master. Nowadays, it's hard for telecine houses to charge much more for HD than for digibeta. Renting an HD deck (a Sony J-H3) is about the same cost as a digibeta deck (here in San Diego, anyway). If your edit station isn't up to the demands of uncompressed HD, you can use DVCPRO-HD codec, and it looks great. With this workflow, you can skip the nightmare of pulldown removal, conforming, etc. You'll get one clean progressive HD frame for each film frame, and you can edit in a 24p timeline in Final Cut Pro. 2) Contrary to what was noted above, there's a big difference in depth of field between Super 16 and an HVX-200. In this regard, Super 16 is more like what you'll see on a 2/3' camcorder like a Sony F900 or Panasonic Varicam. Best of luck,

Hi-- The Xtera will be quieter and run longer loads (400 or 800'). On the other hand, the A-minima will be lighter and easier to rig. For example, if you're mounting to bicycle handlebars or jumping in a rickshaw, you're going to want the A-minima. Your choice will be driven by practical considerations--both cameras will make the same images with the same lenses. Regarding sound: check with your post house about AatonCode. Both cameras record it, and if you can create audio files with matching timecode, your post synching could be simplified. Best of luck-- Mark Lyon

It's fixed at 172.8.

With respect, this makes me think you should consider shooting film. The biggest challenge when using digital capture is handling contrast latitude, especially highlights. Which nature tends to dish out ;-) The other nice thing is you can always transfer your film to the latest/greatest digital format for editorial, so there's no difference there.

Sorry to be joining the thread late. I've done probably 15 transfers with SpyPost at this point, and I can wholeheartedly recommend them. Chris Martin is a gifted colorist, they've got great equipment, and our business experience with them has been solid. I fly up there for transfers, instead of doing them down here, so that should say something. Say hi to Chris for me. Best of luck to you. Mark Lyon

Good point about the noise levels. On the viewfinder, I think there're pros and cons. On the pro side, it's incredibly clear and bright (perhaps because the optical path is so short?). We also use an LTR quite a bit, and it's a real pain to use because the viewfinder is so dark. On the con side, it's not orientable, which is a problem especially if you're left-eye dominant. I'm luckily right-eye dominant, so it's not a big deal for me.

Hi-- I'm an A-minima owner, and have shot a lot of commercials and industrials on mine, as well as shooting with Aaton XTRs. I've never used an SR3. Here are some pros and cons: A-minima: is limited to 200' loads, and is a little bit louder than the XTR and SR3 has a brighter viewfinder, but it's not orientable has a distant-eye viewfinder, so you can shoot without your eye being pressed onto the eyecup takes longer to thread (but not to load mags) Allows daylight film loading Allows max speed of 50 fps Has b/w video assist of modest quality Has built-in intervalometer has aaton code XTR: Can run 400' or 800' loads Super quiet Instant threading of mags Mags must be loaded in dark room or tent Max speed I think is 75 fps Has nice features like illuminated framelines Excellent video assist My DP would prefer it for hand-held, since it sits nicely on the shoulder and is heavier has aaton code I don't know the SR3, but I think it's pretty much equivalent to the XTR--I think that choice is largely a matter of personal preference and rental availability. Best of luck with your project-- Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films

Hi-- Here are some useful links: http://www.abelcine.com/articles/index.php...6&Itemid=34 (check out the link at the bottom of the page too) http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/ref...calcFOVform.asp Best of luck on your project. --Mark Lyon

Hi Allyn-- I own an a-minima, have shot a ton of timelapse on it, and shot re-spooled film too. I didn't have any trouble with the re-spooled film (it was Kodak B/W reversal, though, not fuji), but for a paying job I'd definitely stay with the factory-spooled kodak film. I also have some empty A-minima spools, but I'm in California--hopefully you can find a source in Oz. What's your timelapse question? Take care, Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films

Hi-- We're considering using some 4K scans from a recent 35mm shoot in print design pieces, and I'm wondering if anyone knows of a sample file, even a test chart or something, available online. We'd like to test it to determine how usable the 4K scans are in print before we commit to scanning. Ideally, the scans would be from 5201 and 5218, the stocks we used in the shoot. Thanks in advance! Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films

Hello-- At the great risk of looking like I'm tooting my own horn, I've directed several commercials shot in the Super16 format, and really enjoy working in it. Please check out www.mightymaxfilms.com if you're interested. Most of the spots there are Super16. Take care,

Hi Hal-- Your equipment list is short: - Crystal-sync camera (best would be an Aaton or Arri with in-camera timecode) - Timecode DAT (or, better, timecode hard disk or flash recorder) - Timecode smart slate The process is easy too: 1. Initialize timecode on recorder 2. Jam sync timecode slate from recorder--make sure its timecode matches the recorder's 3. Roll sound (at least 5 seconds of pre-roll is important for syncing dailies in telecine) 4. Present open smart slate to camera 5. Roll camera 6. Call out scene and take number, and clap slate If you have a camera with Aaton code, you can eliminate the slate from the equation, but we still use it for backup. I hope that helps-- Mark Lyon, Director Mighty Max Films

Hi all-- I know it's officially ISO250D, but I've seen comments lately about rating it at ISO500. We've used it once before, and rated it at ISO 200 in bright sun with good results (with appropriate ND). We're shooting in a dark forest setting next week (exposures in the F2.0 range at ISO 400), and would appreciate comments from anyone experienced with this stock. We're trying to decide between 7205 and 7218. This is for SD telecine for a commercial only--no film finish. Thanks in advance-- Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films

One man's opinion, but I think 16mm is a great medium for documentary, depending on the subject, of course. For reference, you might want to watch "March of the Penguins," which is in theatres now in the US. Most of it looks like Super 16, but there are some video sections. It's worth watching on many levels, but the comparison is useful. On the way home, my 8-year-old asked "Dad, what was wrong with the shots where the penguins were underwater?" To which I replied "Son, remember this conversation, because one day film will be history, and people will accept video as the standard." "That's too bad." He said. Take care,

Hah! Our typical crew consists of me (director/writer/editor/dolly grip/loader/first AD/first AC), tom (DP/camera operator/stills/gaffer/stunt driver) plus a skilled grip, makeup, sound, and PAs. So without getting into numbers, we should be well paid! Seriously, on our productions, we pay the same rate to the crew whether we're shooting film or video. There's a slight premium for DAT rental if we're shooting film, but that's about it. The cost of the kits seem pretty close (HD a bit more expensive than S16). So that really leaves you with film/lab/telecine, which is offset by the time spent color correcting video to look more like... you guessed it! Another thought: could it be that our budget disparities are coming, at least partially, from being more comfortable in one medium or another? For example, let's say I can rent an F900 package for $2500/day, plus I need a video engineer on set? My first thought is, wow, I'll just use my own S16 camera and spend $2500 on film and transfer (a typical figure for one of our low-budget spots). Take care,

Hi all-- I can't resist jumping in here, to note that it's kind of pointless to talk about the cost differences between S16 and HD or SD video without thinking about the style of production you're doing, and what skills the crew possesses. We typically shoot S16, but we've been doing a lot of interviews for industrial projects lately, on DV. We've found that the choice of medium really doesn't change our crew at all for these low-budget projects. If we're shooting film, one of the crew loads. If we're shooting video, that same guy spends a lot more time trying to reduce lighting contrast. But the total crew cost is about the same. On a recent low-budget commercial, we found that for that production (a one-day shoot), shooting S16 pushed the budget up 10% more than shooting video. That was based on 1600 feet of film, plus processing and transfer. I think both media are great tools. For a lot of impromptu work, it seems easier and quicker to me to get good results on film (because of the latitude), and a S16 kit can be just as light and portable as video. For long interviews, I love the fact that I can roll tape for hours. Best of luck-- Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films

Going off memory here, but I'm pretty sure it was a combination of digibeta and single-chip sony dv cameras.

Yes, we've used it with my A-Minima. We've also used the Canon 7-63 and 8-64, which are definitely my preference if we're using zooms. They're a bit bigger and heavier, but the extra speed and range are well worth it. Of course, they're also more expensive. I'm not sure about the weight, but it struck me as very lightweight. I would check with Abel Cinetech to find out for sure. Best of luck, Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films

We've used it once or twice. It's really sharp and contrasty--and cuts together well with zeiss primes (and I'm nearly certain is has a 80mm front, so you can use the same mattebox, etc.). It's also really small and light, which is nice. The huge downside, of course, is the very slow maximum aperture. If you're working with a lot of light, and you don't mind a lot of DOF, it will be fine. Best of luck, Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films

I think the SR3 or Aaton XTR Prod would be a good choice, and 7245 (for sunny exteriors) or perhaps 7212 for the lowest-grain look you can get in Super 16. One way to save money would be to use HD video on the interviews, particularly if you have a high degree of control over the lighting, you might be able to get away with HD for them. If they're going to be outside and sunny too, then definitely super 16 for them too if you can afford it. We always record location audio to DAT, but you might also look into the new hard disk recording systems. Best of luck--sounds like a great project. Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films

Optex makes a 4mm, 5.5mm, and 8mm, all T1.9. We have a 5.5, and use it all the time. It's a great lens. We rented the 4mm once, and liked it too. The one issue we've run into is getting filtration in front of the lens--our 4x4 mattebox shows pretty badly on the 5.5.

I've owned one for a few years, and found it perfect for a range of projects. We do a lot of commercials and corporate work, and it's superb. Registration is perfect, the viewfinder is very bright and clear, controls are simple and fast, etc. It's a tank. Loading it is really pretty easy. I'm not sure why people complain about it. The only downsides are the 200' loads, and the fact that you can't orient the viewfinder. We've used the camera for sync sound applications dozens of times, and only had noise issues once (inside a parked car with a wide-angle lens, inches from the actors). Other plusses: built in intervalometer. Timecode. Complete lack of hair in the gate. Ever. The bottom line: the little A-Minima often starts a project as a B camera and ends up being the one in position to get the great shots.

Just a quick note about the A-Minima. We've had one for a few years, along with an old LTR, and we've found it to be incredibly useful. Time code, timelapese, 1-50 fps, super-stable images, bright viewfinder, and, obviously, light and easy to rig. In real people interview work, the un-threatening nature of the little camera makes it our first choice, even with the 200' mag limitation. Stock availability has not been a limitation at all. Only really an issue if you want to use Fuji--then you'd have to load your own (which we've done with b/w reversal--works great). If you could only afford one lens, I guess it would be the Canon 7-63 or 8-64, but you could get a set of old Zeiss primes (or Illuminas) for less money, I would imagine. Mark Lyon Mighty Max Films