harryprayiv

So you're saying that the Dynamic Range of the CCD sensors hasn't yet reached the point where the entire 16bit range is filled (because even the best sensors can get away with 12bits instead of 16bit), so companies who are marketing a camera with a chip with less dynamic range than their competitor's more expensive chips (that probably have higher dynamic ranges) are really doing it even though it might not be necessary for their specific cameras? I find that odd...but perhaps true.

Hi there. I know all about the other stuff that you refer to, but what is "the 1/3 rule". I'd appreciate an answer from anyone...not just Wendell_Greene. Thanks.

Don't worry, you're not missing much. ;) I'm a bit angry as I did not get to see this movie in theatres as I had originally planned, but rather on DVD. It didn't look too terrible, but of course, I was watching a PAL --> Film --> NTSC transfer. I thought the film was "interesting." Dying to know what it could've looked like in anamorphic 35! :rolleyes: When I saw the DVD I watched the alternate ending - and it looked identical to the original ending! The alternative ending that was not alternative. I started to wonder whether it was like one of those 'spot the difference' puzzles. Mabey one of the actors had a different shoe on of something. Was I missing something? Matt Hmmmm...the alternate endings are VERY different from the ending they chose, so maybe you thought you were watching an alternate ending and weren't actually.

I have too. Anyway, what I am posting here is information on new way of filmmaking, for less $. It is a new option. It may help someone who is directing or producing a movie or a DP who is open minded. That is the only purpose of my posts. There are too many filmakers out there who don't have large enough budgets. Doing an acquisition with a computer and working inexpensively with a new codec may be exactly what they are looking for. It is not about film vs. HD. It is about "Can I afford that or not?" My suggestions may allow the indie filmmaker make a lot higher quality film, or make he can make the same quality film for less money. That is all. Have to get back to my project. But why are you saying it costs less when you KNOW it doesn't. You're math doesn't work out and the highest quality video isn't even close to the lowest quality of film. HD my ass. I am getting sick of this debate as well.

Tell me more about what this Rodger's Workprinter is and where I can find info. I tried googling "Rodger's Workprinter" and all of the other variavles like "Roger Workprinter" and "Rodger Workprinter" but found nothing. Is is better looking than a Zeimark? The one at my school is horrible and the cheapest one after that is the 200 dollar an hour minimum one hour telecine down the street....I haven't got that much money right now.

I think Final Cut is even better for short form. If you use Combustion like me (which is admiteddly better on the PC) it has it's own built in editor now, so when I am doing REALLy short stuff with a lot of effects, I just use that. I prefer Combustion and Shake to AE anyday, though.

Final Cut is MUCH more than fractionally better. In fact, I been an editor for years and when I work on a project, I have the choice between Avid Media Composer, Avid Xpress Pro with a MOJO, and Final Cut Pro HD. GUess what I choose? Final Cut Pro HD every time lately. FCP has ALWAYS been light years ahead of Premiere and that's not opinion, it's fact. Why do you have to switch to a PC to use Pro Tools? I have it on my Mac and it's always been a Mac program. I mean, it only recently got up to par on a PC and it's still not even where it is on the Mac system (IMO). What kind of PT system is your business running? The only front that PC's are in the lead on as far as professional post work is in 3D Modeling/Animation and real time sample playback capabilities for stuff like Gigastudio, which is still slaved from a mac system into the PC via MIDI in the common pro environment..

You should actually look into learning cement splicing because most telecine places won't take any film that uses tape for the splices. I mean, cement is stronger than tape and is more archival too. Why not learn with what pro's (negative cutters) use in the first place and skip those tape splicers (Wurker splices used to be my favorite, but now I love cement...use in well ventilated areas though). Also, it's good to get one of those Elmo viewers that makes a notch in your film to edit....you don't have to mark the film with a grease marker...I guess it's just a preferance of mine.

I agree. There's enough to discuss in Super 8 alone that it should have it's own forum. After all, it's the format I know most about at this time.....art school starts you out with Super 8 cameras....kind of sucks huh? It's still higher quality and better dynamic range than video, though.

Thanks for the detailed diary of the shoot so far. This stuff is really helpful.

I think they did really well. I really enjoyed the cinematography in 28 Days Later. However, I didn't get to see it projected in the theater, so I don't know what it would've looked like.

They did a lot of color temperature mixing (sodium vapors, tungsten, flourescents) on the production of Eternal Sunshine, which is why I suggest it. The DP, Ellen Kuras, ASC, talked about the fact that this particular stock has an unusual magenta shadow shift, so it may be a problem to cut Kodak with Fuji, unless the grocery scene is an important scene in your movie or even the turning point, right? The article about Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind in the April 2004 American Cinematographer

HI. Yeah, I did see that example. I still wouldn't rule it out if you had 1/4 minus green on the lights. What do you think?

This post has probably already been posted, but if the lattitude of film is not even closely matched by video, why would video be close to being as good as film...especially since you would need a 6k or 4k signal to even remotely reach the resolution that 35 produces. Granted you seem to know all of this, but as a DP, when going for pristine imagery, I for one am going to continue using film until a. video gets better at accepting highlights and has even better lattitude than film b. film stops being produced c. theaters catch up and put at least 4k projectors in every theater across the country (US) d. if video presents me with some kind of image quality advantage for less money...which I don't see happening for another 10 to 15 years minimum e. video has a higher resolution than film (right now, you can get away with scanning a piece of film at extreme resolutions and cropping the image drastically without introducing lots of grain....also, I should add that even the largest grains you would see would be a LOT more forgivable than pixellation even at similar ratios). My point is, for now, super high quality video is a more expensive format for something that I happen to think is not even close to film's aesthetic qualities. Why should I call it "good enough" when I have something in my arsenal that beats it hands down for cheaper?!?!?

You might consider using Reala 500D (they used it in Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind to GREAT effect). I've been considering using Fuji Reala 500D (even though they say it's for daylight). Maybe you should do the same on this grocery location. It has the 4th layer technology that is said to react very well to flourescent lights unlike every other standard film stock in production (that I know of). Also, you can do tests with a 35 mm SLR with Fuji's still stocks that are rated at 500 as well to see how it's gonna come out because they actually make something similar to Reala 500D in a still stock. I am actually pretty curious as well, havng only started being this interested in the different effects of different film stocks. I'd like it if you could share some stills from this production with an explanation of what you ended up doing.

I know that most/all of the pro's use Thing-M motors. Thing -M's were definitely used on Nightmare Before Christmas as well as motion control. Not really sure what cameras were used on Nightmare, though.

I don't remember the shot, but, I think that they could have just used the standard interrogation room one way mirror and lit the people in the room from the front so that they reflect on the glass as well. Because , much like a regular translucent window, even though the glass is translucent, a front light will cause the images of them to show up on the glass because it is a polished surface.....They could have controlled the moments when we see the two men, maybe, by using a rotating polarizing filter....I love that stuff....if you polarize the lights as well and have them hitting the characters at the right phase(is it called?), you can really start playing... I love mirrors and lighting with them. [/size=1]

Did they say anywhere whether the screen could be made translucent? I am under the impression that there would be at least a small amount of distortion of an image when you are attempting to get the image to pass through it. Maybe I missed something though. My initial idea came from learning about a new camoflauge (sp?) At MIT, the government is funding the development of chameleon-lke camoflauge with for a soldier's clothing that actually records color information from the surrounding area and then mimics it on the surface of the material.

Yeah, Phil that's a really good suggestion. How would I find an LCD filter that lets light through unaffected in some areas and stops stops it down in others? Do they sell these? Anyway, thanks for all of these suggestions. I am loving the way that cinematography makes the wheels in my mind spin.... and I've only been doing film for like a year or two. Thanks for all of this, again, everyone. I love this forum!

you're correct David. I just read the production notes on Kill Bill published in American Cinematographer. They just kept duping it until Quentin said that it was what he was looking for.

Wow. I am really happy to read this. I am definitely going to try this when I get the proper tools to do it. I like it when I think I've come up with something and someone else has already done it!

well, if I had access to motion control, moving shots might even be feasible, but I DEFINITELY don't. Also, from what I hear, traveling mattes/garbage mattes don't generally work too well in practice. My friend does compositing in Flame, Smoke, and combustion and he says that even the motion controlled stuff is not perfect for this because of the various subject's changing the light around the area of the shot. Thanks for the suggestion too. Has anyone ever even tried something like this? or heard of the paintable ND I theorized on?

well, if I had access to motion control, moving shots might even be feasible, but I DEFINITELY don't. Also, from what I hear, traveling mattes/garbage mattes don't generally work too well in practice. My friend does compositing in Flame, Smoke, and combustion and he says that even the motion controlled stuff is not perfect for this because of the various subject's changing the light around the area of the shot. Thanks for the suggestion too. Has anyone ever even tried something like this? or heard of the paintable ND I theorized on?

Is there any way that people have ever used for making a grad for a speciic shot that only affects the part of the image that is in highlight? What I am referring to is the possibility of somehow "painting" ND over specific areas of the frame to control their levels. I understand that this might somehow be less accurate than is really possible on set, but could you say, for example, get some ND gels and cutting them to specific sizes and then somehow adhere them to a clear filter in the matte box? Has anyone ever done this? What kinds of materials do yall think are needed for such an invention? I always get way in over my head in these weird inventions I crave! I just wish I had all of the tools to create my dreams.

Oh yeah. I understand that. But I was wondering what the current imaging system is capable of. All that I have seen that was shot on HD looked extremely sterile and odd. I am just waiting for the day that the images that I can capture on video look simliar/better than film of the same price.....which I admit is still FAR off.