CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Introduction

This book consists of edited conversations between DP’s, Gaffer’s, their crew and equipment suppliers.

As such it doesn’t have the same structure as a “normal” film reference book.

Our aim is to promote the free exchange of ideas among fellow professionals, the cinematographer, their camera crew, manufacturer's, rental houses and related businesses. Kodak, Arri, Aaton, Panavision, Otto Nemenz, Clairmont, Optex, VFG, Schneider, Tiffen, Fuji, Panasonic, Thomson, K5600, BandPro, Lighttools, Cooke, Plus8, SLF, Atlab and Fujinon are among the companies represented.

As we have grown, we have added lists for HD, AC's, Lighting, Post etc. expanding on the original professional cinematography list started in 1996.

We started with one list and 70 members in 1996, we now have, In addition to the original list aimed soley at professional cameramen, lists for assistant cameramen, docco’s, indies, video and basic cinematography. These have memberships varying from around 1,200 to over 2,500 each.

These pages cover the period November 1996 to November 2001.

Join us and help expand the shared knowledge:- www.cinematography.net

CML – The first 5 Years………………………….

Page 1 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 2 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Introduction...... 1

Shooting at 25FPS in a 60Hz Environment...... 7

Shooting at 30 FPS...... 17

3D Moving Stills...... 31

4*3 or 16*9 ...... 39

85 or 85B...... 45

Time Code on Film ...... 55

Arri Variable Primes...... 73

Aerial Filming...... 77

Bleach Bypass and related processes...... 87

Blue V Green Screens...... 97

Borescopes, Probes & Frazier ...... 111

Bounce Lighting ...... 119

Colour Blindness...... 131

Chinese Lanterns ...... 139

Cold Conditions ...... 145

CP16...... 155

Complex Crane Moves ...... 161

Cross Processing ...... 171

Deep Focus...... 177

Deserts & Backlight ...... 183

Director & DP’s relationship ...... 189

Enhancing Filters ...... 207

Eyelights ...... 211

Explosion Proof Shooting...... 217

Fluorescent Lights ...... 235

Focusing ...... 243

Filming Smoke ...... 257

Page 3 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 4 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Green Screen (16mm)...... 261

Gun Flashes...... 267

Infra Red ...... 271

Interaction with Directors ...... 279

Invoices...... 285

Jokes ...... 293

Krasnagorsk ...... 301

Latensification...... 305

Mattes ...... 313

Meters...... 319

Monochrome ...... 347

Moonlight ...... 353

Movies as Music...... 359

Neons...... 375

Night Interiors...... 379

Night Shooting...... 387

Making a Rainbow ...... 393

Shooting 3 perf 35mm...... 401

Safe Speeds for Ramps...... 411

Sunsets ...... 417

Tilt & Shift Lenses...... 425

Time-lapse ...... 431

Tropicalisation ...... 443

TV Screens...... 449

Ultra High Speeds ...... 457

Varicon...... 465

White Backgrounds...... 471

Women (close-ups & lighting)...... 475

Page 5 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 6 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Shooting at 25FPS in a 60Hz Environment

An upcoming job requires 25fps shot in the States. The question is what is a flicker free shutter angle? 144 degrees? Someone has suggested 150 degrees, which isn’t an actual setting, is it? There will be xenon in the show and Varilites; it’s a concert music video. Also, what about going to 50fps? Thanks,

Harry Dawson

Yes, 150° is to be used for 60Hz HMI at 25fps: (1/25 s. x 150/360 = 1/60 s.) 144° is used to shoot NTSC CRT screens at 24fps: (1/24 s. x 144/360 = 1/60 s.) Which isn’t an actual setting, is it? This shutter-opening angle is available on XTRprod’s and the latest SR- 3’s.

Jean-Pierre Beauviala

With intermittent sources (HMI, HTI, magnetic ballast fluorescent, etc) you can shoot 25 fps at 75 or 150-degree shutter. Xenon’s are DC constant arc sources and will not flicker at any frame rate. The Varilites are probably HTI sources with magnetic ballast’s so you WOULD have to pay attention, as you would with any of the non incandescent theatrical follow spots EXCEPT for any of the Strong Xenon Super Troopers which are xenon, DC, and therefore non-flickering. If you are working off generator power, there is another thing that you can do.

Page 7 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Most 60Hz generators will not function at 50Hz properly (20% underspeed is to far from “home” for them) but they will almost always run at 62.5Hz...and at 62.5Hz, you can shoot 25 fps with impunity. I have not actually tried this myself, but the late Bernie Grubeman of Camera Mart NY convinced me of this back in 1980 or so and I have heard other people HAVE done it. I hope this is helpful information. Obviously if you can go to a lighting rental house that has Varilight’s and shoot a short test this would be a GOOD idea. By the way, 150-degree shutter will work both for 25fps and for 50 fps. At 25fps, 150 degree is 1/60th sec, 75 degree is 1/120th sec At 50 fps, 150 degree is 1/120th sec.

Mark

>Hello, An upcoming job requires 25fps shot in the States. Silly question but why not shoot at 24fps? The Americans do it all the time and then send their stuff over here for TX at 25fps. Looks and sounds fine - Kind Regards,

Shangara Singh.

Others told you that 150 degree shutter at 25fps is the way to go ... btw. 150-degree shutter and 25 fps is also the perfect combination to shoot NTSC monitors w/o having to sync. At that combination there simply isn’t a roll bar ... but trying to get exactly 150 degrees can be a problem... While testing this combination with a Platinum Panastar I had better “luck” setting the shutter to 150 using the scribe marks on the back of the shutter itself (visible after pulling the movement) vs. using the digital shutter display. When I asked Panavision about it, the mechanical engineers said their marks were more accurate, while of course the electronics people said that their digital display should have been more accurate...?

Page 8 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Arri says their digital display is completely accurate, however when we tried the test using a 535A and inputting the shutter angle via the CCU computer link, the test footage showed that something was slightly off...? DP, Gary Thieltges (spelling?) who seemingly “discovered” this combination because he shoots a lot of European commercials at 25 fps, apparently had Arri Burbank add a 150 degree “notch” to his camera(s).

If the shutter is slightly off, you will start to see a few white or black (depending in which direction its off) dots in a line in your footage. These are the beginning of the out of sync line forming. Certainly better then a solid line. I don’t know how exact the 150-degree shutter setting has to be for your application with lights.... Even using the handy RCU control unit, you should be able to very accurately dial in 150 degrees with either an Arri 435ES or 535A camera.

Mako Kowai

Since the mirror shutter of the 535A and 435ES can be set to any value between 11.2 and 180 degrees, 150 degrees is not a problem on those cameras either.

Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative Arriflex

It seems to me that using an NTSC monitor to “calibrate” a variable shutter to achieve 150 degrees for 50 fps shooting in a 60 Hz world as described by Mako is a very accurate way to go, since you can see slight inaccuracies as “time drift” as a roll bar either moves up or down the screen. Wish I had thought of that as a test protocol.

Mark

Page 9 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I still can’t figure out why people going to the states shoot at 25fps and not 24fps when all the cameras that I know of (not so sure of the 16 BL, though) can shoot at either rate and the transfer facilities can t/f at 24/25fps.

Someone put me out of my misery, please - I keep hoping for a shoot in the states and, who knows, it may happen tomorrow so it would be good to know!

Shangara Singh.

Certainly dialog can be transferred off-speed, but if you are shooting sync music (e.g. music video) material the speed difference is enough to change the speed of the song so that it would not cut from “25 for 25” and “24 for 25” shots...the music would speed up and slow down like an early cassette machine.

Mark Weingartner

Good idea, but remember you’ll have to wait for the lab to process what you shoot because your eye won’t see the same thing through your finder.

John Duclos

Page 10 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

In terms of phasing, of course, you can’t see what you will get, but in terms of speed, you should be able to see the roll bar going one way or the other in the viewfinder ...if it isn’t moving up or down the frame you have the right shutter angle/speed combo. Since all you need in order to avoid flicker with the lighting fixtures is the right speed/angle combo as opposed to the additional issue of phase when actually shooting monitors or re-photographing film, it seems to me that you would be home free.

Having said that, I think I need to run down to Clairmont or somewhere and borrow a body and a monitor to test my cockamamie theory.

Mark Weingartner

Dumb question, but aren’t you really calibrating it to 59.94 then? I mean, plenty close, and a great clever idea—but not 60Hz? Actually, better than 60Hz if you are shooting monitors...

Jeff Kreines

I was wondering if anyone would bring that up...I think you would be close enough for lights, but I’m not sure without testing...I guess the whole issue is how to set a variable shutter accurately to 150 degrees...we have to assume that a crystal motor driven at 25fps will actually be running at 25fps (remember when sound men all carried P.O.M’s?)

Mark Weingartner

Page 11 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I’ll be at Otto Nemenz tomorrow anyway. I’ll try playing with my 435 at 25 fps, a monitor and the RCU plus and minusing around 150 degrees through the finder and the gate...

Mako Kowai

Oh, darn! I would invite myself along to see what happens but I will be in the GREATER PACOIMA METROPLEX in 8 perf purgatory...Please let us know what you discover

Mark

Try it, Mark, and you’ll find that 25fps and 150 degrees on an NTSC monitor will not give you a stationary roll bar. What it does give you is 1/60 second exposure time (one field of video) on film only. Your eye gets its image from the 180 degree, fixed segment of mirror on the shutter which =1/50 second. This will appear as a rolling, bright band running through the screen.

John Duclos Technical Manager - Arri Media

Good point...at the very least I would have to sight through the gate so that I was looking at 150 degree...and switch on and off until I could see the vertical interval band and then see which way it was drifting...Never mind, it seemed like a great idea at the time:-) Does anyone still rent P.O.M’s? I don’t recall, but if there were a setting that cycled the LED’s at 60 Hz, you could check your shutter that way, but since the device was designed to check speed for reference to sound, I suppose it only cycles with respect to 24 frames or 25 frames, not necessarily 50Hz or 60Hz. Any one know?

Mark

Page 12 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Ideal frame rate/shutter angle for 60 cycle fluorescent tubes is 24fps/144 degrees (or 30fps and 180 degrees or 33.33 fps and 200 degrees), but we regularly get away with filming normal fluorescent tubes at 24 fps at 180/200 degree shutters. At 25 fps the ideal shutter is 150 degrees. But if your camera can’t be set for 150 degrees (SR3) are you going to be OK at 25fps and 180 degrees? Would that be better then 25 fps at 144 degrees...?

Wouldn’t it be better to have two pulses plus (180 degrees) rather then not getting at least 2 pulses (144 degrees)? Can anyone predict how bad the fluorescent flicker will be if you can’t film at 25 fps and 150 degrees.... ?

Mako Kowai

I had a film test done at a rental house on Friday to test filming an NTSC TV source at 150 degree and 25 fps. Supposedly with this combination one should not have to do any phasing since there should be no scan line. Looking through the camera (Arri 435ES/180 degree mirror) viewfinder and through the aperture gate (pressure plate removed, “magic” frosted “scotch” Tape over the aperture to act as a ground glass) at a TV monitor receiving an over the air signal with the camera running at 25 fps and at and around 150 degrees revealed a rolling soft edge dark diagonal band. A call was made to DP Gary Thieltges (who “discovered” this shutter/fps combination) who said yes you will see this band but it won’t photograph... Apparently there will be a thin scan line every 7tth (8th?) frame but it won’t be noticeable during normal viewing. The monitor was filmed at 25 fps/150 degrees and at 25 fps with the shutter being slowly changed between 148 and 152 degrees with the RCU control unit in the shot so that the degree settings will be visible in the footage. A 25 fps test was also shot with a MovieCam SL since it has a mechanical indent for 150 degrees.

Page 13 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We don’t know if the resolution of the Arri RCU display is accurate enough to set at 150.15 degrees. This would be the actual shutter angle needed at 25 fps with the NTSC monitor scanning at 59.94 cycles. (shutter angle = frame rate times 3 times 2.002 “pulses”/exposure cycle) Can a mechanical shutter indent be made accurately and practically at 150.15 degrees...? The transfer will be done on Monday and hopefully we can post the results on Tuesday when I get back into town from my location shoot. Since this thread was started by a question concerning shooting in the US at 25 fps for the European market, it was interesting to see a 9 camera prep taking place at the same rental house, for concert footage being shot here for Europe. The cameras are going to run at 25 fps and 144 degree shutter. The question is why 144 degree shutter? With this combination the DP must be using tungsten [or square wave HMI’s?] [it’s indoors] light ... but then why not have the shutters set a 180 degrees for maximum through put? Maybe he wants that minimal amount of extra strobing/extra sharpness? The nine cameras are Arri SR3’s, whose shutters can not be set to 150 degrees. There will also be one Aaton XTR (whose shutter can be set at 150 degrees) as the “A” crane camera w/ 800’ mags.

Mako Kowai

I haven’t seen the footage/transfer myself but I talked to the tech's at Otto Nemenz Int. camera rental house in Hollywood who kindly shot our 25fps/150 degree test of a NTSC monitor. The footage taken with the Arri 435ES at 25 fps/150 degrees was almost perfect. After repeated close up viewing of the transfer one could make out the very slight beginnings of a line - a string of dots. The footage where they slowly altered the shutter angle from about 148 to 152 degrees showed a constantly changing (in width) line that disappeared at about 150 degrees and then immediately reappeared. Apparently the way they photographed the RCU display made it difficult to see the read out.

Page 14 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The footage taken with the MovieCam SL with it’s shutter set to a mechanical indent of 150 degrees showed a very obvious bar. They are going to redo the test using a number of different 435 bodies and now setting the shutter to 150.1 and 150.2 degree. The RCU does not allow a setting of 150.15, which is the “perfect” shutter angle for 59.94 scan. We’ve found that the removing the bar completely requires an extremely precise shutter, but that perhaps the electronically inputted shutter angle with the 435/535 family of Arri cameras is accurate enough to allow filming of NTSC monitors without any phasing. The mechanical indents on the Moviecam’s are not accurate enough to allow using this “emergency” procedure. I’ll keep everyone posted on any further tests.

Mako Kowai

Page 15 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I’d like to publicly send Mako an enormous thank you for this information. I’ve already made use of it :-)

I’m shooting a commercial for a chain of computer stores at the moment. My biggest problem on the main store location was that I had to use the florrie fittings, they’re well featured in shot, the roof is a suspended one and it wouldn’t support the weight of the 72 Kino Flo 4’ 4banks I would have to use. I had to use daylight corrected florrie tubes instead. This meant that at anything other than 25, 50 or 100 I would have flicker problems. Unfortunately the shot was full of working computers all running at different speeds. I was able to adjust these all to the same speed but there was still going to be a flicker problem as I couldn’t lock the camera running speed to the monitors. We solved this by setting all the monitors to VGA and 60Hz, this actually measured at 59.94, with my B&S meter, thanks Bill. We then set the shutter to 150 to allow for the monitors at 60 Hz, the 25 fps was safe with the florries at any shutter angle. We checked by running the camera at 29.96 and various speeds around this, no flicker, some small bars, but hey! a 10mm lens and a swooping crane will cover those.

Geoff Boyle

Page 16 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Shooting at 30 FPS

Those of my friends from the former and original AOL Hollywood online Forum will remember how I LOVE to stir the pot. You guys really bit. It's great to have a discussion like this. And I really believe the essence of what I said about 24fps and 30fps. In fact I better post the article I referred to in my first post on this subject. Of course the frame rate isn't the only component that makes up the difference between film and tape. Many of the comments about the 3:2 pull down and refresh rates of 60 (or 50) images like Showscan or normal video were very cogent. But have a butchers at what I was thinking about and then let’s talk... By the way, I promise that I didn't name it ""The Poster Theory"" the editor did. Also please remember it's a few years old. Film vs. Video: The Poster Theory by Steven Poster, ASC (Cinematographer Steven Poster served as director of photography in 1990 on an experimental high definition television dramatic project for NHK titled Coastal Frames. The production was recorded with prototype Panavision/Sony 1125/60 HDTV equipment in Bodega Bay, CA. It was during this experience that Poster began to reconsider the widely-held notion that video should be made to look like film. Among Poster's 16 feature film credits are Someone To Watch Over Me, Life Stinks and Rocky V. He was also director of photography on Madonna's Like A Prayer video and such longform television projects as Testament and I'll Take Manhattan.) Since the day video was invented, the question of how to make it look like film has come up repeatedly. I believe that film and video are two separate mediums and should be thought of as such. There is a need for both of these styles, and the two can definitely work side-by-side without one trying to dominate the other. As I perceive it, there are productions that are best done on tape and there are productions best done on film. News and sports, special events like variety shows and concerts, news- based and contemporary documentaries, industrials and educational programs are best done on tape. Anything that needs immediate presentation is obviously best done on tape. Soap operas, believe it or

Page 17 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

not, are best done on tape. I'll get into why I think that is true a little later. Film, however, is best for any storytelling or narrative production. Historical documentaries, I think, are best done on film. Commercials are best done on film. Anything that is ""fantasy-based"" is best done on film. Why do I say this? Marshall McLuhan, the great media visionary, defined the difference between the hot medium and the cool medium as the audience's use of the imagination as opposed to the direct visual implant. I have a theory about this . . . Film is shot at 24 frames per second. At that speed, there is a certain amount of blur in the images. There is also a brief time between the frames when there is no image at all and there is a little perception of flicker. Though this film process may sound technically flawed, in fact, these ""imperfections"" cause the audience to use their imagination to fill in the blanks of the missing information. Tape, as we know, is 30 frames per second or two interlaced fields resulting in 60 images a second. There is a technique called Showscan, invented by a genius named Douglas Trumbull, which involves filming at 60 frames per second and projecting at 60 frames per second. This number was not arbitrarily chosen. Trumbull did psychological and physiological tests on all kinds of audiences and determined that 60 images a second is the maximum visual information that can be transmitted through the optic nerve to the brain. Watching Showscan resulted in a direct visual implant without any perceivable blank spaces. If the rate is raised to more than 60 images a second, the audience won't get any improvement in image transference. So 60 frames is the cut-off. I believe a format like Showscan negates the use of the audience's imagination. This refresh rate of 60 images exactly relates to what is seen on a video screen. Therefore, when we see video images we're getting a direct implant of images; we are not having to use our imagination to fill in the blanks. This is little like the difference between radio drama and television. In radio drama, the audience has to completely imagine the setting and completely imagine what the people look like. Listeners must engage the imagination in the storytelling process. For this reason, I feel any fantasy-based or story-based information is best viewed on film. The 24 frame per second film imaging system does not give the audience all of the visual information. Audience members are engaged in the storytelling process because of the need to fill in the blanks with imagination. Now, what about soap operas? Why do they work on video? Soap operas are made so that the audience can feel an immediate connection to the characters and feel that those characters are part of their daily lives. This

Page 18 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

is the reason that soap operas are best done on tape. It's best to visually implant that information directly so it feels like it's live and happening now. There have been continuing attempts to make tape look like film. I think this is the wrong approach. Each medium should be used for what it does best. Dr. Edwin Land, the inventor of instant photography, had the idea he was giving a new medium to the world. He wasn't just doing something old in a new way. I think that is the approach we should take with the video technology of today and with high definition video in the future. As I just re-read this I realized that it is a simplified version of a speech that I gave for the High Vision Society in Japan in 1991 (about 300 people involved in the development of Hi Def). It of course raised a lot of eyebrows there. Many of the (Non- Sony) engineers and scientists and designers really got it. PS - For those of you who don't understand the word Mishagass (however it's spelled) - Tough...

Steven Poster, ASC

The fact that the tape looks much like the 16mm is a good argument for shooting 35mm all of the time. Besides you degrade the artistic content of any narrative piece by shooting at 30FPS or on tape. Refer to my article in back of the American Cinematographer Video Manual. Given the choice between panning slowly and the look of film at 30fps I'll take panning slowly. One can overcrank, etc. Conceded there are some compromises. But the rhythmic quality of film at 24 fps is I think, pleasurable, hypnotic. I actually feel this is true for theatrical as well as TV shooting. 18 fps? I'd say that would be fine with me :) ..but I already take enough flack for using a Steenbeck and printing - film dailies. In the pre-sound days with the projector motors on rheostats, speed cue sheets were apparently shipped to projectionists.. (Whether they followed them closely is debatable) and I suppose in the best of all possible worlds we would have projection speed options - actually one thing interesting in the proposed 'HDTV' standards are options in frame rate, (I think) so this is not purely hypothetical musing, I believe it touches on some very critical issues.

Page 19 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It is certainly not the only significant difference and I don't think that Steven Poster is saying it is the 'only' significant difference. But I would agree with him- 30 fps film on video brings out the aspects of video that you yourself do not like. Vs. film's ""organic image"". Note that everyone in the ""film look"" business reduces 30 > 24 (and of course back up to 30) in an effort to convince us it 'looks like film'

Sam Wells

With respect to the increased cost of film stock & processing related to 30 v 24fps, there are some projects that simply cannot afford the added expense. However, this difference is not significant when compared to the overall costs of most contemporary productions. It is true that 30fps is not an absolute fix, but it does significantly minimize the problem. As for the issue of the 24fps ""rhythm"", this again appears to be more an issue of a frame rate seeming to be ""comfortable"" simply because we have lived with it for so many years. And finally, the difference in frame rate from 24 to 30 fps merely requires a 1/4 stop increase in light level. This is hardly a major issue.

Michael Siegel

I'm with Michael Siegel - I love the look of film at 29.97fps! As a colorist I've heard both points of view, but my eyes are my witnesses that I personally prefer film shot and transferred at 30. Not only is it a better sampling rate, but the elimination of the pulldown makes the motion much more fluid. Clients usually notice the difference if they've shot a lot and transferred at 30 for a while - their eyes get used to it so that if they shot a scene at 24 and we drop to that speed, they clearly see the jerkiness of the pulldown. Because of this, I always recommend shooting tabletops at 30, or scenes which will have a lot of motion and/or picket-fencing. Generally it's OK to shoot talking heads at 24, as that's not a big deal of movement.

Page 20 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

There are those who contend that film transferred on a Rank at 30 is degraded due to a smaller flying-spot patch on the tube. They claim that the reduced patch size enlarges irregularities of the tube face. Fortunately, this effect is ameliorated in the new thick-face tubes, which are subject to less surface degradation over their lifetimes. Then again, CCD machines work fine at both speeds. Anyway, I generally like 30 when the scene has a lot of motion. I guess there are a lot of opinions, but it's all a matter of personal taste,

Bob Lovejoy

There are a couple of things that deserve to be addressed here. The first issue Michael brought up is the strobe factor. Shooting at 30 fps doesn't eliminate the problem. It lessens the parameters, but it still exists, and there are other compromises none of which I believe have very much to do with tradition, but rather with an aesthetic that many others on this list have expressed. The perception of motion or the motion blur is the key issue here. Some believe (as I do), the blur at 24fps helps rather than hinders the perception of motion. If image sharpness (and not cost) is the sole concern, why not shoot 65mm Showscan at 60 fps and end the argument? Obviously it is not practical, nor is shooting 25% more film at 30 fps in most situations, particularly if the aesthetic gain does not out weigh the economics. There is nothing I hate more than an opening sequence in a film, or a grand scene that opens strobing all over the place (and some of the greatest masters . . . and operators . . . in the business are guilty of this), frankly shooting 30 fps is not the way to rectify the problem.

[email protected]

Page 21 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I hate to rain on the parade but I can tell you from first hand experience that (other than on commercials) any question of 24 v 30 will be quickly overruled once a Producer calculates the cost. This entire argument is highly entertaining but, unfortunately, it is merely an exercise in debating prowess. I agree completely with your point about costs - however, I think this debate is more over the look of the two frame rates rather than the costs.

Jon Mendelssohn

If you think the increase in cost of 30/24 is insignificant to a Producer/Line Producer/UPM you are sadly mistaken. In many cases I hear guys negotiating over points of a cent per foot. The only way to slip 30fps into dramatic production is to go to 3 perf pulldown, thereby giving the same overall stock costs. This very rarely happens (although it is happening on some three film camera sitcoms) for myriad reasons. Whilst most of these arguments are technically accurate they have little bearing on Production. You could argue till you are blue in the face but the cost differential will win over the quality differential every time.

Rob Draper, ACS

I feel that one cannot compare 30fps to 24fps -- the two rates look totally different and should be applied depending on the needs of the artist. I will say this -- 30fps cinematography requires a great deal more care than 24fps. My experience has taught me to light 30fps with more diffusion and a lower contrast ratio - anyway, that's just my take on it. 30fps is a great format when lit properly-to say that it looks ""bad"" or ""just like video"" to me is just nonsense. One has to know how to use a format before judging it.

Jon Mendelssohn

Page 22 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Well... I just can't buy that at all. For the very reasons I cited previously, 16mm (24fps, 29.97 or anything else) looks nothing like video. The mere fact that video is shot at 30fps (interlaced at that!) can't possibly make up for the myriad of other shortcomings. That's like comparing an F-117 and a Cessna simply because they both fly! Yes they do... but in very different ways. 30fps looks far smoother than 24, and the ""stuttering"" problem of 24fps is significantly reduced. Every time I see a scene projected on a screen that suffers from that 24fps ""stutter"" it immediately disrupts any ""suspension of disbelief"" and subsequently my sense of personal involvement with the narrative. I fail to see how severing the audiences emotional participation by abruptly reminding them that they are not truly involved in the story can possibly contribute a thing to improving the filmgoing experience. Again, and with all due respect, IMHO all I see here is the need by many cinematographers to cling to a traditional frame rate since ""its what we have always done and always intend to do"".

Michael Siegel

)) 30Fps film will always look like video. The fact that the tape looks much like the 16mm is a good argument for shooting 35mm all of the time. Besides you degrade the artistic content of any narrative piece by shooting at 30FPS(( Amazing how true it is. 30 fps film (or 29.97) looks awful!

Jeff Kreines

I'm with Michael Siegel - I love the look of film at 29.97fps! As a colorist I've heard both points of view, but my eyes are my witnesses that I personally prefer film shot and transferred at 30. Not only is it a better sampling rate, but the elimination of the pulldown makes the motion much more fluid. Clients usually notice the difference if they've shot a lot and transferred at 30 for a while - their eyes get used to it so that if they shot a scene at

Page 23 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

24 and we drop to that speed, they clearly see the jerkiness of the pulldown. Because of this, I always recommend shooting tabletops at 30, or scenes which will have a lot of motion and/or picket-fencing. Generally it's OK to shoot talking heads at 24, as that's not a big deal of movement. There are those who contend that film transferred on a Rank at 30 is degraded due to a smaller flying-spot patch on the tube. They claim that the reduced patch size enlarges irregularities of the tube face. Fortunately, this effect is ameliorated in the new thick-face tubes, which are subject to less surface degradation over their lifetimes. Then again, CCD machines work fine at both speeds. Anyway, I generally like 30 when the scene has a lot of motion. I guess there are a lot of opinions, but it's all a matter of personal taste,

Bob Lovejoy

..light with more diffusion.. Is that an attempt to downplay the 'static' unchanging quality of 30 fps? A cynic might say that by the above logic you are trying to get some of what 24 fps gives you in the first place! I would agree with you that (despite my own preferences) that there may still be a payoff (in some cases) with 30fps; and if the price of admission is more diffusion and a lower contrast ratio, why not? But I suspect, hope at least that a higher def video system would allow for more choices, lessen the need to 'texturize' your 30 fps film, or allow - the rhythmic qualities of film @ 24 to come through if that be the choice. Again I would say that for me, the '3-2 pulldown' in NTSC/60 transfers actually helps preserve the rhythmic quality of film. Having said all that, one could take the opposite tack: I saw a movie about 6 years ago called ""Julia and Julia"". It was shot on the Sony 1125 system for theatrical release, but I saw it on my (normal) TV. It was the 'clearest' and most 'video-y' video I'd ever seen, outside of trade show demos. And seeing it on my home set made that effect seem quite surreal, enhanced I suspect by its sort of de Chirico exterior compositions (a deliberate production design and framing/composition choice I'm sure).

Page 24 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The walls for instance of the exterior architecture were so 'unchanging' in their appearance (sort of like glossy acrylic paintings) that it was almost startling when people or cars or whatever moved in front of them. It was an interesting visual experience insofar as it was SO ""un filmlike""!

It did not make me a convert, however.

Sam Wells

Okay, what is different between film and tape when the final release is on tape? 1. Resolution. This is a fairly minimal difference, and while it's possible to get better resolution on a film chain than on a conventional color camera, the end viewer never sees it anyway. So who cares? 2. Motion artefacts. This is what most people notice first when they see stuff originated on film. If you go to 30 fps operation, they go away, thank God, and the improvement is significant. I consider motion artefacts to be a disadvantage of film, not an advantage, but a lot of people seem to like them. 3. Grey scale. This is where film really shines. There is a much wider scale, and this is visible on the final video output. Even more importantly, when you go from the wide scale medium to a medium with a reduced grey scale like tape, you have a lot of freedom to adjust things.

There is more shadow detail and more highlight detail, and you can tweak the midpoint up and down a lot without it being visible, like it is with videotape originated material.

Now, this said, let's cut it out with the stupid film vs. tape debates. I've been seeing them on the old filmmakers' mailing list for ten years and I don't want to see them here.

Scott Dorsey

Page 25 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It's interesting that you would point this out, as it's one of the current ""selling points"" for devices such as the Spirit Datacine and/or high-def video origination, not to mention other options such as the HR1440 telecine. The concept of oversampling providing more flexibility in a down conversion has always been one of the primary advantages of film origination.

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.

The first part of this I don't want to even get into. But I do take exception to the overall concept. I'm a director/cameraman in a small market.. We shoot hundreds of thousands of feet of 16mm film each year. It is all for commercials. Most of it is shot at 30 fps. Our reels are enthusiastically received at agencies all over the country, from large NY agencies to smaller creative shops in mid-sized markets. The single most-often hear comment is, ""I can't believe that is 16mm"". This comment is never, never meant to be taken, ""it looks like tape"". It is always said in belief that it ""looks like 35"". Really, other than trying to do good lighting and having a great colorist, we don't do anything any different than most people. But we always shoot our 16mm at 30 fps. And our 16mm NEVER LOOKS LIKE TAPE. Yes, I think this will be another thread. Later today, I'll post a document that is widely circulated by a NY colorist, The Anti 30 FPS"" theory. Then later, maybe my own technical rebuttal.

Jim Dollarhide

Page 26 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Now HDTV is a touchy subject here because many in the states have fought and lost (as I have said all along) to getting any of the standards (e.g. Non interlacing, 2:1 ratio, etc).

The reason they have lost this battle and the reason why the digital future is more like science fiction has to do with one word-money. The original propionate for HDTV is the EIA.

Who is the EIA? The ten manufactures of TV sets. They single-handedly started the whole thing. That is why we are now talking about HDTV.

We will get a compromise though. It's digital TV, as it offers the TV manufactures the ability to throw away 240 million perfectly good sets.

The broadcasters have to spend to re-outfit, but they will not have to spend on HDTV and the Gov. is ""giving"" them the free radio space so that is like money in the bank.

We as cinematographers who thrive for quality pictures get an ""almost"" 2:1 ratio so that is not bad. A valid argument was made by the ASC here, but this has nothing to do with quality.

And digital will mean ""fantastic"" sound that I doubt anyone will really notice unless you tell them.

The only one who suffers is our US economy because virtually all of the TV manufactures are from overseas. I remember when Sony came to the US 5 years ago. They went around shopping malls here to do a side-by- side comparison of HDTV and ""regular"" TV. Almost 80% of consumers who saw it picked the ""regular"" picture as being better. Oh there are some of you that will say the new sets are wider. That is good. But there are also some that will say they look better, but that is simply because you have been told that. And there are some of you that will tell me that this is the first step in the evolution of TVs. Well, this is the first step in the evolution in almost forty years. Oh sure NBC plans on equipping twenty stations with HDTV. I don't know if they will in the end, but HDTV would be nicer.

Page 27 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

See TV doesn’t evolve much, its too expensive. Its more like they'll make the change now that make everyone happy and that will be it for the next 40.

WalterNY

Remember that when we get digital TV we will have the opportunity to see 24 fps film shown on 24 frame video...the end of 3-2 pulldown! However, we will also be able to see 30 fps film shown on 30 frame video! << Uhhh,,, that's not entirely accurate.. Since most people will be viewing digital TV via a decoder box attached to a (current) analog monitor, the monitor display will still be 29.97 FPS. Not to mention the likelihood that most broadcasters will adopt one of the 30 frame options for digital broadcast, if only to allow a mix of film and video originated programming. In the case of film origination, the 3:2 pulldown is removed when the MPEG encoding takes place (automatically, in most cases) in order to save bandwidth. The MPEG2 format contains a flag that identifies the data stream as 24 FPS material and the decoder reinserts 3:2 pulldown for display. That's how DVD works today. Looking at today's DVD is a very good preview of what digital broadcasting will hopefully accomplish within a few years. Besides, you don't really want to start viewing flickering 24FPS displays, do you??

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.

One needs to keep in mind that film shot and transferred to NTSC at 30fps cannot be transferred to PAL using advanced 3:2 pulldown conversion technology such as ImageFIT, DEFT or TK3:2. This presents a major headache to the international distributor of the finished program due to the fact that linear interpolating converters such as ADAC are the only option for creating the necessary PAL masters from 30fps NTSC.

Page 28 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Many of today's quality conscience program buyers will no longer accept programming which exhibits the temporal smearing and judder associated with linear conversions.

Remember that with the exception of the United States, Japan, Canada and a few smaller markets, the vast majority of viewers around the world will be viewing the standards converted master. Take a close look at what these converters are going to do to your work prior to deciding to shoot 30fps.

Jeff Dewolde

I have been following this 24-30fps/film-video tread (yes another film- video tread) with great interest and Steven certainly started a very good one there. This is what this mail group is all about. I certainly prefer to shoot film for all the reasons we all agree on so I won't repeat them all here. However, I am starting to do more and more video. Keep in mind that I am in a peculiar market. French Canadian productions are doomed from the onset to have a smaller market, mostly here in Quebec, most even have to be dubbed when sold in France and other francophones Europeans countries as our accent is apparently disturbing to our Europeans cousins. Therefore productions are highly subsidized and subject more and more to budget cuts. Three weeks ago a large productions company called me to a meeting and asked me to shoot a 13 part mini-series. Five months of shooting over 120 days of work (total budget around 11 millions CAN$, that's a lot here). The fee is as good as on any feature I could do, the script is good. It is on digital betacam. I agreed. I did not stop to think ooooh... it's video. Of course we get follow focus, serious mat box and all the film style gear and it is shot like a film, only the cameras (2) are different. Perhaps some among us have only shot 35mm for the past 10-20-30 years, that's great, maybe I wish I was in your shoes. Perhaps some can afford to turn down work like this. I know I can not. Here in our smaller market that's the game. I believe I am getting a good reputation doing better video than others and that's getting me work. I always treat video with as much care as I would film while respecting the medium's shortcomings without letting them limit me. Just last week I was offered, but had to decline of course, another mini- series on digital betacam, and I was asked for another one about six Page 29 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

weeks before. Is there a trend? Perhaps, and I am glad to take on the challenge. Just give me something with a lens at one end and a light if it gets dark and I'm a happy camper. Add a good dedicated crew, talented cast and a serious production company and all is A-OK for me. IMHO, it's not the container that matters but what's in it. Happy shooting to all... at all speeds and on all formats. Have fun...

Daniel Villeneuve

I couldn't agree with you more. I personally hate how 35mm film looks transferred at 30 fps, and 16mm looks worse. And to further the argument, advanced definition television is just around the corner. I read recently that the FCC is pushing the broadcasters hard to be on line broadcasting digital television signals by Christmas 1998. The broadcasters admit that about half of the 20 major markets will indeed be on line by Christmas '98. So, you're a producer and you shoot your show in NTSC video.... whatcha gonna do with it in a year and a half? 35mm film is higher resolution than any of the proposed advanced definition TV standards and will allow your product to look its absolute best well into the foreseeable future. To quote a long dead economist: ""There is the price, and then there is the cost.....""

Bill Bennett

Page 30 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

3D Moving Stills

Just curious---if anyone has heard of a Camera able to lock motion of selected subjects within a single frame. I've been told of a monsterious and wonderful device invented by a guy named Dayton Taylor that does just that. It may have been used in a recent car commercial to show the manoeuvrability of the vehicle around girls on a scooter and a kid with a ball at an intersection... ring any bells?

Leland Krane

Hi, there was an article entitled 'Virtual Camera Movement: The Way of the Future?' and was in Sept 1996 issue. Interesting stuff, and there is someone in the UK using a similar technique, who we tried to get involved on a film shot last year, 'Photographing Fairies'. Unfortunately he was busy, expensive, arrogant and unhelpful, so we just used the 435 and adapted our ideas. But it seems complex and time- consuming, and I suspect that only commercials and fairly large budget pictures could really afford it, unless you custom built a rig and explored the possibilities, in which case it would be time-consuming and complex, and you'd have to pay instead of the production company...... The gist of it is that you use a strip of still cameras, which are arranged around the (moving) subject in space. They are triggered simultaneously, and the resulting images transferred sequentially to 35mm film, or video or whatever. The result appears to be a tracking shot around a frozen subject, and has been described as having an almost 3D feel. It means you could track, say, 180 degrees around a popping balloon, or around an object or person in mid-flight or action.

Page 31 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

A fascinating idea. After all even high speed motion picture cameras take pictures sequentially, and time cannot be stopped. Using this technique, time is stopped but we, as the camera/observer, can move through space, albeit limited in range by the number and separation of the individual cameras.

Chris Plevin

I think you refer to a technique called: Time Slicing", invented by Tim McMillan. So far everybody in this newsgroup refers to the system mentioned in the A.C. and showed on the "Shots" tape. Original a French idea using fifty stills camera. The good thing about "Time Slicing" is that it all takes place in camera. The camera can freeze a moment of time whilst continuously panning around it and without stopping, move the image back in to real time live action all in a single take! You can dolly with the camera and even hang it on a crane. I have seen some incredible shots on a showreel of "Live from Bermuda". Unfortunately I don't have a direct number for you, sorry.

Bastiaan Houtkooper (N.S.C.)

A few months ago there was an article in American Cinematographer about the system you're talking about. Sorry, don't know the issue and I just pulled in from a shoot at 2 am and am too beat tonight to dig it up. I've been thinking about it lately for a project and I've been meaning to track down the article. If I can find it in the next few days I'll post the issue number.

Mark Schlicher

Page 32 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Taylor's rig, as described on American Cinematographer last spring, was an arrangement of still cameras. In essence, it is a line of still cameras with the shutters able to be triggered in whatever sequence is required. If one were to trigger each camera simultaneously, and then edit each frame together, the result would appear to be a "dolly" shot on a frozen moment in time. Others have tried this with varying degrees of success with a line of motion picture cameras. This results in a matrix of images, with the vertical axis of the matrix being a sequence in time (the film strip from one camera) and the horizontal axis a sequence in space (the same frame in time from each of the cameras). By selectively editing images from this matrix together, infinite choices of camera "motion" over variable moments can be made to manipulate the motion / time relationship. That's it in a nutshell. The technique has been attempted on a recent car commercial and music video (can't remember the car make or musicians), and it is rumored to have been used on "Batman and Robin" for some Mr. Freeze shots (or was at least being considered at one point), and I know it was at least considered for an upcoming effects driven English feature production. I for one, don't really see much of a broad based application for this technique. I think it smacks of being terribly faddish, like morphs and no bleach. However, I've been considering uses for it, and know of some people who are rumored to be working on systematizing it. I'd love to here opinions from this group on it's viability.

Don Canfield

Dayton Taylor was basically using the same sort of set-up that Muybridge used in the nineteenth century, just with optical triggering rather than a set of strings to trigger the shutters. It's an interesting effect, but of limited use and definitely difficult. You might consider just doing stop motion work instead... move the car an inch, move the camera an inch, fire the shutter, move the car an inch....

Scott Dorsey

Page 33 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I have recently seen this, or maybe a similar technique (?), used in a 'Coolio' rock clip - titled "I'll see you when you get there", also on David Bowie clip some time ago. I would love to know how involved (i.e. time consuming) and how practical it is for say a commercial. Anyone out there able to fill us in on these details?

D. McClelland

There is a new Miller Beer commercial that uses this device. The shot is a 180' arc around a frozen moment of beer being poured (sloppily) into a mug. Funny thing though, it sort of looks like a model - you know, plastic beer like in novelty shops. I think its the execution that suffers here; the shot is on screen a short time and perhaps not close enough for TV. It could have even been the action photographed. The beer is splashing high out of the glass, at first I wasn't even sure what I was looking at. Still kinda cool, though.

Dave Trulli

I remember the music video, though. It was The Stones covering "Like a Rolling Stone" last year. I recall dismissing it as just another piece of digital software, until I signed up for the CML. As far as it's "limited artistic applications" are concerned, I'm sure the technique could be use for somewhat subtler ends. And didn't they say, in the late fifties, that Hitchcock's Dolly/Zoom had "limited artistic applications"?

Stefan

Page 34 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

And they were, essentially, right. Overused, isn't it. Looks cool but usually meaningless in the context of the film. It's a show-off shot, calls so much attention to itself that one is pulled out of the film for a moment -- just like overused surround SFX -- they trumpet their existence and distract the viewer. How about a little subtlety?

Jeff "the old crank" Kreines

Yeah, I have to agree with Jeff on this one. That shot, even when Hitchcock used it, was never anything other than "wow, look how that looks when we do this with the dolly and do this with the zoom" It is meaningless. Even to show a feeling. Spielberg ripped it off in Jaws. Every time I see it now, I think "oh wow, dolly/zoom thing again"

Charles "have nothing against dolly or zooms" Newman

The inventor of the system is Dayton Taylor and can be reached at [email protected]. His phone number in New York is 212-477-1639. It is quite a unique system. The Music Clip was for the Stones and is extraordinary but I'm not sure if that was Daytons system. Boy you guys sound really negative about something that is a really neat way of looking at images and is somewhat new (in modern times). Sure it has limited uses and it is post heavy. But so what. For the right applications it's a tool to be used. Nothing more nothing less. Not something to be put down as "oh it's just a trendy trick and has no place." Where is our sense of wonderment and joy over something that is new and unique? And the person who asked the question obviously has an idea where this system can be used. Let's not try to talk him out of it before he even knows what it is, for heavens sake!

Steven Poster ASC

Page 35 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Touché. You're right about wonderment and such. There is no question that this effect is way cool. I suppose my un-stated thoughts are wondering if it would be economically viable to create a camera system to create this effect on a broad market basis. There has been success in creating this effect in new and unique situations without sophisticated systems. So, would a comprehensive packaged system simply accelerate the effect becoming tright, passé, and cliché, and encourage its becoming an overused show-off effect? Therein lies my analogy to morph and short-lived trends. Does the fad last long enough to justify building such a system ...... ? Just thinking out loud with out letting you know all that I'm thinking. Not that any of this really matters.....

Don Canfield

Real purpose ? How much deeper purpose did the Lumiere bros. need, Jeff ? True, the 'Camera invention' here may have no real purpose in 'most films' but then in the history of this medium the trix came first (we all start as kids). If we think of our default paradigm as flickering Renaissance painting (we have our camera obscura and our oils all in one small portable box) given movement... great beauty, ideas can be made from our conventional means of rendering motion in time, from the way we use the units, the frames. But if we were to substitute a _sculptural_ metaphor, 'finding the form in the uncut stone' as they say... ? What is the 'purpose' of camera movement, for instance? of Crane shots? Well we can and do assign all kinds of purpose, but why does the omniscience of camera movement have to be tied to the reproduction of _space_ & in (more or less) real-time? Why NOT form instead? Or Both?)

Page 36 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Doesn't use of the 'Camera Invention' say: here is another way to deal out the deck of frames, it's Muybridge taken in another direction, maybe we might say motion-pictured-sculpture: the Greeks of the classic period for example, might have been damn near to doing Renaissance perspective, but they were interested in something else, in sculptural forms, that may not be our agenda but is this any less sophisticated a way to see/depict things? If _still_ photography is a legitimate means for conveying ideas and single-camera sequential cinematography is too, why not these 'dynamic stills’? (I'm really being rhetorical here; I don't really know how far anyone could go with these gizmos). Depends on how you use it, maybe it is an approach to imaging itself, not necessarily a gimmick to be inserted.

Sam 'not car shopping anyway' Wells

Or really overcranked with strobes. You could arrange the cameras in a circle, and do a continuous virtual dolly shot around a Doc Edgerton stroboscopic popping balloon... Muybridge for the 90s. It would be cool, the first three times. Then you could morph it and maybe use a shifting lensboard on each camera to play with focus and put it on the Flame and do some more stuff and maybe bring out that slow motion lens... (Above said ironically...)

Jeff "met Doc E once" Kreines

There's another company doing this type of effect, Paws and Company, their email is [email protected], and their tel. is 201-714-9845. As a NY based efx person I've been intrigued with this type of imagery since seeing some examples going back about a year ago. There are several approaches to this type of visual effect. One method is via film- based image capture. That's the method Paws and company, Dayton Taylor, Tim McMillan, Reel EFX, etc. are pursuing. The other method is via CGI, such as Cineon interpolation.

Page 37 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've seen the systems that Paws, Dayton, and Reel EFX have. They’re all quite nice, but the Paws rig is much more of a system. They built their cameras from scratch, as Dayton has also done, but they've got the whole assembly, posting back end in place. Dayton just captures the image. The Reel EFX rig is made of stills cameras, nice but limited, and no back end support. The Paws rig is apparently very adjustable, any configuration you want, any length you want, any lens you want.....the Dayton rig I believe is 8' long with a fixed lens.

The apparent leader via the CGI method is a place in France called BUF. They do beautiful work but their abilities in manipulating the imagery is limited compared to the film-based approach. I've a wealth of info on this effect, anyone want to reach me I'm at [email protected].

Peter Weiss

Page 38 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

4*3 or 16*9

There is a huge and uniformed debate raging on the home theater and video.dvd usenet newsgroups about television aspect ratios, film frame size and common practices. Could some informed DP type please briefly address the following? 1. How much of the film frame do 35mm originated episodics and TV movies actually use when shooting for 4:3? What about 16mm or Super 16? 2. If you also have to protect for 16:9 are you then using less of the film frame for the 4:3 portion than you would if you shot strictly for 4:3? 3. What current shows are you aware of that are ""protecting"" for 16:9 even though they are broadcast 4:3? 4. Babylon 5 has been singled out on these newsgroups as an episodic that is supposedly shot ""wide screen""; does anyone know for sure if they are in fact ""composing"" for a wide image? If so, do they pan and scan for 4:3 broadcast? Thanks for any answers and or comments on these topics. I will pass them on to the afflicted newsgroups without nary a mention of this mailing list so we don't get too many more uniformed subscribers like myself.

Charles Tomaras

3) Nearly every drama in the UK is shot 16:9 now, in fact I can't think of any that aren't! 2) If you shoot super 35 centered then you have the same TV image size as normal with the extra neg. available on both sides for 16:9 use.

Geoff Boyle

Page 39 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Are these UK dramas being broadcast letterboxed, pan/scan, or side cropped?

Charles Tomaras

Most are shown 14:9, a sorta halfway house that doesn't offend too many people. How were Cracker, Prime Suspect etc shown there?, they were all 16:9

Geoff Boyle

By now you have probably been deluged with numbers. As a DP, actively involved in shooting both Features and Television Movies (usually 6 per year) here is my bit. As you already know the whole issue of framing has become incredibly complex with the introduction of home 16:9 receivers and the ""fear"" by many production companies was that their product would not be saleable once HDTV was introduced. About two years ago everyone started shooting TV Movies in the 16:9 aspect ratio but that calmed down a little after 9 months and now the number of movies actually shooting for the wider format appears to be in the 50%-60% range. Movies I have shot for MCA/TV have all been 16:9 and others are randomly distributed according to, sadly, whether the Producer understands it or not. Basically there are two systems. Conventional formatting in which the image occupies a small percentage of the Full Aperture negative area (for TV somewhere around 35%) and is aligned to the right side of the negative image area against the perfs. The entire negative image area is exposed (unless a hard matte is used) but only the much smaller area is actually used to compose the image. This is not only very wasteful but does not make full use of the possible image area of the negative. When moving to 1.85 and 2.35 images only a minute portion of the usable negative is utilized.

Page 40 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Super 35. Exposes image information over the entire Full Aperture Area of the negative...resulting, arguably some say, with a much improved image quality. There are two ways to shoot Super 35. First with the image centered on the center of the negative and each aspect ratio located from that central position OR Second, Super 35 Common Topline. The common topline is favored amongst DP's shooting for combination TV and European Theatrical release (and by a growing number shooting Theatrical films knowing they will end of on TV). With this system, again the full aperture area is exposed only here the full area is occupied by the composed image. Also each format (2.35/1.85/1.66/1.33) has a common topline. The usable and composed image area extends perf to perf but the frame topline is a constant for each format. The reasoning here is that headroom will always stay the same whether the film is seen in a theater at 1.85 or on TV at 1.33 with only the area at the bottom of the frame varying. My feeling is that I compose a frame based solely on the intended original release format because trying to ""protect"" for TV on a 16:9 ratio brings in the added question of information cut-off on the sides of the image. I have intentionally avoiding using all the measurements, as it tends to confuse the picture even more. The debate is no less heated within the ranks of DP's, Distributor's, TV Executive's and Producer's. Hope this helps, Regards

Rob Draper, ACS

Nearly all 35mm television being shot today in L.A. uses a variation on Super 35. This would include all material from Warners, Fox, Universal, Disney, Columbia-TriStar, and assorted independents. The format used is a ""shoot and protect"" system in which a 1.33 extraction is taken from the optical center of a 1.77 framing. Because NTSC safe action is protected, the image area in this format for current broadcast is significantly smaller than that of Academy aperture 35. In fact, the image area is almost identical to that of 3 perf, which is one reason that I can't understand why we're still using 4 perf (except, by and large, on multicamera sitcoms, which are primarily on 3 perf already).

Page 41 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Super 35 is itself simply a designation for full aperture set-up, in which the Academy track area is ignored and used for picture. There are many variations on this format in use for theatrical releases, most of which revolve around location of the topline and width of the intended release format. But for television, it's pretty standardized, at least in Hollywood.

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.

A Viacom TV series (now cancelled) ""Diagnosis Murder"" was shot 24 fps in three perf 35mm (Panflex cameras). With the TV 1:33 extracted from the Academy aperture. The rest of the frame was blacked out (no attempt to save the rest of the frame). The TV image area was much smaller as a result. The only reason I heard was to save money. I wonder how much difference in quality there is between 3 perf 35mm and 16 mm for TV? One of the biggest problems was that the post house would only use one of the older Ranks set aside for the 3 perf transfers. I would guess because of tube burn patch being so different. A bad transfer can kill any material and the chances of getting a bad transfer increases with the use of ""oddball"" formats (and awarding work on price alone). The transfer of the show I assisted on looked great but some of the other episodes were awful (low contrast).

Don Hayashi

Page 42 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I don't know whether you're referring to daily transfer or the final product. The post house that you're referring to intentionally transfers their dailies very flat, leading many cameramen to complain about the look of their dailies. This is allegedly all addressed in the tape to tape final color correction, where the look of the final product is determined. The same post house is now using primarily Philips Quadra telecine, which has improved the situation of which you speak considerably.

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.

The quality difference between 3 perf 35 and 16mm is exactly the same as 4 perf Vs 16mm. The image area in 3 perf does not change. Look at the appropriate section of your American Cinematographer Manual for diagrams and a detailed explanation. The reason for the old Rank is that three perf requires a modified movement and having an old Rank set up for it was easier, and probably less expensive, for the Post facility than changing one of their newer machines. Mike Most might elaborate on this. Why 3 perf? It's 25% cheaper with no loss of image quality. Like it or not.....this is a business and contrary to popular belief even a small saving on film stock is considered worthwhile. The DP's job is as much filmstock management as it is lighting, composition, etc

Rob Draper, ACS

and... cameras are quieter; less magazine changes, less short ends, less film rolls to carry. A BTS Spirit telecine can go from 4 to 3perf at the flip of a switch as well as a Cintel Ursa equipped with a Meta-Speed gate.

--Jean-Pierre Beauviala

Page 43 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

This is true provided that you're comparing 3 perf and Super 35 1.77:1. The image area in 3 perf is smaller than Academy 1.33, however. Under any circumstances, 3 perf is at least 4 times the image area of 16mm. Sure. Early use of 3 perf on Mk. III telecines required creation of a 12 tooth sprocket for a custom 3 perf gate, as well as a servo modification. This is what Lorimar used when they began using the 3 perf format for Max Headroom, followed by their other shows, in 1986. When the Ursa was released, the gates could identify themselves, automatically triggering the alternate servo settings. Metaspeed eliminates the need for a custom gate entirely, as it allows use of the standard 4 perf gate for 3 perf work. Until Metaspeed, the tube burns were indeed a big problem, which led some facilities to use a separate tube for 3 perf work, and led others to simply change tubes far more frequently (and suffer some burn patterning on 4 perf work). This is not commonly done on Ursas or Ursa Golds that use Metaspeed. The CCD machines, such as the Philips Quadra and Spirit, do not have any of these problems and can transfer 3 perf at the flick of a switch (and a new FPN setting). That was my point as well. If we are going to continue to shoot for 1.77:1, using 4 perf is quite simply wasteful. Now don't get me wrong, I like having additional image area for flexibility in re-framing when necessary, and I do like having a wider frame line to protect against stray hairs in the gate, but as you said, this is a business.

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.

I was speaking of the broadcast quality. The episode I worked on had a lot of contrast. Not very detailed in the shadows or the highlights but much more dramatic than the other episodes of the same series. It could have been a one shot decision to increase the contrast for that one episode because of the script.

Don Hayashi

Page 44 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

85 or 85B

Well then here is the question: If I expose a shot in daylight (gray scale/color chart in frame) with tungsten balanced film using: 1. AN 85 2. An 85b 3. With no filter. (compensating for exposure of course) Will the lab be able to correct them all to BE the same? Won't the difference in the spectral components of the light reaching the film make a difference on the negative? One that we can see even when the shot is corrected to the same gray scale? Anyone done such a test, anyone know the answer?

Steven Gladstone

Once upon a time Cinematographers performed strange rituals in which they would expose film with various filters, look at the film, and draw conclusions which would further their experience.

Rob Draper, ACS

What happened to the day when we didn't do what everyone else thought was right and actually tried something out for ourselves. Some of my best work came from my own experiments. Also some of my greatest failures. I often laugh when someone asks the question "what is that stock like or what does that lens look like?" That’s like describing the work of Michael Angelo over the phone. I'm not saying this is the norm, but lately I sure see a lot of it.

Page 45 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Lately it's less legwork and more join the club. It seems sometimes like the art of cinematography is merely paint by numbers.

WalterNY

There will be some differences in look when you shoot without the 85 and have the lab correct it in printing. Without proper filter correction, your blues get over-exposed (or denser on the negative) and the reds get under-exposed (or less dense.) Visually, this will make your reds less saturated, meaning that fleshtones will lose some of their color saturation (although this can be more pleasing in some cases.) I usually shoot indoor daylight scenes with an LLD filter instead of an 85 onto tungsten stock, and I find that my fleshtones are a little more pastel, but in a pleasant way. But once I shot a scene and later found out that the window glass that the HMI's were shining through had a blue tint; even though I had used an LLD, my image was quite blue and when I timed it back to "normal", the fleshtones in the scene went pretty monochrome (although nobody else watching the print noticed this.)

David Mullen

Not only that but If I'm not wrong isn't an 85B the proper correction for 3200(deg.)? There's 200(deg.) thrown right out the window at the get go...

Steven Poster ASC

Page 46 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

You’re absolutely right! It takes an 85B to bring 5500K to 3200K (Tungsten balanced emulsions). I always use the 85B for my shoots. However, this brings up the following question: Why is it then that Kodak charts, like the ones in field guides, or the charts in the AC manual, always recommend the use of an 85 to convert 5500K to 3200K and not an 85B? Only Ektachrome films get an 85B correction on Kodak Charts.

Norayr Kasper

As a documentary guy usually working wide open in low light conditions, I have a tendency to use a #82 filter. You don't lose anywhere near as much light as with a #85, and it gives a better look than using nothing at all and correcting exclusively in printing.

Scott

After doing a test of filters a number of years ago, I'm not so sure it's that important that our 85's match perfectly. I did a filter test where I would shoot a scene with say an 85 on one half of the 35mm still frame, with the other half covered. (Actually using a Cokin split frame attachment.) I would then spin this device around and expose the other half of the frame with a filter that I wanted to compare to the first filter. Even though I was using regular still color negative film and having the prints made at a one hour photo shop, I could still make a valid comparison because both sides of the print had received the same printing exposure and development. For a test comparing 85 type filters, I would of course first put a overall 80A filter on to turn the daylight color negative film into a tungsten film. It got a little tricky correcting for the various filters so that density would be even between the two sides. What amazed me was that a Chocolate filter, which certainly looks very different then an 85 correction filter produced virtually the identical correction as an 85 filter!?

Page 47 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've also seen "85" filters from still photography manufacturers that looked much browner then our customary Tiffen/Kodak "orange" filters. I came to the conclusion that the visual look of a correction filter was not necessarily an indication of it's ability to do its job ...

Mako Kowai

Well, since spectral sensitivity curves are not linear and color negative films have to "cheat" the spectral response of the dye layers (thus the orange masking) my *guess* is (and it's just a guess) that a straight 85 IS providing the proper correction to the dye layers. Also the spectral distribution of sunlight or any other blackbody is non- linear, so it's always a question of "matching the curves" - 5500K is a _nominal_ color temperature - "photographic daylight" which is equivalent to a so-called *typical* daylight situation, actually described as a mixture of sunlight and skylight with the sunlight predominating. (An EK booklet I have says photographic daylight is based on "average summer sunlight at noon in Washington DC" ! ) A 200 degree margin is significant at 3200 deg. but is relatively insignificant at 5500 deg. The Ektachrome films were always rated for 3200K, only Kodachrome is 3400K.My guess here is that EK felt 3400K lamps would give less magenta in skintones, in home movies and slides. Also some 3400K lamps are designed to with envelopes to reduce UV transmission.

Anyway I don't think magenta in skintones is much of an issue these days - in fact 3200K lamps with 3200K stock looks too cold to many of us, hence all the warming straws etc etc..

Sam Wells

Page 48 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Sorry Sean - you've gone crazy! They always required an #85 not #85B for basic colour correction on those ECN stocks (3200K) You're probably (like me) from the halcyon days of reversal colour where the #85B was the recommended correction for the 3400K stock like '42, '40, '50 and Kodachrome 40. From what KODAK tells me and others this is true - the ECN 3200K balanced stocks are designed for a Wratten #85 filter for daylight correction so that correctly exposed - in theory you'd get a printer light of 25:25:25 to the LAD standard. But then that's only the theory! The bottom line is always do what looks good!

John Bowring

That's not how I remembered it so I fished out Kodak H-1 (Selection and use of MP films, 1976), Eastman Films for the Cinematographer 1994 and some K 40. Here's the story they tell. Kodachrome 40 is an A type film: i.e. it is balanced for 3400K Photofloods and an 85 is the correct filter. Ektachrome '52 and '44 (Super 8) are also quoted as being type A. The Kodak literature gives '50,'40 and '42 as type B, i.e. balanced for 3200K. An 81A is suggested for use in 3400K light and an 85B for daylight. I'm not even going to mention type G Ektachrome. The filtration for all negative films, daylight and tungsten, is given as the same for 3200K and 3400K, i.e. 80A for daylight and none for tungsten. I asked Don Strine of Kodak about the use of the LL-D filter with Vision stocks (I haven't got round to trying that combination yet). His reply was that because modern neg. stock has such a long straight section on the characteristic curve there is not so much need for it (or an 85 by implication) now as there used to be - because the print can be made away from the toe and shoulder. That's the key to the whole issue, isn't it? That's why you can't correct reversal film so well at a later stage. If the mid tones are corrected the highlights tend to turn orange. This effect was deliberately used the other way round to give blue skies were there were none for a wartime film made in a lifeboat somewhere up North (the name escapes me).

Page 49 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Maybe the 85 is suggested for historic reasons - it is the correct filter for Kodachrome 40A and that is all that really matters! Continuing the Filterspotters tone, interestingly enough Kodak suggests the 80A for using daylight neg. film in tungsten (i.e. 3200 to 5500K). This is about 1/3 of a stop denser than the already dense 80B. Why not just use the 80B? It gets more exciting by the hour.

Malcolm McCullough

Sorry to bring up a stale topic but I have just received a reply from the Kodak Gurus (Geoff Whittier, John Pytlak, Steve Powell, Fred Knauf and Ron Lorenzo) about the filter question. Although they could not give us a definite "This is the reason why", the general consensus is the spectral sensitivity difference in the two films. If you look at the spectral sensitivity curves of the two products (Ektachrome and negative films), there is a noticeable difference in the yellow forming layers at the 400-450 wavelength range. Comparing an 85 and 85b filter, the most significant difference falls in the same range, thus the belief that the 85 filter was chosen over the 85b. All commented that either filter would produce acceptable results and only a very slight difference in look. John went as far as suggesting the only difference was in the taste of the people who originally prepared the data sheet information and all agreed that john was not far from the truth. I hope this is of some interest

David Donaldson

Page 50 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Keep in mind that transferring reversal to tape is not new. For many years all film intended for television...news, documentary, current affairs, commercials (though not to the same extent)..originated on reversal stock. News especially because of the turnaround time to get it on air. I many cases the film was shot, processed and edited and then projected through the old film chains directly to air. I think every cameraman should spend some time shooting nothing but reversal stocks....it is the greatest way to really learn the subtleties of lighting, exposure, tonal variation, color and Film to Tape. If you think it's tough getting negative to tape through an Ursa Gold and DaVinci you should try it sometime with reversal on the old RCA Telecine chains....I am sure some of my old mates from the ABC (Aust) and BBC Documentary teams know what I mean. Exposure accuracy was extremely critical as there was no safety net as is the case with today's low con negs. Given all that, shooting reversal for telecine does require a modified approach but the results are quite spectacular, as everyone has commented, especially on the Fuji reversal which I believe is essentially based on their Velvia still stock.

Rob Draper, ACS

I think we should all meet in Washington DC at mid-day for the Summer Solstice and at the exact time shoot filter tests. We could then sell them to Tiffen and Kodak and make an Interactive CD ROM...or better yet maybe we could set up a Web site and put all the technical parameters in there so people might end up totally confused by it all and then we would be the only guys who would know the REAL truth. Then all this would become proprietary and we could make lots of money and spend days in Museums looking at wonderful works of Art and marvel at the fact that these guys had never heard of 85 filters but still managed to get it right.

Rob Draper, ACS

Page 51 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Actually, I've heard there's a rare night-exterior Vermeer that was painted indoors but with daylight-balanced paint. The owner tried to correct it later in retouching but could never quite get the reds right and there wasn't very much contrast to begin with. So they took all the color out of it and released it as a sketch...

Art Adams

Ah... Isn't Rembrandt the one who MADE UP his own additional light sources to suit his own needs? Can't you see the man setting up his own little oil Tweenie off in the far corner of Night Watch? -- "Hang on folks, just stay right where you are, just need this one last detail..."

Jay

The following was translated from a little known parchment relating to a discussion between Rembrandt and one of his many patrons: Patron: "You're killing me, Remmy baby, you're killing me! I can't stand like this all day and these costumes are costing me plenty!" Rembrandt: "Just one more candle... I need to add one more candle..." Patron: "Just sketch it in, I'll have one of your students fix it later!" Rembrandt: "But this is the third time I've painted this portrait! Always time to do another painting but never enough time to light one more candle..." Patron: "Hey, I can hardly see into those shadows, add some white, will 'ya?" Rembrandt: "Always with the shadows... next it'll be too much perspective..." Patron: "Yeah, what's with that foreshortening stuff? I paid for everything in this room and I want it all to look BIG!!!" Rembrandt: (sighing) "Time for the large brushes and a gallon of thinner..."

Art Adam

Page 52 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I am impressed with the discussion on the use of 85 and 85-B filters. A little history lesson might be appropriate in light of the wave of post production and computer imaging currently riding the crest of popularity. First, let me say, that now as in the past, science had been unable to manufacture a variable "RECEIVER', be it film, tape, television, pixels, etc. All color receivers manufactured to capture visual images are each color balanced for "ONE" Kelvin temperature. The one for which it was designed. The first color films were introduced to the industry back in the mid 1930's. Type "B" films were color balanced to tungsten light (3,200K). A very important point of reference, since the light was known, had a standard Kelvin temperature and was measurable. Even though film emulsions were all over the lot, in those early days the industry needed to convert tungsten films to daylight. The first conversion filter was a #83. (A medium orange color). As the emulsions became stable, Eastman Kodak discontinued the #83 and introduced the 85-B. The nomenclature contained the complete use for the filter. An 85-B for use with Type B films rated at 3,200K. The next film venture was the manufacturing of Type A films, color balanced to 3,400K, that required less color conversion and gave birth to the #85 filter. For those of you who keep adding the #81 series to your #85, you should check your film and filter relationships. A straight #85 is 200 degrees "Color Short" for converting 3,400K rated films to daylight. As for using no filter and color correcting in the lab, my personal view has always been to correct in the camera. You might ask Why? Well --- The energized light carrying an image from a scene to the receiver when measured with a Kelvin temperature meter, is a mean average. Conversion filters correct the mean averages, but some points of light are warmer than the average and some points of light are colder. It is these slight color variations that give "LIFE" to color pictures. When correction is performed in the lab, it's the same as painting the entire scene with a paint brush. The original image is overlaid with an optical color coating. The results are acceptable but stagnant. The color coating does not mix with the light of a scene. How about the use of 85-C filters, that equals 1/2 of an 85? It converts 3,800K to daylight for use in late afternoon, when a full 85 conversion would be too warm.

Page 53 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

One more point of information; The original 85 type A nomenclature was shortened to 85-A then to 85. They are all the SAME filter. As for the 85-B and 85-C, these have no secondary name or symbol.

Hank Harrison, Harrison & Harrison Filters

Page 54 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Time Code on Film

Anyone used Arri's SMPTE Time Code lately on their SR-III's ? Any strong opinions either way versus Aaton Code? Last time I used Time Code Sync was with an Aaton XTR in '94, and it worked very well since the 1st AC and the Sound Mixer were anal about Jamming Time Code. Also, is there still much resistance in Post/Telecine in Auto-Synching with this Technology? It'd be good to hear personal experiences on this. Seems like it gives more telecine time to actually timing the picture. It's also useful for filming incognito and not have to clap a slate ALL the time.

Mark DP

Arri replies to this later on (GB)

I had the first SR3 timecoded camera in Australia - having for a long time in the eighties tried to get an SR to actually work with code. It was only because of the Super 16 revolution that we swung back to AATON's in the late eighties - because they actually worked trouble free on Super 16 and with them came this wonderful timecode on film system called AatonCode. I've used AatonCode now extensively for 6 years and I can honestly say its better than sliced bread - I will not shoot sound without it. We've now converted both our Arri35BL cameras to AatonCode as well. AatonCode is definitely the world standard in timecode on film. It's available on all AATON SUPER 16 XTR cameras, many PANAVISION cameras, converted ARRI35BL and MOVIECAM cameras. On 16mm AatonCode has major advantages over ArriCode, these are: * AatonCode is a large rugged code 10 times bigger than ArriCode * AatonCode is NOT susceptible to scratching dirt and damage like ArriCode is. * AatonCode is laid down on the film safely between the sprocket holes on 16mm, along side with the Kodak Keycode. ArriCode sits on the thin working edge of the SUPER 16mm frame, where all the rollers run right over the top of it eventually wearing it out. Page 55 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

* AatonCode is recorded in the camera gate to ensure a fixed and locked code position to the picture. ArriCode is recorded in the magazine and is at the mercy of variations in loop size despite electronic correction. This will potentially mean they may be variations in sync at gate checks and apparently circuitry to monitor this. * AatonCode has both machine readable and eye readable code. ArriCode is only machine readable. * AatonCode carries with it a pile of useful information including: - SMPTE timecode at camera selectable speed. - the date - the camera number - the magazine ID - the production number ArriCode only carries the time and userbits. * AatonCode is not nearly as sensitive as ArriCode to exposure variations - AatonCode is very kind here with heaps of latitude. * AatonCode exposure variations can be compensated for on KeyLink's exposure control - ArriCode has no control. * AatonCode is very easy to use as a system - ArriCode to work needs to use AATON's operational system, i.e. the ORIGIN C+ MasterClock. * AatonCode users can be confident that code is being recorded because they can see it work at any gate check - ArriCode you just have to hope its working because you cannot see it working. * AatonCode generates a comprehensive database that can be integrated with ScriptLink - ArriCode cannot carry the same amount of info. * AatonCode integrates completely into the AATON KEYLINK post system, ArriCode's post system consists of a reader head and a black box with a light on it - there is no ARRI system - you have to use AATON's * AatonCode's reader head does NOT touch the film - The ArriCode reader head is a series of rollers that potentially can damage the film and alter the stability of the telecine. * AatonCode is totally reliable enabling slate free operation – We recommend that ArriCode users always use slates as back up. * AatonCode is very very fast to use. Every major post house here in Australia and New Zealand now has AatonCode reading with AATON's Keylink. Many of our long forms shows all sync with AatonCode in telecine and record straight to AVID despite the DAT machines being a little slow at chasing. After Easter however this and pre roll will be a thing of the past as we will start getting the new AATON InstaSync system for KeyLink and INDAW - so the sound is there on the flash frame without waiting. No more

Page 56 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

colourists buggerising around with sound when they should be looking after your pictures! If you want an electronically generated slate on the first few frames of a shot you can use AATON's VIRTUAL SLATE, generated on KeyLink You can get more info on it if you're interested off AATON's web site. Best Regards

John Bowring

Check with Steve Vananda at Foto Kem (818) 846-3101. Baywatch Nights was shot with Arri 16SR III's and used Arri timecode-on-film extensively. They were ramming so much film through the Arri TC equipped telecine room that I couldn't get the work transferred I was doing with Arri TC on my 535!

Bill Bennett

>AatonCode is definitely the world standard in timecode on film. It's available on all AATON SUPER 16 XTR cameras, many PANAVISION >cameras, converted ARRI35BL and MOVIECAM cameras. So how expensive is it to put into my antique 35BL1? (And why can't you put it in a 16BL? ;-))

Jeff "too curious" Kreines

Page 57 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We did our AatonCode upgrades for our 35BLs a while ago with other upgrades but I think the AatonCode part all up cost around 10K. And as much as I love the old 16BL too Jeff, even if it were possible to Aatonize, I think its better left on the mantle piece as a reminder of what caused your bad back. Best regards

John Bowring

The method used in the Arri-SR III is quite fascinating, in that there's a little "range finder" that determines where the loop is so that it writes accurately to the film (look at the base of the camera where the bottom loop would be...there's a little window on the bottom of the Mag, if I remember correctly).

Mark

In response to John Bowring's extended "rant" re Arri's TC-on-film system vs. Aaton's: I have been successfully utilizing Arri TC on Film with my 535A for 5 years and 435's for 2 years. Oh yes, that's the 35mm version. Baywatch Nights ran thousands and thousands of feet of 16mm Arri TC- on-film over the course of several seasons.

I doubt they would have continued using the system for years if it "didn't work."

Bill Bennett

Page 58 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The never manufactured Vinten-Coutant camera was going to use a series of punches to permanently punch the timecode into the film. Then it could be read by mechanical contact switches, rather than optically. Only problem was, the punches they used required a continuous source of compressed air, so the cameraperson had to wear two cans of DUST OFF on their belt, and have a little hose to the camera. While workable, concern for the ozone layer killed off the project. ;-) I think that keeping it simple (like Aaton does) means far fewer problems in the future. "Fascinating" isn't as good as "simple," IMHO.

Jeff "Rube Goldberg Lives! In Munich!" Kreines

Jeff's clever posts are always good ones. :-)

I've never had the good fortune of actually using the Time Code on an Arri-SR-III (although the cameras themselves are solid). Like I said in one of my last posts, last time I did TC, was Aaton XTR's, and it performed flawlessly. I am leaning towards the Aaton XTR for TC work, but am still considering the SR-II's & LTR's otherwise - somebody has to, why not the productions with the least money: THIS ONE ! :-) I'll pick simple over fascinating, but it's still impressive that the fascinating SR-III TC method actually works reliably...it just never seemed to have caught on very well, not to mention that Aaton has been at the TC thing a bit longer.

Mark

Page 59 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Ah, so I do not check for 3 days, and all hell breaks loose. Following is a bunch of answers to some of the questioons and claims made here regarding Arri TC. I have split it up into separate emails to address specific previous posts.

>Anyone used Arri's SMPTE Time Code lately on their SR-III’s?

Feel free to call me (773 252 8003) with further questions about Arri TC. Arri TC is very popular in Europe, where a lot of TV is shot in Super 16 with SR-3's and Arri TC. The rate of adoption is a little slower in the US.

TC is currently used for concert footage and for synching audio in post. In a concert situation it is one of the simplest way to sync all the cameras. In post, the process of Synching audio is sped up by using TC, often to the point where the audio is transferred simultaneously with the image, thus saving one step. I was recently involved in a documentary on the Rolling Stones (they gave a "secret" concert here in Chicago in a small night club before their big performance), and both the night club (chaos) and the actual big performance (even more chaos) was shot with SR-3s using Arri TC.

People are pondering further uses of TC, the most popular one being the idea of making a rough edits from the video assist tape, and then transferring only selected parts of the negative to video. Big savings in time (editing can be done earlier than previously) and in money (you do not have to transfer everything, just what you determined is useful in your rough edit) could be achieved. This has actually been tried by some courageous pioneers (Jon Fauer being one of them), and is being very actively investigated by at least one big US production company (I cannot tell you their name, but the force is with them,...), and is always a fun subject to breach on any party (Say, what is 23.976 fps for?).

The question of Aaton vs. Arri TC is not really a question any more, since the Aaton Keylink (a wonderful complete post solution JP has given us) can also process Arri TC. Believe it or not, in this regard the French and the German technology are actually working together. So which TC system to use should not really influence your decision of what camera to use.

The tricky question with TC is always: does the post house know how to use it? Unfortunately, too few post houses carry either the Arri TC reader head or the Aaton KeyLink system, but there are slowly more and more. If

Page 60 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

you have a shoot involving Arri TC, and the post house of choice does not have an Arri TC reader head, call me, and I will see what I can arrange. As always, and especially with something as inherently complex as TC, shoot tests and let the tests go through the whole production and post production process to make sure everyone is on the same page.

A minor correction: Russ does not work for Arri anymore. I have been declared responsible for TC now. Call me with any questions (773 252 8003) or send email ([email protected]).

>I think the big question is this, how does it hold up since it is recorded >in the mag? It is my understanding that there needs to be a sensor to >measure the loop so that it is frame accurate (In 16mm)?

Recording the TC in the mag works very reliably. The position of the TC in the 16SR 3 is determined by a sensor in the camera that looks through a small window in the bottom of the magazine and measures the loop size with an infrared beam. The film will not record this particular wavelength, by the way. This sensor ensures that the distance between image and TC is constant on the film. Contrary to popular opinion this is not very complicated technology, nor has it been the cause of any problems I know of. It is simply one of those things that works and that you forget about. The recording intensity is set via a TCS (Timecode sensitivity) number on the magazine. This is almost like ASA, but not quiet, since the LED is only one color (orange), and ASA gives the sensitivity for white light. Setting a special sensitivity number for each film stock ensures that the LED is exposing the TC barcode at exactly the proper intensity. A table of TCS numbers is distributed with all literature we give out (Quick Guides, manual, etc), and is also available in the web (http://www.arri.com) in the Technical Information pages.

>AatonCode is definitely the world standard in timecode on film. >It's available on all AATON SUPER 16 XTR cameras, many PANAVISION >cameras, converted ARRI35BL and MOVIECAM cameras.

If you measure what is the world standard by how many cameras are in circulation, Arri's implementation of the SMPTE TC is the world standard.

We have sold many more Arri cameras than there are Panavision cameras out there (by a ridiculously large factor, simply because we sell and they

Page 61 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

rent), and all our new cameras are TC capable. The difference is that the Aaton cameras are bought by very vocal (like Jeff "me vocal, no way" Kreines :-) ) individual owners (this is what they were designed for in the first place. The cameras, not the owners. ), and our cameras are sold to rental houses who spent most of their time renting the cameras. In addition, very few Panavision or Moviecam cameras are actually equipped with the AatonCode system, whereas EVERY new generation Arri camera has TC built in.

>On 16mm AatonCode has major advantages over ArriCode, these are:

Again I disagree. Plus, this discussion is academic. What counts in the end is if there is proper TC coming out of the system in post, and that works fine for both systems. But, since I was never one to shy away from a useless academic discussion (just ask my wife), lets look at your claims point by point.

>* AatonCode is a large rugged code 10 times bigger than ArriCode >* AatonCode is NOT susceptible to scratching dirt and damage like >*ArriCode is.

This may have been a factor decades ago when the TC reading equipment was not as accurate as it is now, but is irrelevant nowadays. As any information on negative film, both are susceptible to scratches and dirt. Both systems have algorithms in the reading process that validate the data and make sure that you are getting proper TC, even IF there are scratches and dirt.

>* AatonCode is laid down on the film safely between the sprocket holes > on 16mm, along side with the Kodak Keycode. ArriCode sits on the >thin working edge of the SUPER 16mm frame, where all the rollers run >right over the top of it eventually wearing it out.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. The Aaton system keeps a very close physical connection between the image and the TC number, but there is the danger of having something else but the light from the lens expose your film in the gate. The Arri system records the TC in the magazine, where we can control the light much better (I am not saying this is the reason this approach was adopted, but it is one of the results). To "wear out" the Arri barcode on the film you would have to run the negative so many times through your telecine, that this becomes a mute point.

Page 62 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

>* AatonCode is recorded in the camera gate to ensure a fixed and locked > code position to the picture. ArriCode is recorded in the > magazine and is at the mercy of variations in loop size despite > electronic correction. > This will potentially mean they may be variations in sync at > gate checks and apparently circuitry to monitor this.

The 16SR 3 has an infrared sensor that measures the loop length and then records the TC on film so that the offset between TC and image is always constant. This system is there so that the offset stays constant between gate checks and magazines.

Also: Because of delays in the signal paths of any telecine suite, there is always an offset between the TC and the image signals that the telecine operator will have to deal with, disregarding of where the code is recorded physically on film. I believe this offset can be adjusted very nicely in the Aaton Keylink system, by the way.

>* AatonCode has both machine readable and eye readable code. >ArriCode is only machine readable.

True. This is an advantage when testing the TC system. It does not matter so much in telecine, since there the TC will be read by a machine for both systems. >* AatonCode carries with it a pile of useful information including: > - SMPTE timecode at camera selectable speed. > - the date > - the camera number > - the magazine ID > - the production number > ArriCode only carries the time and userbits.

Even though there is some information that can be encoded in the Aatoncode that cannot be directly encoded in standard SMPTE TC, the following information CAN be found in SMPTE TC: - Timecode at camera selectable speeds - the date (if placed in userbits) - the camera number (if placed in userbits We have decided to stick with the standard SMPTE TC for Arri cameras to remain compatible with the rest of the world. As indicated above, you can certainly write the date and the camera number in the userbits of SMPTE TC, which leaves only the magazine ID and the production number. And

Page 63 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

here we have, I believe, also a better mouse trap: the Laptop Camera Controller can record the TC in and out times for every take automatically in a camera report. These cameras reports can contain other automatically recorded information (TC in, TC out, userbits, fps, shutter angle, feet per take, total footage run, frame in, frame out, time of day, name of speed/exposure program run) and some manually entered information (including: scene, take, MOS, INT/EXT, notes, filters, etc).

>* AatonCode is not nearly as sensitive as ArriCode to exposure > variations - AatonCode is very kind here with heaps of latitude. >* AatonCode exposure variations can be compensated for on KeyLink's > exposure control - ArriCode has no control.

I just talked with a tech at Abel Cinetech in NY (Aaton rental house/dealer) and he said that even though the Aaton system has lots of theoretical exposure latitude, he tries to discourage people from being too lax about it. The reason is that when your TC exposure is off, other problems that did not affect the validity of the TC data before can become critical. He said that even though the Aaton system is listed as having 2 - 3 stops of latitude, he recommends staying within 1.5 stops. The Arri system is listed as having 2 stops latitude. This does not sound like such a big difference to me.

>* AatonCode is very easy to use as a system - ArriCode to work needs > > to use AATON's operational system, i.e. the ORIGIN C+ MasterClock.

Au contraire. The Aaton system will ONLY work with the Origin C+ MasterClock, whereas the Arri system will work with ANY TC device that uses standard SMPTE TC, including the OriginC+ MasterClock. This is a great advantage - any DAT, Nagra, GPS system, you name it with a TC in or out can work with the Arri cameras. All you need is a cable to connect the two. The Aaton system is dependent on the OriginC+ Masterclock to translate standard SMPTE TC into the Aaton proprietary format. If you forget your OriginC+, you cannot do TC with an Aaton camera. Since standard SMPTE TC is used widely in television and the scientific community, there is a wealth of SMPTE TC gadgets out there. I was just last week talking with a gentleman who is interfacing a 435 to a GPS system. Turns out that Horita has a GPS data to SMPTE TC converter box. But that is another story.

>* AatonCode users can be confident that code is being recorded because

Page 64 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

> they can see it work at any gate check - ArriCode you just have >> to hope its working because you cannot see it working.

It is true that you can see the LEDs on Aaton cameras and not on Arri cameras. This gives the AC on the set some peace of mind. But I think this issue would be mis-represented if I did not point out that this only shows you that SOMETHING is being recorded on film. As anyone knows who has worked with TC, it is far more important to know that the correct data is being recorded. The only way to verify that is by shooting tests and running it through the full production and post-production chain, which is something I would recommend to anyone who is planning on shooting TC, disregarding the camera's manufacturer.

>* AatonCode generates a comprehensive database that can be integrated > with ScriptLink - ArriCode cannot carry the same amount of info.

Not true. See LCC notes above. More information about the LCC can be found at http://www.arri.com, in the subsidiaries/Arriflex Corporation pages.

>* AatonCode integrates completely into the AATON KEYLINK post system, > ArriCode's post system consists of a reader head and a black box > with a light on it - there is no ARRI system - you have to use > AATON's

True. And the Aaton system works also with Arri SMPTE TC, so you can have the best of both worlds.

>* AatonCode's reader head does NOT touch the film - The ArriCode > reader head is a series of rollers that potentially can damage the film > and alter the stability of the telecine.

I have worked with various telecine houses here in the US, and am in constant contact with my colleagues in Europe. We are not aware of any problems that have occurred because of the extra rollers in the film path. >* AatonCode is very very fast to use.

Well, since the Arri cameras can work with any SMPTE TC system, including the OriginC+ MasterClock, we can be at least as fast as the Aaton system,

Page 65 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

n'est pas?

>I've heard tell, that there isn't enough room in the SR to put the LED's in >the Gate area, or anywhere on the aperture plate, due to the reg. pin and > the rest of the movement. I have no confirmation on this rumor.

I do not know if there is or is not enough room in the SR3. Arri/SMPTE Timecode was introduce with the 535A anyway, a while before the introduction of the SR 3.

The reason the Arri/SMPTE TC is not recorded in the gate area is as follows: We decided to implement the SMPTE recommended standard for TC on film. This standard specifies a linear barcode on the film.

Recording a linear barcode is very difficult in the gate area, since there the film moves intermittently. It is much easier to do in a place where the film moves in a linear fashion, like in the magazine (16SR 3) or before the top loop (535A, 535B, 435).

The Arri/SMPTE barcode is recorded by an LED that blinks on and off at certain intervals. This is fairly straightforward technology. The Aaton TC matrix is recorded in a different fashion, since it is recorded in the gate area, and since it is one symbol for each block of data, rather than a continuous barcode. I do not think that one system is inherently superior to the other, they are just different approaches to the same problem. Cheers,

Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative Arriflex Corporation

Just a bit of history; In fact there is room in the SR gate for a TC recording LED and indeed that is where the LED was originally placed in both the SR1 and SR2 cameras. The SR1 cameras could use a system which consisted of four lights, which could record the old EBU time code. When the SMPTE TC system was adopted, the LED was again placed in the gate area. The problem, as Mark points out, is that the transport of the film here is intermittent, with associated acceleration and deceleration of

Page 66 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

the film which needed to be compensated for with regards the speed of the flashing LED and it's intensity, in order to control exposure. This was achieved, but only via the use of a complicated processor, which had to be housed in a separate, very expensive, and not very small box, which had to be mounted on the side of the camera. Only a limited number of these boxes were produced by Arri, and most of them were used in the UK.

The whole system at that time was designed to be used as part of a package called VAFE (Video Assisted Film Editing) - novel huh? A great idea but somewhat reminiscent of the old gag about the wonderful wristwatch which did everything but needed a sack barrow to carry the batteries ! The advent of the new generation Arri cameras provided the possibility for recording the TC at a site where the film travelled at a constant speed. The actual code used however remained the same SMPTE as used in the SR2 and BL4.

Alan Piper Panavision Cine-Europe

P.S. You can easily check if the SR3 TC LED if 'working' - mag on camera, no film, open the small lens carrier in the film take-up side of the mag. Poke a small piece of paper into the open slot and run the camera. You can see the red light flashing, or not as the case may be.

Page 67 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

AatonCode – instructions

Here are some basic instructions I give to our camera people. We've had great success with the system over many years now and find the best way to get good results is education of the crew before hand. Here are our notes:

AatonCode in the Camera Department Setting up the ORIGIN C+ Master Clock At the start of each shooting day you enter into the 'ORIGIN C+' this information: To start the ORIGIN C+ Push # * Enter 'production-ID' number 'production-ID' number' will flash. Enter by starting with the last two digits first, then enter the first four digits if any. * Sound roll ID changes during the day The last two digits - if being used for tape roll numbers, can be changed without effecting the time and date during the days shoot if required. To effect this just page back through to Prod ID and you will find the last two digits flashing. Change these then re-initialise the GMT SMPTE code generator on the audio recorder. Then hit # and the display then moves onto * Entering the Date so check your calendar! The Day. Enter two digits, then press # to move onto the month, enter two digits (i.e. March will be 03) then press # the year, enter the last two digits (i.e. 97) then press # (the ORIGIN C+ usually remembers the month and year on day to day operation so if correct just spool through this by pushing #. To correct while you're in the date i.e. go back to the day push * * Entering the Time The time will now already be flashing. the hour enter the two digits (i.e. 8.00am =08) then press # the minutes will now flash, enter two digits then press # the seconds will flash, enter two digits or nothing * To start the clock press * The ORIGIN C+ will now display hours: minutes: seconds * Checking back entries & correcting mistakes To scroll through and check all your settings, page through them by pushing # and backwards by pushing * unless you've entered the time. If you've made a mistake and would like to start again, Push # for 6 seconds or until until "Stopped" appears then push # ORIGIN C+

Page 68 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

will turn off. Push # again and you're back at the start to load the production number! * Initialising the Camera with Code By connecting the ORIGIN C+ to the camera with its 5 pin Lemo plug. Push * on the ORIGIN C+ to download and check its code. The cameras control screen will flash momentarily with the code - the ORIGIN C+ should report back GOOD 0.00 indicating that the loaded code is exactly right. * Code Indicators on the XTRProd Once initialised with code, the camera will display the internal AatonCode it's generating, on the liquid crystal display (LCD) only momentarily. To view the AatonCode, push the T/C display button underneath the display. Push the button to page through the other T/C information such as the Date, the Production Number and the Camera Base Number. (Not to be confused with the camera serial number - the base number is located on the camera base where your shoulder fits.) A little yellow LED next to the camera jog control will flash indicating there is T/C inside! * Check Your F.P.S. rate - 25 / 24 / 29.97 / 30 Frames Per Second * Check the gate Once a day - check the LED AatonCode printer has all 7 Light Emitting Diodes (L.E.D.'s) working. This is easily done by removing the magazine from the camera body and switching the camera to TEST, so the in-gate AatonCode L.E.D.'s will flash 4 then 3 or sequentially, so you can see that they are all there. Run the camera - and they will start twinkling a moment after camera roll. * Set the AatonCode exposure This is done simply by setting the camera's internal light meter to the nominal value of the colour film without filter. If you don't want to use the exposure meter you can turn it off, without effecting the AatonCode exposure, but you will need to change the exposure if you are changing to a film stock with a with different sensitivity. * black and white film is different, because it is red insensitive, and the LEDs are red, over expose code by 2 stops to avoid underexposed code * Changing a camera battery Remember that when changing a camera battery, the camera's internal memory, (a charge capacitor) will retain the camera's AatonCode for about a minute with no battery connected. The cameras display screen will flash the warning "No Batt" However, if you are too slow, you

Page 69 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

will loose the AatonCode, so best practice is to have the replacement battery on hand before you remove the flat battery from the camera. * Checking the camera code with the ORIGIN C+ It will tell you the code accuracy to within one tenth of a frame. It's wise to do this every few hours. Perhaps morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea. At the 8 hour mark, the camera's LCD will start flashing the time, to tell you that it is time to re-initialise the system for maximum accuracy. It will flash for another 8 hours before shutting down. * If the ORIGIN C+ reads Time Diff or BAD In the unlikely event you get a BAD or Time Diff reading – before re-initialising to the correct time, get the recordist to roll and shoot a reference slate. Alert Continuity for notation of a sync discrepancy in the SCRIPTLINK. This will enable the telecine colourist to correct the sync offset easily. Then re-boot all code devices on set with the ORIGIN C+ and then re-slate. * Shooting Mute or for Variable Speed Even if you are shooting mute - record AatonCode! This is excellent for documenting shots in the field, later in telecine and during the edit - all automatically for ScriptLink and AVID's clip function. If you are shooting variable speed - still record AatonCode! Although the film is running faster or slower than normal speed, the time documentation still occurs as the film passes through the gate and even though with playback in telecine at normal sync speeds, although the code is not useable for syncing, but it is still useful for documentation. * Pre-Roll Arrangements for for linear sound replay in telecine.* The first will call sound to roll - when sound indicates speed then cameras roll giving approximately a 5-6 second film roll up during which time a slate can be used if required, before 'action' is called. This will enable the DAT in chase sync mode in telecine to 'catch' the film's timecode. The pre-roll process is unnecessary when using InstaSync in telecine or with INDAW - AATON's non-linear sound syncing station. This equipment is much smarter and faster than the average audio chase as it uses the date to sync as well. I highly recommend you insist on this as it makes life very easy for everyone! DEVA recordings on 4 track generated to JAZ or Syjet can now be used straight into InstaSync or Indaw and is certainly a big advantage over DAT.

Page 70 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

* The Midnight Syndrome - Shooting over 11:59:59. If you’re using AATON's INDAW or InstaSync this is not a problem - don't worry about it. If you're not - try and avoid this - usually by starting your ORIGIN c at a time that will not clash with midnight. * Working without sync slates: Roll Slate at the head of each camera roll with sound! At the head of each camera roll, instead of just recording it mute, get your sound recordist to roll sound, then verbally ident. the slate and clap! This will help your telecine colourist to check that the camera and sound rolls are correct and in sync with each other. That one clap, acts like the pip on 2, on a SMPTE standard clock leader at the start of each transfer roll - sync is checked from the start of the transfer and all is right with the world! Best regards

John Bowring

Page 71 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 72 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Arri Variable Primes

>" Saw a few ads for the Arri/Zeiss Variable Primes. Although no technical discussion. Does any one out here have any info on these lenses. Are they just zooms, with a new name? Does focus hold throughout, do they track well or drift, Etc. Also any personal experience with the lenses, likes dislikes, comments."< I own a set of the three VP lenses. the VP1 is a 16mm to 30mm, the VP 2 is a 29mm to 60mm, and the VP 3 is a 55mm to 105mm. All are T2.2 *throughout* their zoom range. (Many zoom lenses cheat on this and vary as much as 3/4 stop throughout their zoom range) The name is somewhat misleading. They are indeed short-range zooms, they do hold focus though out their zoom range. They do cover the Full or "Silent" aperture (again, most zooms do not cover anything greater than the Academy aperture making their use somewhat scary on Super 35 productions, depending on extraction format) They are extremely robust mechanically, they track extremely straight and repeat focal lengths with exacting tolerances (necessary if you are zooming with a motion control rig if you want multiple passes to match) Sharpness and contrast? They are scary they are so good. They have less flare and better correction of chromatic aberration than most primes I have seen. I shot a couple of the scenes on Dante's Peak with the Zeiss VP lenses alongside the show's regular Panaflexes using Primo Prime lenses. During dailies, viewing a contact print from the original negative, you could not tell the difference between the Zeiss VP lenses and the Primo Primes. Many of the shots are in the movie.

Page 73 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Good correction of chromatic aberration is extremely important if you are doing blue or green screen mattes. If the different colors are imaging at different places on the film plane, the mattes are not going to fit! Low flare and ghosting are important in the newer styles of photography where extremely bright highlights are in or near the edges of the frame. >From a design standpoint, you might wonder, "Why short zooms? Why not just build a really well designed and corrected set of primes?" The answer I got made sense: It *is* possible to utilize the lens design software and design a really high quality prime lens using aspheric lens elements, floating groups of elements for focus, and all the other tricks now available. After you have done that, you have a very expensive, well corrected, prime with lots of elements of glass. A complete set of focal lengths would be too expensive to produce or sell.

Once you have spent all this design time and money for expensive aspheric glass and moving groups of elements, it wasn't too much more work to add a little more and have a short range zoom with *no* compromise in quality. Now that there needs to be only 3 lenses in the set, you can "go for broke" and make them the absolute best you can do. By the way, contrary to popular myth, none the Panavision Primo Primes have *any* aspheric lens elements, they are all spherical.

Bill Bennett, Los Angeles

How accurate are the listed focal lengths? I ask because I am frequently involved with matching camera footage and CGI backgrounds, in motion control tracking shots. With zoom lenses particularly, even when set to hard lens mark positions, there is often considerable inaccuracy as to actual, mathematical focal length as it pertains to angle of view. Once you position the lens between marks, it's time to guess and punt.

Don Canfield

Page 74 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The close focus is about 2.5 feet for the two wider lenses and 2.75 feet for the longer. Only the VP1 (the 16mm to 30mm) exhibits some tendency to "breathe" and it's not bad, especially since it has great depth of field due to being so wide, so hopefully big focus pulls will be unnecessary... just rely on the depth to be there and go with the "splits". They are very accurate. I just shot some tests with both Zeiss Primes and the Zeiss VP lenses. The match of angle of view was the same, unlike many zoom lenses, which are really "longer" than they are marked. (The Angenieux 25-250 HR is really more like a 29mm-290mm!) If you wanted to be critically accurate, you could make an "angle of view" test chart for a given focal length and use that to set the focal length the VP lens before shooting a critical piece.

Bill Bennett, Los Angeles

Page 75 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 76 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Aerial Filming

I was curious if anyone had experience shooting from a biplane? I am shooting on Sunday at an air show and have the opportunity to shoot from plane to plane in the open cockpit. I will be hand holding an Aaton and lensing fairly wide (8-16mm?). I'm concerned about the vibration but we can't afford a mount. Is this even possible or will the image be too shaky? Unfortunately I didn't have the opportunity to scout flying in the plane. Any thoughts on this? Thanks.

Jim Sofranko

All I can think of is to streamline the camera: no mattebox, and no rubber lens shades. Put on an 80 SSLR to series-9 and about 4-5 retainer rings as a mini-lens-shade, and tape on the SSLR to further secure it to the lens. That'll take care of the front end of your camera not being knocked around by what's keeping you aloft: prop wash.

Mark "flare, shmare...as long as I'm rich" Doering-Powell

I think you'll be real good in a bi plane, I've shot out of 172's and 152's (single wingers) several times - they're very loud but vibration isn’t a prob. you can even tighten up to say 50-75mm and keep it pretty solid. I'm assuming that you'll have a windshield to break some of the wind.

Page 77 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

but if not - no worries. I used to lean out the window (head shoulder and cam) and get very nice shots as well. you need a good solid grip on the cam ; ] but the speeds involved are very low. (50 - 75, less in a by plane?) the wind will grab the cam when you lean out, also when you pan as the wind hits the full profile of the side of the cam it will yank it for a moment - so be ready for that. it's manageable and might even be a cool look. once your in the airstream (leaning out) the wind provides really a nice resistance flow which when you brace against - makes a tension that holds the cam quite solid. you prob can tighten much more than a 16mm if you need too. if its a gusty day, ignore all of the above ; ] the prob with a wide lens will be showing the wing. you have to really lean out and forward - or tighten the lens to get around this. if the wing is cool in the shot - you should have a blast. have a good shootwingS -

Caleb

About 6-7 years ago I did some shooting just with my home video camera from a biplane. The plane itself (I don't recall what type) was just as stable as any other except that the force of the prop wash and wind rushing by, although at a relatively slow plane-wise 70-80 mph, was rather strong to say the least.. There was a small windscreen which offered limited protection and as soon as the camera was in the slipstream you can guess it shook way too much for anything to be usable. I can only imagine with a larger camera. Not to mention the risk of the camera flying out on it's own. The concern is not so much loosing the camera as having it fall on someone. ouch!!! Perhaps think of rigging some kind of larger wind screen, but pilots and mechanics probably won't be to keen about adding pieces (most likely not FAA approved) on an antique airplane.

Page 78 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

A friend of mine (Werner Volkmer) did a remarkable film about antique plane collector and airshow pilot Cole Palen about ten twelve years ago. Perhaps drop him a line at: [email protected].

Daniel Villeneuve, csc

I should clarify my earlier post. I don’t know the end use of your footage. so its really hard to say. it's do-able, but its not motion free, if some motion is ok it's very workable. I was getting shoreline footage for a maritime museum in Maine last time I was up. lots of the footage was a total throw away. (it was on beta and I just hardly ever shut it off) but some of the shots were steady and made the cut. another time I had to get specific buildings on the ground and had to have the pilot in a holding pattern and also banked up pretty high with my side heeled down and sometimes up to get the shots. but the best of all was asking the pilot to fly as low as he dared over a 5k mountain top (with some wind sheer) so as to crest a ski slope and tear down the slopes on the other side- it really was a great shot by about the 3rd take. I think I had half my body out the window and was medium wide.

I usually needed several passes to get the shot I was after because there were so many variables. it was several years ago I shot from planes and the way my mind works, time filters out the bad somewhat & I remember the good parts. I brought back a load of crap from each flight- but the shots I needed were there. its not easy, but you can make it work - and it's FUN.

I just remembered what the trick was for me- talking the pilot thru it. you have a very small pocket for a clean shot with all the struts and wing in the shot, so you sorta find a sweet spot or a couple of them, which the wind will effect as well and you'll have to have a zoom to get in just past the wing obstructions- once you find those sweet spots the whole trick is the pilot.

Page 79 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I basically held a lock down by muscling it. Id explain the shot to the pilot and he would basically do it all, I would just creep the zoom a bit sometimes and do a very small move here and there. and then when it wasn’t right I wasn’t shy about telling him why it didn’t work and lets "try it again" pilots tend to enjoy the whole thing, gives them a chance to show their stuff

Caleb "now trapezes on the other hand..." Crosby

When shooting without a mount.... consider overcranking.

Steve McWilliams

I shot a cinema short on a flying circus and did quite a bit of hand held with a 2c from a tiger moth.

Idea already mentioned of overcranking to say 28fps certainly takes out ugly hi freq. type vibration and human body does wonders for the rest especially if you use a simple shoulder brace.

Good thing about a biplane is the wings make for great FG Have fun

Les Parrott

Forget all the bullshit advice, just go out and do it hand held as you suggest and concentrate on what you are doing. Just treat it as a normal every day job. We did it like that long before Helivision and other helicopter mounts were invented.

Page 80 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

My serious advice is to make sure you are tightly strapped in and don’t undo your straps at any time for anything (I lost a friend on a film called Catch 22 who just floated out of the mid-upper gunners position when the pilot went into a sudden and unexpected dive). And don’t walk into the propeller.

Wear a parachute if it is available.

If flying over water make sure you have an inflatable life vest and it is accessible to you. Refuse to fly over water unless this is so.

Make sure no items of equipment can fall down and jam up any of the flying controls and that you can get free of it all if you have to make a hurried exit. (I lost another friend whose spare magazine jammed a helicopter control).

Wear your exposure meter on a cord around you neck (its fun when it falls out of your pocket upwards).

If you are doing aerobatics and pulling a few G put a long iris support rod on the camera so that you can support the camera against the side of the aircraft. (Formation jet aerobatics are especial fun).

Take an airline sick bag with you. If you do lose control take some money with you to recompense the guy who has to clear up after you Enjoy

PS I forgot to add ... Make sure that the production company has insured you for flight in a non-scheduled aircraft and that the insurance company fully knows what you are doing ... and if you do not know and trust the company ask to see the insurance certificate. (I once knew four filmmakers who were killed in a helicopter crash and the production company had not taken out proper insurance for what they were doing. The producer was one of those killed.) Sincerely

David (wish I was young again) Samuelson

.

Page 81 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Well, this is the only thing I'd argue about David (but otherwise what absolutely perfect advice! I was told that if I was sick, _I_ cleaned up afterwards. Fortunately, it never happened.

One or two little additions. Make sure the camera is tied off to a strong point. Also, bear in mind that things can get very, very cramped. I remember this especially in a tandem Hunter. Not only is there very little room, but you are also highly strapped into an ejector seat. There was only just enough room for a hand held Arri IIc with 200' mag and and 18mm.

David's advice about keeping everything safe and well away from the controls isn't just good advice - it's VITAL! It' only too easy to overlook these things in the rush of adrenaline excitement and that's how people are killed.

I certainly don't want to be a killjoy but like David, I've lost several friends to aviation accidents - it's one reason why I got out of it. Plan, plan, plan.

OK, this may be more important in air to air shooting, but about 80% of the work is done in the pre-flight briefing. And once you've briefed, stay EXACTLY to the brief. Finally, relax and enjoy!

Brian

Well I thought my advice was ok but if David says its bullshit- its bullshit. I was watching a real good sea rescue story on TV a couple months back about the sinking of liner in the Atlantic back a breaking story because it was taking water while it was being towed to port in heavy weather. as it neared England it started going down- and there was no doubt about it - someone got in a plane and got there before it went under- really good gutsy b&w newsreel aerial that just caught the ship as it rolled over on its beam ends, foundered and sank.

Page 82 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Well I’ll give you one guess who the cameraman was. they even interviewed him as to how he got the shots. (Back in the good old days when news was news and cameramen got the kudos.) pretty bullshit interview tho ; ]

Caleb

Actually the advice I got from all the list was helpful and confirmed some of the ideas I had wanted to try.

Maybe it was just the pep talk I needed! :-) David and everyone, Thanks for all the great advice and encouragement. It's a fun show I'm shooting.

Tuesday, I hang off the side of a cliff in a harness to shoot some rock climbers. I've got a great guide and climbers. Did a lesson a few days ago.

Any idea's or helpful hints on hand-holding on the side of a cliff? Thanks again,

Jim Sofranko

The first time we had a CML meeting, the subject of pre-aerial food came up, if you'll pardon the expression, and I passed on the results of 3 weeks research filming the north sea oil rigs in every type of helicopter and every kind of weather from force 10 down.

The only thing that really worked for breakfast was beans, hash browns and toast, they come back in a lump and aren't hard to clean up :-)

Geoff

Page 83 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I always found that the small plastic sealable bags from M&S or any similar store were a great help.

Fortunately those days are long gone and flying my desk at 4ft. is about as bad as it gets these days. Regards

TC

PS: Eat the food and drink sparingly; that helps lots.

Careful to watch your horizon. 'Tis easier than you think to hold a camera skewed when your feet are not on the ground. Been there, done that.

Cliff "climbing for over 20 years" Hancuff

Make sure that the production company has insured you for flight in a non-scheduled aircraft and that the insurance company fully knows what you are doing ... and if you do not know and trust the company ask to see the insurance certificate. "

The same applies to watercraft and those that drive them:

"Yes I know you've got a limited budget and the chase boat operator wanted more money than you budgeted for but so does my camera and the future support of my children."

"I did mention at that production meeting last month that for me a worse not best case scenario is a 12ft aluminium dingy borrowed from the sailing club and somebody's mate (a weekend sailor) driving it. It would be bad enough that he doesn’t have a commercial licence but this character has no licence at all."

Page 84 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

"Not only would we be breaking the (local) law but also voiding our insurance coverage for loss or damage to ourselves and our equipment as well as anything else we might hit!!!!"

And then some people call me difficult :-)

M.C.

Page 85 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 86 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Bleach Bypass and related processes

Does anyone out there have experience with any kind of bleach bypass process? I have been fascinated by this since reading AC's article on Seven, shot by Darius Khondji. I believe he used some variation on this process on Delicatessen, City of Lost Children, as well as Evita.

Kristian Bernier

I have run bleach bypass before. It's a nice idea. Basically, the color negative process uses a first developer to produce B&W images on all three color layers, formed from metallic silver just like with a B&W film. Then a color developer links dyes up in areas where there is a silver image, and that silver image is bleached out. If you reduce or eliminate the bleach, you have a metallic silver B&W image superimposed on your color image. This gives you a nice pastel effect and it also gives you as much as a full stop more film speed. I have used it for documentary work in dark night-clubs where I needed the extra speed and rather liked the muted color effects. Shoot a test roll! Try it! It's fun!

Scott Dorsey

Page 87 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Since this process is normally done to prints, it does not endanger the negative in any way - you always have the option of just making a normal print. So the bond companies shouldn't worry. But perhaps this is why Storaro flashes his prints instead of the negative, as Khondji does, before the bleach-bypass. (Flashing a print also looks different.)

David Mullen

Even if you do a bleach bypass process on the original negative, the effect is not permanent. If you, (or the bond company bean counters) are unhappy with the "look" of the bleach bypass process, you can have the lab re-run the negative through the processor. This time bypassing the first developer, and going through the (previously skipped) bleach tank. This renders a normally processed and looking negative. So, for once, you CAN have you cake and eat it too!

Bill Bennett

A couple of notes: You do lose some colour saturation, which you might like, but you could test a light coral to restore a bit of flesh tone. At the risk of sounding patronising, do let your production and costume designers know what you're planning, because the exposure threshold for darker tones is lifted appreciably, and those "subtle, dark colours" will be mostly, well, black...

Page 88 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

A side-effect of the above quality is that incidental eyelights tend to disappear, especially in dark pupils, so unless you have an intentional source for the eye, focus sometimes seems questionable. I write as a focus puller who has had to draw attention to clothing, ears and hairlines in order to convince Production in rushes. Nevertheless, I love it...

Sam Garwood

No BLEACH leaves all the silver image in the film as well as the dye image. The end result is a denser image with all the colors and "bullet-proof" blacks. The image is therefore very desaturated and more contrasty. No bleach ACCELERATOR leaves half the silver image so its effect is not as pronounced. These methods do not work well with IP stock. The process should be applied to soft, muted-color, low contrast images. Avoid maroons and navy blues because they will go black. (Unless, of course, you want this effect -- I have, sometimes.) Same thing with red lipstick/nail polish -- test it first! (Yeah, right, like there's ever any time.) It helps to use diffusion during principal photography -- take a look at Evita -- you can see nets in the lens flares of some shots; a perfect example.

Steve.

Page 89 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I just read the article in Lighting Dimensions and it was informative. I did find the part about the ENR process confusing though. It discussed the bleach bypass used in 'Seven' and the ENR used in 'Evita' as if they distinct and different processes. The article didn't go into details but it could refer to the fact that in 'Evita' he retained only about 30-40% of the silver versus the complete bypass in 'Seven'. Anybody have more info? I also found interesting Darius comment about liking to keep his lighting sources as far away as possible for a more natural look. Common wisdom, at least in the commercial /music video world that comprises most of my work, is to get your sources as close to your subject as you can for that glowing soft wrap.

DW

I've just returned from Foto-Kem’s demo of their bleach bypass service. An interesting demo, showing the results from b-b on the neg., the print, the IP, IN, and release print I'd like to hear from others who have used this (or other similar process, i.e. ENR). Was the decision made in prep, or did you decide after the fact? If planned for, did you alter the shooting for this (i.e. use low-cons, more saturated colors in art direction, etc.)? What would you do different next time? If anyone has knowledge of articles that would be helpful too, but I'd really like to hear first hand experiences.

Dave "it costs HOW much!?!" Trulli

Page 90 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Sorry to butt in here, but I checked out the Foto-Kem demo also. The presenters were ok, but we were stuck in a small screening room with the projector and four seats <> The contrast did go up. Way up on some cases. Regarding colors, sometime when looking at buildings it looked Black & White. At to harsh and grainy, I wouldn't say grainy, but I would say harsh Did they show any tests that were combined with flashing either the positive or the negative? (Darius Khondji flashes his negatives / Storaro flashes his prints - in conjunction with ENR or bleach-bypassing.)>> They didn't have any test involving flashing, sad to say. I found the whole process intriguing, but Foto-Kem's process bugs me because it's all or nothing. With ENR you can dial in some degree of control. One process they showed that I like was that they made prints from prints. It gave this neat looking very contrasty, super saturated color feel. Could be used in a music video format.

Scott Spears

It's true, a bleach by-pass can desaturate colors and can make blacks look great, but it does increase the contrast and you can lose shadow detail. Sometimes you can get the same results with a PARTIAL bleach bypass without the corresponding contrast gain and shadow loss. The partial bypass in combination with the proper timing and (if necessary) a pull process may allow one to have the best of all worlds.

Bob Lancaster Alpha Cine Labs

The Foto-Kem demo was interesting. The look of bleach bypass is quite different depending on when you do it. All of the looks attained were interesting, but for feature type work I think b-b on the release prints was the most pleasing. Of course this is also the most expensive option. B-b on the negative was pretty strange, whites went neon white, like

Page 91 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

blown out video. Color saturation was lowest when done to the release print, highest when done to the negative. The demo I saw did include flashing (10 + 20%) the neg. At 20% the blacks looked milky, 10% was closer to the look of b-b on the r-prints - but not that close. Unfortunately, the demo footage at this point was pretty high contrast already, it would've been interesting to see the effect with lower con stuff. B-b in the IP or IN stage was closer to the look of b-b on the negative. BTW, some of the footage used for the test is from a movie in production recently. They said that he wanted the r-prints bleach bypassed but the producers nixed the idea. Funny, though, I liked the normal footage best in this case. I'd like to hear the DP's thoughts sometime (I'll respect his privacy and not name names). Gotta go.

Dave Trulli

As I understand it, the beauty is if you don't like the effect the Lab can >>re-bleach at a later time, taking it back to normal. Is this a major deal >(i.e.: expensive) for a Lab to set up? True: but if you have modified your exposure (often necessary on BB processes) or ordered pull-processing, then you finish up with neither one thing nor the other. The process is simple - it's just the same as re- processing or "rewashing". Your lab will face exactly the same costs as for the first run through (i.e. normal developing). In the case of BB prints, the lab needs to print them a bit under a stop lighter to balance the extra density of the silver. Once again, a rebleached print will be unacceptably light. Still, if you can't use the BB'd reel, you can extract the silver from it and sell it :-) >>I'd like to know how you'd do a partial bypass (sounds like heart >>surgery), and how to specify it to the lab (i.e. "in the soup half normal >time"? ... or "20%"?). How to specify it? - talk to your lab - every one will have a different approach.

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

Page 92 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

> SE7EN looked really good. It had saturation was really interesting and the > blacks were black. How did Darius Khondji do it?? It seems he had the best > of both worlds. Did he flash the neg.? I don't know, but I want to.

He shot "Seven" in Super35, mostly on 5293 pushed one stop; he also flashed the negative. Then the print was bleach-bypassed. I don't know if he rated the filmstock faster due to the push-developing, or if he left it at 200 ASA and just let the pushing add density. He said that the pushing increased saturation, while the flashing lowered it and the contrast, and the bleach-bypass added contrast and lowered saturation. He also used some 5287 for some night photography, and 5245 for the ending daylight scenes. I think he might have used the Panaflasher for his flashing. (In "Evita", he used the Varicon; he did less pushing, used diffusion filters, shot in anamorphic, and used the ENR process.) The studio wouldn't pay for all release prints of "Seven" to be bleach- bypassed, so after an initial print run for the major theaters, an I.P. was bleach-bypassed and more release prints were made from an I.N. struck from that.

David Mullen

Storaro has a different approach than Khondji - he goes for an over- exposed negative, processed normal, and uses the ENR process on his prints, which is capable of varying the degree of the re-silvering effect. He also flashes his prints, which softens the contrast by darkening the highlights, leaving the blacks very dark. He probably has to make a very light print as a starting point. I've wanted to try any of these effects for years (assuming that it was right for the project), but the budgets of my films preclude any of this...

David Mullen

Page 93 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

> a bleach by-pass can desaturate colors and can make blacks look great, but it does increase the contrast and you can lose shadow detail.< An interesting alternative to bleach-bypass is to strike two intermed positives, one in colour and one in b/w. By double-exposing the neg. with different proportions of the two (otherwise identical) positives, you can achieve various degrees of colour desaturation without losing shadow detail or affecting the contrast... or so I've heard. Never had the chance to try it out myself. Anyone have first-hand experience?

Chris Rowe

Yes, we did it on sections of a remarkable Aussie film last year called "What I Have Written" shot by Dion Beebe ACS. The sections were actually also freeze frames, which took up about a third of the film. (yes, yes, a la Chris Marker's La Jettee). The result was an "almost black and white" look, with just faint hints of colour in some areas: occasionally flesh tones, a red scarf, a purple overcoat. The colours were all very dark and desaturated - very subtle. Of course, it's equally possible to go for a predominantly colour look by selecting a different percentage of b/w to colour. The difficulty is that every shot needed a different proportion of b/w to colour to get a consistent look. The good thing is that - with sufficient testing - you have that much control in post production.

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

Page 94 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The process does not give as rich blacks as you would have with bleach bypass. As a matter of fact, I don't think the two systems are even comparable. The double-interpositive system gives a desaturated look but without as much increase in contrast and the blacks are not as rich. Also, colours tend to react differently when combined with their black and white equivalents - this does not really happen with bleach bypass.

Jon Mendelssohn

we are about to finish a feature and use the Bleach By Pass (60%) process at the stage of the IP at Rank in London. It is not the same than ENR process that can be applied only on positive prints. The process will be used for about 60% of our film, the remaining part being printed normally to IP. We've done tests and the result of the 60% Bleach By Pass looks great, but we've not tested yet how to intercut a regular IP with a Bleach By Pass IP. What if the director wants to dissolve from one to the other? can we A&B the two IPs to go to IN? What control must be done at the lab? Does anyone have experienced that process?

Georges Jardon, Postproduction Jardon et associée,

Page 95 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We used the Bleach bypass IP process for a feature recently: it's a good method as it's less savage than treating the original negative, while many distributors won't pay to treat every print. Best of both worlds. However, no-one sees the final results even at Answer Print off original neg. stage - you have to wait for the dupe neg. And as for rushes/dailies . . . - we actually had one magazine set aside for a quick burst on every set-up, and that became a weekly test roll that went through the entire process. Meanwhile, telecine set up a transfer "look" that emulated the final Bleach Bypass result. It's now the only telecine in town that has a bleach bypass button;-) Regarding your question: A lot depends on how your lab has set up the IP. Ideally, they have modified the printing exposure so that the BBIP has the same density and requires the same set-up to print back to DN as the plain regular IP. If that's the case, then you should have no trouble intercutting or even A/B dissolving the two IPs. Although remember that dissolves from positive behave slightly differently from dissolves from negative (in the way that highlights or shadows hang on or appear first, most noticeable in long dissolves). This might be significant given that you would be dissolving to or from a very high contrast image. If the lab has not anticipated this, they may possibly have trouble mixing the two IPs. Talk to them NOW. Out of interest, what provisions did you make in lighting, exposure, and wardrobe etc, for the bleach bypass effect. And what stock did you shoot? In our case, we found, in extensive testing by the DoP, that (a), some colours shifted a bit (she was using filtration as well, but the BB exaggerated its effect) and (b), that, using higher speed stocks, the grain blew up in some colours - particularly yellows.

Dominic Case

Page 96 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Blue V Green Screens

Hello All, This is puzzling me for some time. I do quite some blue screen photography, video and film, and used greenscreen only a few times when the project called for pronounced blue colored foreground elements. In using green backgrounds I personally feel I need to invest more time on the set in getting rid of green spill on the subjects than I have to do with blue. The Green reflects more color and also, if ever a slight blue cast remains sometimes in a composite, I feel it is generally less disturbing than a spill of green color.

During the BKSTS SFX 96 seminar, Mitch Mitchell held an interesting presentation quite strongly promoting blue screen, not green. Among other arguments he made the point that the human (white) skin tone does not contain any blue, so one can obtain better masks on blue, especially on human skin, thus leaving the skin tones and richness more easily untouched by the process.

Another presentation related difficulties on the composites for the final sequence of "Goldeneye" having cost a lot of work removing green spills, the presenter expressing regrets the shoot was not done on blue. During an SFX 98 presentation, there was a story about white polar bears shot against green in studio (plenty of green spill on them, especially their feet and between their legs) and the presenter once again made us understand that to his opinion he would have had an easier job if blue screen would have been used.

All this said, what puzzles me, is that on the BIG majority of photo's I see in magazines like AC, "making off" documentaries etc of major feature productions I every time see the use of green screens rather then blue. Blue screen seem to be rare exeptions.

How come, every time I hear someone from the post-production side talk about this, I hear them begging for blue while apparently green seems to be mainstream now.

Page 97 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Why do so many people use green. What are the advantages? Are there any advantages besides the possible use of saturated blue in the foreground elements?

Any thoughts ? What do you prefer ? Your experiences with post-houses on the subject?

I also see advertisements of red screens now. Is this a new hype? Or just a solution for those rare cases we have blue and green in the foreground? How about skin tones on red-screen? Anybody used it?

Kommer, puzzled :-) Kleijn

I think that a lot of the preference of post facilities for green is to do with the fact that they don't understand film. They think that because green is the major component of a video signal and also the cleanest component of a video signal then it's the best way to go.

They don't seem to take into consideration that the format that the image originates in has an influence as well.

I prefer using blue, I have less problems with blue, I get some very strange requests from post at times :-)

Geoff Boyle

Page 98 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Actually, it's usually the opposite; with most color screen packages, green spill resolves to brown or grey. Bluescreen spill resolves to a teal or greenish color - very rarely grey. This means that any transparent edges you have - hair, bottles, smoke - will have more believable color with green screens.

Regarding spill, there's no excuse for it. If you ever see the color cast of the screen in the final composite, just fire your post guy. Don't waste time dealing with him. Ultimatte, Primatte, and my software, The Matte Pack, can handle any conceivable amount of spill, and my software is under $500, so it's not a cost issue.

>During the BKSTS SFX 96 seminar, Mitch Mitchell held an interesting >presentation quite strongly promoting blue screen, not green>arguments >he made the point that the human (white) skin tone does not >contain any blue, so one can obtain better masks on blue, especially on >human skin, thus leaving the skin tones and richness more easily >untouched by the process. That's a common myth from the optical printer days. Caucasian skin does indeed contain blue - if it didn't, it would be deep orange. It just contains slightly less blue than green or red. Notice I say "slightly." Skintone has not much to do with pulling mattes; the colorspace of white skin is so far from the colorspace of the screen that it should never be a problem. In terms of leaving skin tones untouched, it's not a good idea. All color screen subjects will experience a slight overall color cast, whether by reflection or lens flare. If you simply try to composite the foreground "untouched," the subject will often look pale with blue screen, and sick with green screen. ;) All high-end tools remove this cast automatically, so no composite is "untouched," really.

The different screens have their place - blue screen is obviously better for this type of thing, since a lot of footage is to be composited against the sky. However, what it boils down to is "different color, same problem." Why wasn't he expressing regrets that the shoot was not done WELL? Thousands of green screen composites show up in theaters every year, and I would venture that even professionals only notice one in a hundred. Take a look at Titanic - that film had so much difficult green screen work, but it's invisible on screen. Remember that the blue- sensitive layer of the emulsion has the highest granularity, which is amplified when you pull the matte. Green is not nearly as grainy, so it produces a much more pure matte. That gives you more flexibility in

Page 99 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

compositing. This is why red screens are shot for motion control - it produces the best matte possible by using the best emulsion layer.

>Why do so many people use green. What are the advantages?

Better matte, spill resolves better, not many subjects include green. The reason bluescreen was so popular was that in the photo-chemical compositing/optical printer days, they had no spill correction, so an uncorrected blue foreground looked better than the uncorrected green.

>I also see advertisements of red screens now. Is this a new hype

I don't believe red screens have been used for shooting people yet - it would certainly not pull a good matte. Redscreens are used for shooting motion control passes, of miniatures primarily. It came to us from TV sci/fi work. The theory is that first you shoot a "beauty pass" - a motion control pass against a black backdrop, with the subject model lit for beauty. Then you shoot the same model with no subject lights against a red screen, so what you get is the black silhouette of the model against a solid red background. You get a great matte from the redscreen, which you use to composite the beauty pass. The mattes and composites this system generates are quite incredible.

This was utilized in Steamship Troopers - you can read about it in Cinefex 75. Some people also shoot magenta screen. Anyway, those are just my notes about the technical aspects.

Ben Syverson

Certainly in the feature world, the various post houses ask for blue or green based on, among other things, what their custom software "fixes" have been built for. This is the "if what you have in your hands is a hammer, all your problems look like nails" syndrome. I think that some of them feel that their clean-up programs work well enough that the other advantages that they feel they have outweigh the spill issues.

I have worked a lot with blue, green, and red, and they all spill.

Page 100 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Red is great for blue/green spaceships (Independence Day) and fine for that sort of thing in general, but not great for people.

From the standpoint of on-set comfort, blue is rougher on the eyes than green (if lit with narrow band sources) and on at least one job I did that was a consideration -with several months of first unit on a 12,000 sq. ft green screen stage there was some effort made to crew comfort. If it's only the effects unit, no one cares :-)

Mark Weingartner

I see 2 differences.

1. Blue has a lot less "power". It is by nature a "dark" color. It is harder to get a blue cast into something already lit in white that a green cast. In a B/W television signal f.e. the blue channel accounts for only 11% while the green has 59%. A green screen receiving the same amount of light produces more than 5 times more reflected light (theoretically). That means that blue reflections will less easy influence lit parts of you subject then green supposing your subject is lit with (close to) white light. The 5 times are not true in reality because we tend to slightly "overexpose" blue screens for better key. But not 2.5 stops, more like 1 stop. That makes the light coming back from a blue screen still 1.5 stop less on a light meter than that from a green screen.

2. I feel working with blue easier while it seems more like a natural color to me. What I mean is f.e. that if I have to set up a light to kill it, a small light with quarter or half 85 gel on it often will do. There are more cases that a warm backlight on my subject is OK for the picture, while a magenta backlight is not often acceptable......

I quite often work for medium budget productions, which makes that the post-production facilities do not always have all the neatest software, gear, expertise and/or time to get away with the spills easily.....

Page 101 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

All the time they put in there will be lost elsewhere in the post work. They often have to work on tight schedules and the better the source material I can deliver them the better the final result will be I think.

Kommer Kleijn

This is where good communication between the director and the visual effects supervisor is vital. If your visual effects supervisor is using an Ultimatte style system, throwing up a "spill correcting" backlight behind the subject is inappropriate; Ultimatte and similar tools have built in spill correction logic, so doing this will make the composite look wrong.

However, that said, some DPs will gel the subject key and fill magenta/85, in order to separate the subject from the background more, and then the color cast is corrected in the compositing process.

Even Ultimatte is under $2,000 which is nothing for post houses. Ultimatte removes spill automatically, so it actually saves time. If your post production facility doesn't have an Ultimatte-level tool, they are creating more work for themselves, and if you're paying by the hour, that means they're ripping you off.

Compositing a color screen subject into the background is a half-hour proposition at the most. Again, if it takes more than a couple billable hours, you need to visit your post house and see what they're doing. If you've shot good footage, don't let them tell you "Oh yeah, uh, it's gonna require twenty hours of roto work."

Ben Syverson

Page 102 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

What are the feelings out there on the latitude of exposure on the green/blue screen? I've always been comfortable with a 1/2 stop plus or minus density on the screen. Is there a difference between the blue or green in regards to variation of density.

Jim

On the Blue/Green issue, I have no opinion. The are both "bears" to work with (polar or otherwise) but I'd like to share a little trick I've used with fairly good success: With green screen, add some red gel to any backlight on your foreground subject, it will neutralize a good bit of the "spill" Same is true with blue screen, only add some amber to neutralize the cyan.

Joe "I'd rather hang the actor over the cliff" Di Gennaro

Did I say red? I didn't mean red if I said it I meant magenta OK, OK don't blast me with ridicule!

Joe "Mistakes make me see red" Di Gennaro

I know that this is purely anecdotal, but I remember reading about the CG dept. working on "Broken Arrow" saying that they had to use green screen because John Travolta's eyes keyed out in the blue screen composites.

Page 103 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Now, I'm by no means saying that Mr. Travolta is to blame for all this :) but I know that there are often MANY mitigating factors. The one thing I do know about green screen is that it takes more than one coat of paint to get the saturation right, whereas blue can usually get it in one. One commercial I did we had to postpone everything while the 3rd coat was drying because the stage owner had to redo it in the middle of the night after my prelight revealed inconsistencies in the saturation. The production was pissed because it cost them 3x as much in paint expenses- on both ends (getting it green, and then back to white). I've suggested blue screen ever since.

Thom Harp

Again, if you're using Ultimatte, Primatte or a similar tool, this is inappropriate. Spill compensating backlight should be used only with the most basic compositing systems. It takes quite a bit of time to remove that amber or magenta edge in post.

Hope this sheds some backlight on the subject...

Ben Syverson

OK OK I won't ever do it again! This list is great for both learning and un-learning things. Thanks!

Joe "I Stand Color-Corrected" Di Gennaro

Page 104 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I just have to jump in on this thread .I think that either blue or green done well in perfect circumstances is going to work for the post people BUT. on set you just don’t get the time or resources to do things perfectly every time. I find green screen easier to light because as stated by a previous post it takes less light (read less money)to get the same luminance. This is a major consideration when you are lighting for high speed or massive depth in real speeds(producers get very ugly sometimes).

Next. Ever try underexposing your green screens?

This is the shot .Girl in skintight BLACK LATEX!!!!! on green screen, shot high speed(read Lots-o-Lite) to be composited onto a torch lit scene(read Very Dark)No chance of faking little magenta backlights or whatever tricks you can think of. OK get a written note from you Vis FX supervisor witnessed by at least ten people and signed by everyone in the post dept and underexpose your green screen by two stops. Spill disappears and the key locks in with the dark BG like magic.

Don't tell anyone Its a secret. Regards

Ross Emery

Note. Blue screens underexposed go black.

>Next. Ever try underexposing your green screens?

I've consistently underexposed my green screen by 2-3 stops and this thread has been discussed at length regarding the way one determines the underexposure. In other words is the spot meter giving you an accurate reading with such a limited spectrum of color. But regardless it works with my Minolta.

>Note. Blue screens underexposed go black.

Not in my experience. I've found the blue to be able to be underexposed by 2 stops as well.

Page 105 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

However, this is on 35mm, on 16 I will tend to be more conservative. My question though is how much latitude does one have within a lit blue/green screen? I've usually been plus or minus 1/2 stop with no problem but again on 16mm I would be more conservative. What are the limits in 35mm in pulling an acceptable key? i.e.: if my exposure is f5.6 and I put the green screen at a 2.8 (2 under) do I still have the latitude for a part of the green to be 2-1/2 (f2.4) stops under and 1-1/2 (f3.4) stop under for a successful key??

Or if I'm at f5.6 exposure and I underexpose the green screen one stop at f4 do I have the latitude to again within the screen be 1/2 over and under.

What are the limits? And at what exposure or under exposure of the screen?

Is there a difference?

Jim Sofranko

Yes Walter that's what I'm getting at, what is that acceptable threshold? Does it vary from machine to machine or how it's set up? Sometimes we must make compromises on the evenness of the screen (i.e.: around 3 dimensional objects) and I would be interested to see at what limits we have and by what criteria can we base those limits. There are times when the screen looks good by the meter but the camera gets a reflective angle off the screen which makes a key more difficult which makes it important to judge the screens luminance at the camera angle . >... I think it important to understand that in the end you should be lighting the color for what it is and not just to illuminate the background with a consideration of the foreground element first.<

Page 106 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Absolutely true but if you can get a great key off 2 stops under and it helps eliminate spill and reflections on your subject then that's the choice to be made. But then how much latitude within the screen is there before reaching the unkeyable threshold on the underexposed side? I've seen discrepancies with this and was wondering what variables can cause them in post.

Jim Sofranko

I'm curious. When the lights were dimmed to 33%, was the change in color temperature (lighting shifting warmer/less blue light on the blue screen) a factor in the key? I'm wondering about the key's tolerance of a shift in color temperature of the light source on the screen. How warm can you go? How blue could you go? Would you have noticed this difference on a vector scope? And what's more valuable for reading the screen on a shoot like that, a waveform monitor or a vector scope?

Tim Glass

Again, I think our fine colleagues in post will say that they can get it within a stop range (+ or - a 1/2 stop), but the real question is do you want them also to be able to add shadows to the b.g. that are cast on stage? If so, I believe that you have to be more consistent with the exposure for the green/blue you want keyed out in order to make it easier for them to pull your shadow cleanly.

Anyone else w/experience on shadows you WANT to use doing this kind of work?

Thom Harp

Page 107 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Be careful not to draw too many generalizations from specific cases without specific parameter information. For instance, if you have a hypothetical monochromatic blue or green screen (reflects nothing back that is not the wavelength you want) then dimming lights (shifting them towards red) will not affect chroma...it's just that as you dim them you will lose proportionately more green than longer wavelengths so your exposure curve would drop faster than a light meter would imply. If you have a screen which is not monochromatic (say, a white wall) and you light it with lights filtered through a "perfect" green filter, the same could be said to happen, since all the light hitting our theoretical white wall would be filtered to pass only the "green" that we are selecting.

Most real world situations fall between these two extremes. The degree of reflectance of green (and absorption of "non-green") of the screen will vastly affect its touchiness about light source purity. Conversely, if you are using narrow band illuminating sources for your screen, color variations on the screen and even big chunks of dirt become much less of a problem. With painted cycs, for instance, a big consideration is the specular kick off of the front surface of the paint. This sheen can be a problem if you are using unfiltered or wide-band sources, but is generally not a problem if you are using narrow-band sources. By the way, you can use a polarizing filter to knock down the sheen in some situations if it is a bigger problem than the stop loss would be. Now I'll shut up and let Walter answer :-)

Mark Weingartner

I prefer green screen for compositing outdoor scenes because it allows me to fill with bluish skylight to help sell the illusion of a sunny day. Otherwise I would have to gel the "sunlight" extra warm and rely on post- production to cool the scene down to the proper color balance after they get the matte.

Bruce Douglas

Page 108 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

>Again, I think our fine colleagues in post [..]

A visit to the PRIMATTE site, where they show a chromakey system based on their patented Polyhedron Slicing algorithm, is worth the detour. http://www.photron.com/WHITEPAPER/kanprie.php3 (A unique method of calculating key values, Clean and precise blue-spill removal functions, etc.)

JP

Yes, Primatte is a very intriguing system, although I'm not sure I would use it for everyday blue and green screen composites; all of that complex math slows down rendering times. But if you have really awful color screen footage to deal with, it's a good choice, because it can handle almost anything. Every package has its strengths and weaknesses. Ultimatte has special blue screen procedures, since it was developed when blue screens were predominant, so it's really the best tool for that. My package, The Matte Pack, works best with green screens. (The math is the same for blue & green, but the spill remover works best with green.)

On the note of condensing all of one's thoughts into one email to keep traffic down, here are my notes on color temp and exposure. Ultimatte, Primatte, and The Matte Pack can all handle significant shifts in color temperature with little effect on the matte. There is an effect on the spill suppression, but you can use that to your advantage. For example, if you want spill areas to resolve to grey, you need the background as close as possible to 100% b/g, 0% b/g, 0% r. If you want spill areas to resolve brown, shoot with a slightly yellowish/reddish greenscreen. In terms of exposure, you want the closest to 100% green or 100% blue. That will give the lowest grain matte.

Page 109 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Green screens are easier for people to get their minds around, in my experience. When you say "green" to most people, they think of a VERY specific color, which is essentially pure green. And if you show them color that's too blue or too yellow, they'll say "no, that's not green." But pure blue doesn't look "pure" to most people - it looks too dark. Actually, people have a very vague conception of blue - especially producers. ;) So if they see something that's practically sky blue, they'll say "hey, that's blue! Shoot against that!"

-Ben Syverson

Page 110 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Borescopes, Probes & Frazier

We Started our conversation with a discussion about Probes:- I just used the new Innovision lenses and found them to be the sharpest of the lot (in terms of borescope lenses) but the flare problem must be carefully addressed usually with tape on the lens.

James Sofranko

Black wrap taped to the lens is the solution. Did someone compare the Innovision probe II with OpTex or Frazier.

Mali Benny

I've never had the chance to compare the OpTex & the Innovision side by side but I've used both quite a lot and I'm fairly sure that the Innovision is sharper at all apertures. Which is a pity as it's much easier for me to get the OpTex :-(

Geoff

Page 111 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've worked with Innovision lenses as well...they are great....keep in mind about your lighting scheme though...once you get that lens right up to the subject you will find some fun challenges as to where to put your light source as to a) not flare the lens and b) not cause shadows from the lens since it will be so damn close to the subject!! Good luck and have fun!

Luc G. Nicknair

I've used the original Frazier before Panaflex got it and found that it performs a much different function than the Innovision-type lenses. The Frazier is great for depth perception and scale realization in special shots of that type. But it must be lit to an f16 for this to be accomplished. But as I recall it didn't have any more depth in macro land. The Innovision 2 is a f5.6 and seems to work much better for getting close to objects without the obtrusion of the camera. I believe that the tube is narrower. It has a great depth of field and seems to work as well or better in macro than the Frazier. It would be helpful if the people making these lenses could produce a depth of field chart for their products.

James Sofranko

About 2 months ago I used the Probe II with an SR III to simulate a POV shot through a keyhole. (Prop dept. built an oversized lock cylinder.) The Probe II worked GREAT. Interchangeable lenses gave us maximum flexibility. We dollied into the key cylinder and saw the actor on the other side. Very nice shot.

Chris Taylor

Page 112 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We then went into more detail about the Frazier:-

Hi, anyone used this - I had a look at it at Panavision Woodland Hills recently, and although the maximum aperture is slow (7.1) it looks like an interesting piece of kit. Basically a periscope type lens with the business end orientable in two axes, built in rotation(manual or motorised) of the image, and supplied with various perspective control/shift lenses from different manufacturers (Nikon, Tokina etc). Any observations?

Chris Plevin

The optical and mechanical concept of this lens system was previously conceived and fabricated by Bob Netmann, now with Mathews Electronics. He had nothing to do with the manufacture of the Fraizer System. He was a partner in Continental Camera at the time. He now works with Mathews. He in an inventor that created the Continental Camera helicopter mount, the Mathews CamRemote, and both the Astrovision and Vectorvision aerial camera systems that shoot from Lear Jets. Bob's version is called the "Pitching Lens System" It predates the Fraiser Lens System by more than 15 years. It has a relay lens tube, and an articulating front lens mount that can tilt through 180 degrees. The front lens mount can accept a wide variety of both still lenses and motion picture lenses. The image can be rolled through 360 degrees. They have been available for rent, first through Continental Camera, and now through Mathews Electronics, 2021 Lincoln Street, Burbank, CA 91504, (818) 843-0969. I'm sure Bob has been watching all this and wonders, "What's all the fuss?"

Bill Bennett

I'm using one at the moment on an Intel commercial. For the first time we actually did notice an increase in depth of field, besides that gained by the fact that the taking lens is effectively widened - 17mm = 12mm. I was checking out the system with the 50mm and realized that the door way I was looking through was very sharp, along with the background, which was very close to infinity on the focus scale. And that was wide Page 113 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

open - 7.1 . It does seem to defy physics. Someone pointed out that Oxford Scientific has had such a set up for quite awhile, although Panavision has some patents pending apparently. We're using it to get a dogs POV, plus some interesting and quick funny/odd angles.

Mako

When something is repackaged and heralded as the latest thing with a fanfare of trumpets, people who don't know of it's previous incarnations sit up. Although the Continental system has been here for some time, it has tended to remain in the special fx/commercials domain, and also comes under the headings of expensive and time consuming. The PV system comes out in one box and is a little more user friendly. I don't know about the economics. Still anything that expands the repertoire, or widens access to a particular technique isn't a bad thing; apart of course for the fact that everyone tends to jump on the bandwagon at once, as per some previous conversations here and elsewhere!

Chris Plevin

The Frazier lens is suppose to have the added benefit of extended depth of field. On my Intel commercial last week we "suddenly" saw this extended depth. Seems to defy physics. OTH, someone mentioned that that part of the Frazier lens system might have been already in use in some form my Oxford Scientific? I wish Panavision would step up and comment on this ...

Mako

Page 114 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I wonder about the supposedly magical depth of field on the Frazier lens system. I've worked with it on a wide-angle-comedy commercial (kind of a speciality of mine) and while it was impressive, as we used it it seemed pretty much what I'd expect from a 14 or 16mm lens at T8--a territory I am very familiar with. Perhaps what is different about it is being able to put the lens right up close to things so easily--so you see very close foreground objects which are pretty sharp. I see the same thing when I rack my CF 16 Zeiss up way close....sorry if you're tired of hearing about that. Also, the system requirement of T7 may cause people to light to a deeper stop than they're used to on interiors, so they see more d.o.f. than they expect. On the job where I used it I quizzed a Panavision rep and he said that there was nothing magical going on with the depth of field, for what that's worth. Their literature does seem to promise some special quality, but they also say it really starts to happen at T11 or 16. Well, OBVIOUSLY things are going to be pretty sharp there. I think the great thing about the Frazier is the malleability of the lens position: you can get it right in there, far away from the camera body, then rotate the image however you want to level or Dutch it. It is WAY head and shoulders above any other periscope or wand system with these features...and yes, this is an advantage over my CF Zeisses, too...dammit. OTOH for executing moves it is not so good. With that long tube you are WAY off the camera's nodal point. When you tilt, you have a mini 'crane move'--but it's as if the crane operator does the move and the camera operator's tilt is locked. Same thing applies to panning...there is no backpanning, so you can approach and go past things, but can't approach and go past them and hold them in frame. For some moves this will be fine, for others not. In theory you could still do a boom or dolly move, then pan or tilt on your head to compensate, but being that far off the nodal point I think the whiplash would kill you. The Kenworthy snorkel does not have this limitation...but we are talking probably an order of magnitude in terms of budget, which is itself kind of a conversation-stopper. One other small caveat about the Frazier system is that while the adapted Nikon, Canon, and Tokina (!) lenses seem optically okay (for TV anyway), they are not entirely innocent of flare and some have pretty big front elements.

Page 115 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

So while you've got your lens hidden in some neat spot right up close IN the scene, better allow room for your grip brothers to cut the light off that lens front or you may be living with a flare or a milked-out shot.

Alan Thatcher

I felt the same way about the Frazier on the first couple of shoots that I used it on (as the AC). But on this last job I discovered while prepping that when I put the 50mm on and looked through a doorway a few feet away, everything was pretty darn sharp from the doorway all the way across the prep room a Panavision Hollywood. Wide open - yah I know - T7. It actually seemed more impressive with the longer lenses then the wide ones? If the depth of field thing is true, Panavision needs to do a crash course with its employees. It does seem most of them are tired of the depth of field questions and don't believe it themselves.

Mako

Page 116 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Here are some answers and comments from the inventor of the Frazier lens.

1. First and foremost I refer to the comment from Bill Bennett. Let's put to rest once and for all any false claim that THIS lens system was 'conceived and fabricated' by anyone else. Its design is nothing like the design of the Netman (Kenworth snorkel) .

The Frazier system's built in motorised image rotator is not offered in the Netman system. The two-axis swivel at the front of the lens is not offered in the Netman system. The Frazier system does not require a specialist operator and 300lb of rig to operate it. It's a fraction of the cost and very cameraman friendly. The lens can be swivelled in mere seconds ready for a different shot ; you can literally go from a horizontal to a vertical shot in less than a minute, and an underslung shot to an overhead shot in mere seconds. It is not a snorkel as such, but quickly converts to a snorkel if so desired, by swivelling the tip.

2. Regarding the extended depth of focus, Mako's comment on this page ("seems to defy physics") reflects what was told to me by a physicist when I was doing my first research on the Frazier lens fifteen years ago. He said that the extended depth of field I sought was an "optical impossibility " . Not being an optics specialist, I went ahead and apparently achieved the impossible. In science there are only temporary answers. We devise 'laws of nature' to comfort our egos, and they need constant revision.

3. Still on depth of field, as with any lens if you want depth you must stop down. But this lens achieves greater depth at any given stop.

Let us assume that, using the widest possible lens, the desired magnification of the foreground object has been established, and, using a suitable f-stop, you have achieved sharp focus from that object to infinity. But - you are unhappy with the wide angle perspective. By maintaining the close-up object magnification with any other of the lenses in the kit, you will achieve exactly the same sharp focus from close-up to infinity.

4. As a bonus, in this system the distortion usually associated with wide angle lenses is almost zero, thus allowing new and unusual close- up perspectives.

Page 117 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

And it takes over where other lenses leave off, as it now includes that lost area from minimum focus to the front element of the lens.

5. By the way, motorised versions are on the drawing board, with both swivel axes being linked to the image rotator to maintain a level horizon.

6. My demonstration video is available from Panavision, but I shall be happy to answer any specific queries on this page.

Jim Frazier Sydney, Australia

Page 118 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Bounce Lighting

Well, I'd like to start a new thread if I may: What is the most creative [i.e.: strangest?] material you have ever used to bounce like off?

I heard that Bob Richardson, ASC used Luane [you know...the expensive plywood stuff...sorry for my spelling] which he hit 4K pars into, at least until the sheets began to smoke and were changed out! Any other odd yet great mediums to bounce into besides the standard bead-board & foam-core?

Jeff

Some of the nicest, cheapest material I've used is a construction material used as building insulation. Specifically, this material is a dark yellow foam board, one inch thick, that has been covered on both sides with a semi mirrored mylar, of sorts. 4x8 sheets were $6.75. These hit with either coat of matte spray or a "dusting" with cheap white paint to cut back on the specularity of bounced sunlight and you have large quantities of fill for tiny amounts of money. I used these to light a high frame rate (10 fps) still shoot of a rollerblader taking runs at the camera position. I bounced an 8 foot fill from a low positioned sun, over a 70 foot run. Materials cost totalled ~ $150. They are lighter weight than 1 inch foamcore, but are not as stiff.

Cliff Hancuff Clear Day Software

Page 119 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've told this anecdote before on CML, but I saw John Alcott bounce two brutes into the black side of a show card for a CU of Paul Newman on Fort Apache the Bronx.

Lowell Peterson

Cellotex. 1" rigid insulating construction board, "found" at a construction site. The 1" rigid foam interior is light, creamy tan in color; it's sandwiched between two sheets of mylar, one matte black and the other dull aluminium. Perfect for a light weight bounce (rig it like foam core) and you can peel the matte black covering off easily, leaving a "warm/soft" side and a "efficient silver" side. Cut a single 4' x 8' sheet in half, you've got two great 4x4 bounce boards for a total of $13.95. Great for travel and location work, buy 'em on site at any major lumber yard or "Home Depot" kinda chain store; use 'em, toss 'em when you're done.

Jim Furrer

A story passed along to me. The great Vittorio Storraro was hired for a commercial being shot on location in Niagara Falls. The usual fleet of lighting trucks, grip trucks, big crew, etc. made the trek down to the Falls. As the first shot was being lined up with the director the crew waited anxiously for Vittorio's directions as to what equipment would be hauled off the truck to light the shot. There was a long pause. Storraro, after assessing the situation (perhaps he stroked his chin here, I don't know) turns to the crew and with a chopping motion of his hand indicates where and on what angle he would like a piece of foamcore placed.

That was it!

Now that's genius!!

Greg Bennett

Page 120 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Several things I have bounced light off of: shiny linoleum floors (to get that hot morning light thang), off of reflector boards at night (to soften the harshness of HMI pars and, one of my tricks, because I hate the harsh sterility of beadboard, is I'll kindly as the grips to entice the art department out of some tan hued paint and paint a 4x8 of foamcore and the 'Marble-ize' or speckle it with a darker color creating a kind of 'granite texture. That gives the effect of bouncing off of sand.

Of course there's the obvious: bouncing off of ceilings, walls, even dark maple wood panelling (don't set it afire though!) and 'microwaving' with mirrors. One pet project of mine has been to find odd shapes of glass, cove window radiuses, TV set glass fronts and, for my last feature I found a particular flat or shallow curved piece of rear window glass with a bronze tinting from a Honda van which I silvered and used when I wanted extremely hard shadows. The idea came from noticing light reflected off of windshield in the parking lot that gave a surprising venetian blinds effect in office buildings. Much fun. Who else???

--Eric Edwards

I can't believe someone didn't beat me to the punch here -- a favorite of mine from the low-budget days was the need for a large soft ambient glow for night exteriors... Love the side of the grip truck... Nice and reflective white... Very tasty in those under-the-gun productions when a 20-by is as mythical as a Unicorn... Was very sad when I did a low budget feature with a green grip/electric truck... What the hell was supposed to use for a bounce then? Also, in a desperate measure while shooting on board a yacht at sea and needing a bit of fill from the sun, the DP threw me a roll of 216 and said -- "Here -- unroll this and hold it up!" Woof! Instant 4x4 bounce... Of course that's the same DP who also bounced a practical off of a red poster tube for a little warmth in a close-up and, once off of a toilet bowl for a little kicker... (and you know, it was actually a cool source...)

Jay "I've got a million of 'em" Holben

Page 121 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I heard that Conrad Hall likes to bounce 4k pars off a door handle! Well, maybe not 4Ks but...well, maybe the story is apocryphal but next time there's a door handle in a scene I'm lighting I intend to try it. The story did set me thinking and is a good one to remember when our minds stop thinking creatively and we just call out for a polly out of habit ;<)

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman

The last thing I used "...in a pinch..." was one of those shields you put in your car's windshield to keep the car from getting so hot in the summer. Wal-Mart is now carrying a silver one that is extremely light and folds to about 6 inches wide. The other day, I saw someone with a gold one that I'm trying to track down. I guess the best thing would be if I could find one with silver on one side for my "Elvis" and gold on the other for my "Prisilla".

D.P. Rob Draper tells a story of how he did an office scene. While he was scouting the location one day he noticed that the next building over was white washed (I guess the building was pretty close). He calculated when the sun would be positioned to make the white building a huge bounce card for the office scene he had in the adjacent bldg.

Jim.R.Allen.III

Several years ago we were filming a night shot of a house set in a snow scene in upper Wisconsin. Since we had to bring everything from South Carolina, we were using a semi trailer for a grip truck. Fortunately, it was white, and I bounced a tungsten-lamped 9 light off the side for ambient fill, much as Jay has done.

But the handiest thing we've come up with lately was for a shot inside a small junior high gym with a 13' ceiling. The scene was a science fair and the displays were virtually wall to wall. The director wanted a high

Page 122 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

angle long shot from one corner that covered most of the gym. Trying to push soft light across the width of the gym to supplement the fluoros overhead and give a little soft cross light to relieve the flatness was a problem. We came up with a couple of 1/2" thick 4x8 panels of Gatorfoam covered with Roscoflex S (soft) with HMI 1200s bounced off of them. This gave us some soft punch you can't get from straight foam board. Since Gatorfoam has a surface made of thin wood material rather than paper, it is more rigid than regular board, but being only 1/2" thick it is still lightweight. To mount them we bolted a large floor flange exactly in the center of each and screwed 24" long 2" PVC pipes to the flanges. We can clamp the pipe in a Lowel Grip mounted on a Matthews Combo stand, which gives us complete swivel adjustment of the panel. We also used them for soft backlight on closer shots. For softer effects, the entire panel can be reversed (flange/pipe/Grip on the front side) and the normal white surface can be used. For storage, the PVC mounts can be unscrewed from the flanges. When these boards finally break, we can buy new ones, drill 4 holes in the centers and transfer the flanges to the new boards. We've used them successfully on exteriors, as well, but they need to be tied off at the corners so they don't sail away in the breeze! For a scene tomorrow from the back of a classroom with acoustical tile ceiling, we are going to rig a panel of either Roscoflex S or shiny posterboard material to the ceiling to bounce a soft beam over the desks to augment the lighting in the front of the room. The soft side of one of the 4x8 Gatorfoam boards will fill the foreground.

Wade Ramsey

I love taking household mirrors (2' x 4', etc.) and covering them with 2" clear packing tape (both sides) a few times. Take the mirror and drop it flat onto concrete and take a hammer to it. Break it up artistically :) Mount to a piece of wood with a baby pin on it. Use handy clamps to grab it as you torque it into weird shapes. put wedges behind it to press it out. I try to use a HMI par with this as it needs a big gun.

Page 123 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It gives an incredible look for a key light. Put branches in front for a great dappled sun light look with HMI’s. Styrofoam ceiling tiles(2'x2') make great small bounces too. Not really a bounce, but taking 4x4 frames and covering with industrial grade saran wrap (all crunched up in layers) and drizzling clear oil on them is a cool effect, especially if 2 or 3 are stacked up in front of the key. Kind of messy, but boy is it pretty!!!!

Kurt Rauf

Movie screens. Bought a bunch from a school system surplus auction. Cheap. Some on stands, some were hanging style and I just took them out of the cans and roll them up by hand. Once I had to match backlight ("moonlight") coming through a window on a night interior. Had already shot with an 1200 par HMI out in the yard. Then the rains came. Stood the screen in the downpour in the yard, put the HMI safely under a patio overhang, and got the shot.

Mark Schlicher Sunporch Entertainment

Page 124 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I kinda stole that same idea for a short that I gaffed in the parking garage at Sony. The director wanted the open areas between the ceiling and the lower walls to blow out white. Knowing that we didn't have anywhere near the crew or budget to paper the openings and light them, I helped to schedule those shots so that the adjacent building would reflect the sun and adequately blow out those areas. We shot 98 at a pretty wide aperture to take advantage of the natural lite within the confines of the garage and the openings blew out wonderfully... God -- he (or she) is the ultimate gaffer after all... My philosophy has always been to not fight him (her) when I could avoid it... :)

Jay Holben

I like using these white table-cloth liners when I'm doing small shoots with only my personal kit. They cost about $4 , they weigh nothing, tape up to any wall, they're small and seem to have a decent quality for bouncing light. I carry two in my ditty bag, which gives me two 9foot X 5foot bounce.

D.P.

Nobody's mentioned it and I forgot to: What about those nifty weather balloons for bounce? They're great for when you've rented the baroque palace and they won't let you put a pole cat anywhere. I read somewhere recently that a DP double tethered one outside, hit it with a 2K xenon and it played as the moon in a shot.

I lit a huge old courtroom (same one they used for JFK) with Light by Heaven. On the tech scout I noticed the court was in an "ell" of the building and the whitewashed walls from the main structure formed a massive bounce on the fill side thru three 30x15 foot windows with louvered blinds. it was a double key effect which was very pretty.

Page 125 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

but on the tech scout I failed to see how long the effect would last and found that it didn’t last long. to maintain the corner I'd painted myself into – I just used 4x4 foamcore. also saved myself by keeping the blinds tightened down during the wide shots so that later I could open them up as the hand of the infinite (sun) passed from us. I just saw the footage and it came in nice. good matches.

Caleb

How about the old bouncing the light into the water gag? I've bounced a 10K into a pool of shallow water to reflect into a rear screen from behind. We even got an interesting ripple FX by taping a wooden 'tail' to an oscillating fan and having that stir the water for constant waves. Sometimes we've used mirrors on the bottom.

Robby Muller once showed me a product that Rosco makes {can't find it in the swatch :-( maybe it was called Lumalite or Lumalux?) that is thin Styrofoam similar to disposable trays. We glue mounted it onto some Luann (?sp.) and found it to be much punchier than foamcore and much more focusable. I recall it was very fragile but worked great especially on overcast days.

And of course, Kraft paper. The light golden-brown paper often used on film sets to cover tables or wrap props. That's an old standby for me. But the sand trick sounds very appealing. Might have to give that a try as well as Kurt's oil gag (that does sound messy and you better hope it works). I have used the mirror gag but always have difficulty getting the broken mirror to stay in the 'perfect' position. Not to mention the luck aspects....

Jim Sofranko

Page 126 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

One thing I found worked really great on a table top shoot...... a paper towel roll!!!

It was one of those situations where you look at the scene and realize you just need a little something else...but your DEDO kit is all out and a 1K is just way too big, so I grabbed the first thing I could within by arm's reach: a roll of white paper towels and place it vertical just outside the frame line and...WOW! A beautiful white/soft reflection on whatever it was we were shooting.

Another trick I like [and cheap at that] is to skin a 4x4 open frame with that brown 'craft paper' [shipping wrapping paper]. it is very 'dull' and has a nice warmth to it. Just either bounce a 2K into it directly or slide it into a scene to add a little colored fill...works pretty nice. With that same thought, I've had the guys skin other open frames with different colors of old seamless I found wadded in the back corners of some stages...sometimes a little blue or red fill which originates from a bounce and not a gel seems to do the trick, and it doesn't even matter if there are boot prints or tears on it, actually the more distressed/torn/wrinkled the better.... just a thought...

Jeff

Jessica needed a similar effect on "that feature". I put handmirrors into the bottom of a 1x2' tin and about 3" of water went in. it was a small room and the director changed his mind occasionally so I skimmed the 1.2 PAR into the tin from about 4' away and bounced it up into a hard reflector another few feet from the tin. had a grip stir the water slowly with hand to make the ripple and could place the effect anywhere in the room. the reflector also softened it up nicely. the trick was to stir the water delicately. Love the sand and the oil ideas- Go CML! I know of a tabletop DP in NYC that drives his lights thru construction glass- that ripply 3" thick stuff you see stacked up in malls.

Caleb

Page 127 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I used to always carry a bunch of old CD's with me. They can be stuck to things, broken up or hung very easily. Emergency blankets are fantastic as well. Very compact, easy to shape around objects or cut to size, cheap and available in gold or silver. I've also used large quantities of mylar helium balloons (round and star shaped), but it's hard to keep the grips from huffing the helium! Hardwood and brick floors are some of my favorites though...

-Anders Uhl

Ok, We've heard a lot about bouncing off of. Now how about what to shoot through. I'll start the ball rolling by biding SARAN WRAP!!!!! About 4 layers works great if you have nothing else big enough to go over that humongous big front element. Not to speak of not a bit of filter factor.

Steven Poster ASC

Three-sided glass bottle from Pier One, static---or turn slowly...For color effects, tape gel to it, or even add water with a little food coloring.

Steve Voeller

Page 128 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Stuff to shoot through . . . For al designer odds and ends. In a good floral supply shop, they have gold, silver ornamental do-dads. Little "fake twigs and branches". Put them a couple of feet in front of the lens, hit em with a small light and whala, great out-of-focus shapes with highlights and color. Movement adds to it. Great with swing & tilt.

Jim Dollarhide

I bought some of that years ago, when it was called Rosco Bounce, I believe. Just threw away the last remnants of it yesterday because it is so fragile I couldn't tape it to the ceiling without it self-destructing. According to their catalog it looks like they now call it Ultrabounce W, at least the description seems to resemble it.

It had a beautiful surface, very much like satin fabric, but I never once found a use for it because it was so difficult to handle. (Couldn't even wrap up your leftover blackened chicken fingers in it!) Gluing it down looks like the answer--wish I'd been sharp enough to think of it!

--Wade Ramsey

I used to have an extensive cut glass and bottle kit that recently got lost on a job My favorites were cut glass from a chandelier, bottles of various dimensions, and a lens from an old leko that acted like an aspheron but weirder.

Jim S.

Page 129 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Yesterday the art department on the picture I'm currently shooting were glazing a door. They had the door flat on a bench and were applying the glaze, and using a blond to help it dry. As they applied the oily glaze, the most beautiful reflections and soft shadows of the painter appeared on the back wall. This effect was quickly filed away in the visual memory bank! Although of course the wet glaze provided the effect, I expect you could reproduce this with a non-drying substitute, perhaps cooking oil spread over a flat surface. But don't use anything too flammable...... and I just know someone will write in and say that extra virgin olive oil gives better results than sunflower! I've seen mylar and the mirror/water bounce. Wooden floors are nice. I use gold and silver bounce all the time on this film, gives a harder and more abstract light than white bounce and is good for a kick in the eyes. I like 'backlight and bounce' as an elegant single source solution to some shots, seems economical.

And now, at last, a use for all those free magazine CDs! Great idea!

Chris Plevin

Page 130 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Colour Blindness

For those who may not know it, color blindness is considered a sex- linked trait because it is far more common in men than women (75% vs. 25% of the individuals who are color blind), and it is frequently used as an example in Mendelian genetics for this reason. There are also other, rarer forms of color blindness besides red/green color blindness depending on which color receptors are missing on the retina.

Jessica Gallant

Not sure that it's a question of which receptors are missing, as this doesn't fit with the failure to distinguish red and green, or (more rarely) yellow from blue. Missing red receptors, for example, would leave reds looking black, unlike greens. I was taught that colour blindness is a "signal processing" deficiency: as the R,G,B signals from the retina are interpreted by the visual cortex as colour difference signals (R-G, R+G-B, and R+G+B, in other words red versus green, yellow versus blue, and total luminance). This accounts for yellow being perceived as a "primary" colour along with RGB but unlike magenta or cyan.

Interesting that this theory was only developed in the 1960s, long after the TV engineers came up with the (original?) idea for composite signals.

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

Page 131 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I oversimplified my last post to keep it simple, but will go into a longer explanation here.

There are different causes of color blindness, and all of them have to do with the failure to correctly register color. The most common form of human color blindness is caused not from the lack of certain color receptors, but the lack of pigment in those color receptors. In animals, or other less common forms of human color blindness, these receptors are actually lacking.

While color receptors (cones) are most sensitive to one color, they are also less sensitive to other colors as well. When I look at something red, my red receptors fire off messages to my brain saying "red" but my green and blue receptors are also firing off messages saying "a tiny bit of green" or "a tiny bit of blue" too. This is what gives humans our ability to distinguish between so many shades of colors.

[Also complicating matters somewhat is the existence of luminance receptors (rods) that allow us to see in low levels of light - mainly in the blue spectrum.]

Finally, I made one big mistake in my previous post about color blindness - it occurs about 8 times more frequently in men than women.

Jessica Gallant

1 in 11 males have it and 1 in 300 females have it. 1 in 3 million have complete color blindness. The worst form to have is rod monochromat (cats see this way). If you were like that you could not stare at anything directly A rod monochromat who is totally color blind will have no foveal perceptions.

Page 132 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

They cannot look directly at anything because it disappears from view. Ever notice that after your cat stares at you for a while his eyes start to look away form you. They lose sight of you. They must look around things and have a shifty gaze.

The most common form of colorless sight is the lack of ability to see red/green. How does a blind person see a green light. They don't but the standard is to put Red on top of light fixtures and green on the bottom. BTW dogs are not color blind as you have been told. It was scientifically proven that dogs see red and yellows mostly, but cant perceive green and blue. Too bad many dog toy manufactures don't know this. Most animals actually see some form of colors.

As for the male thing, here is something to know. Color blindness skips generations. If your mother's father was color-blind, there is a 50 percent chance you or your brothers will also be color-blind.

The son's sons won't be color-blind, but if the son fathers a daughter, there's a 50 percent chance the son's grandson will be color blind. Oh all this science is boring me. Have a great day all.

Walter

Page 133 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I'm not an expert on colorblindness but thought I’d throw my two cents in from personal experience. My mother (a rare colorblind female) suffers from blue/green colorblindness. This does not mean that blue look like greens, and greens look like blues. Both greens and blues to her eyes look varying shades of grey. My understanding is that this is also the case for red/green colorblindness and is why stoplights are set up the way they are. When you have two grey lights in front of you it helps to know that the one on top means "go". Perhaps this upholds the theory that colorblind people are missing the proper receptors and color to them becomes nothing more than a grey scale.

Now let's shoot that 18% red card.

Theda

Actually, more recent evidence indicates that cats do have some color perception, but because it's been published after I've graduated, I'm not very familiar with it. Apparently, from what you said, this applies to dogs too.

Even if cats didn't see in color, it would not effect their iris's ability to respond to different levels of light, and they would still make suitable light meters. Dogs, however, would still make a better Spot meters.

Jessica Gallant

Page 134 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I believe Yellow, which is a subtractive primary like Cyan and Magenta, also turns out to be an additive primary as well; this was not known until lasers came along and it turned out that there is a very narrow band of yellow that cannot be reproduced using the additive primaries Red Green and Blue.

-Sam Wells

Exactly so. This is because the red/green difference signal encoded by the visual cortex is for some reason always zero, for all colours. Imagine RGB component signal going to a monitor. Cut the red wire. Reds become black, looking very different from greens. This is NOT how colour-blind people see.

Now imagine shorting the red and green wires together. Reds and greens will look the same grey-ish brown. This is a closer approximation to colour-blindness. Colour blindness is not a missing colour - it's a missing colour-difference. I wonder if dydimium spectacles would help :- )

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

OK, one bit of colorblindness trivia I can't resist passing along: Back in WWII, they used to send colorblind guys along with the normal vision spotters in the recon planes. Seems that taking out the color info makes it easier to see thru various types of camouflage. Colorblindness tests work like that.

John_Sprung

Page 135 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I know for a while there were experiments w/wearing one strongly tinted red contact lens over one eye to improve color perception in the color blind, but I don't know what the results were. They didn't expect it to provide full range, normal color vision, but they were hoping for a better ability to differentiate between different similar shades of color.

Jessica Gallant

Hence the reason why you can have a frame of film that has nice color, but if the contrast isn't there it just doesn't look all that good. Are you a person that lights for color when you look at a frame or do you light for contrast? It might sound like a silly question, but I did a survey of some friends a few years ago asking what they looked for in a frame. Some talked mostly of color, but others(and these guys lit better) talk of contrast. Look at the opposite when Gordon Willis (Manhattan) worked hand in hand with the wardrobe department so that everyone and everything in the frame had a full range of grayscale. I often have the difficulty of trying to teach a wardrobe person that a white shirt and a pink jacket on a women looks nice to the eye(in vivo), but in terms of contrast, they are the same thing(and the same as white skin tone) and hence tend to make a person look rather flat. Who gets the blame? Me, I mustn't have lit the shot correctly. A few years ago I gave a course to some wardrobe people on the subject of color vs. contrast in making a frame look good. Although they were all fascinated by my demonstration, they all wen t back to dressing people for how they looked in person not how they looked on the screen. Oh well.

Walter

Page 136 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Hmmm .... I never thought of it that way. To me, composition is the main thing, lighting is a powerful tool in creating it. It's a way to make line and mass -- so I suppose that's primarily contrast. Thanks for leading me to an interesting thought

John_Sprung.

Thank you too. You made me realize that I take the composition part for granted. But I don't light for composition. I frame for composition, I light for contrast. The color part is turned off in my brain when I look at a frame. I have conditioned myself to see the color but see beyond it to the tones of the frame. Although I am currently shooting a Biography for A&E and in this case it is mostly talking head. There I light initially for contrast but then look to create contrasting color between the person and the background. Kinda boring having a light skinned fella in front of a warm tone wall, with a warm tone light with a warm tone practical in the shot.

Walter

I bounced back and forth as a gaffer from 16mm to 35 to IMAX to 1" C format video, and I had the pleasure of learning a lot from an "old time" video lighting director who ALWAYS lit to a black and white monitor...as he put it, if it looks good in B&W, it will probably fly in color...the reverse is not at all true. Since the vast majority of my experience has been in lighting, I tend to think in terms of lighting first and coverage second, and in terms of lighting, I think that I look at contrast before chroma, but it is hard to separate out the two.

Mark

Page 137 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 138 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Chinese Lanterns

Regarding Chinese lanterns: I occasionally use Chinese lanterns and have always felt that they were a little awkward because of the way that they have to hang straight down so that the bulb doesn't swing and touch the paper. Well, every time I see a photo of Phillipe Rousselot using his Chinese lanterns (you can see one in the Panavision catalog), I've noticed that the top of the lantern has a solid plastic cover with a plastic rod sticking out of it. The power cord runs through this hollow rod and keeps the bulb at the end of it rigid. This allows him to hold the lanterns at an angle or even just lay them on the floor. Where does he get these fixtures? I'm not even sure how to make one, since lanterns have this wire frame to hold them in shape, and the wire hooks at the top hole - so making a cover plate with a rod for the bulb doesn't seem possible unless the lanterns are rigid without needing the wire. Since Rousselot works often in England (the photos shooting this rig are from "Interview with a Vampire" and "Mary Reilly"), I was wondering if you (Geoff) knew about his lanterns, or had ever talked with his gaffer. (BTW, I know about the new Chimera Chinese lanterns, but they seem too expensive.) David Mullen

I can't say I'm a great fan of Chinese lanterns. I think the same quality of light can be achieved with better control a variety of different ways. However, as a gaffer I have made many speciality lights per a D.P.s request, or often when I find that nothing commercially available will do just what I need. I'd guess Phillipe Rousselot's gaffer made him a set of Chinese lanterns that work the way he wants them to. That's how Kino-Flo got started, and DecaSource, and Xenotech and so on.

Page 139 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Chimera makes a variety of Chinese lanterns now that are pretty well thought out and should stand the rigors of production, but they aren't cheap. You might check them out. Otherwise, go to the garage/shop and take baby nail-on plate (pigeon) and drywall screw it with 1 inch screws to a piece of 1 inch thick wood the size of the nail on plate's base, but leave about a quarter inch gap. Screw a porcelain socket to the other side and wire it using a gauge appropriate to the wattage of light you desire.. Take a beach ball or large balloon the size you want, construct a stiff wire frame around it and deflate it and pull it out. Insert the ends of the wire frame between the nail-on plate and the wood and screw it down tight. Now wrap it with paper, muslin, whatever and wala! A rigid Chinese lantern! Just bear in mind the temperature of a 150 watt or higher bulb might brown your material if the ball is too small. You can get a variety of fire retardant materials at a fabric shop, or you could use Rosco shower curtain or spun or any type of diffusion--go crazy. Test it in the garage for a few hours to make sure it won't embarrass you when you whip it out in public. (we can't have that!) With a 213 (3400K 250 watt bulb) in it you'd have a pretty beefy lantern, and you can easily put it on a "hand squeezer" (a 600 watt dimmer sold at any hardware store), and dial into perfection. Make a bunch of them and tell production they have to rent them for enough money to make back what they screwed you out of your rate. Good luck. Panaruss

Every tool has it's application. Recently I was put in a situation where I had to light seven woman in various different settings, around a table, in a living room, in a den etc. The catch is three cameras had to roll on them in opposing directions simultaneously, and two had to be on moving dollies. In other words, light 360 without seeing a stand, and have virtually shadowless lighting, so there was a place for the two overhead mic booms to float without casting a shadow. The dialogue was all spontaneous, so the cameras had to be prepared to be on any one person, at any given time without shooting the camera in the opposing direction. I don't know how, but somehow it worked.

Page 140 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The one thing I do know is that it would have been more difficult, if not impossible without the lanterns. I was able to have a simple over head grid supported with easily camouflaged polecats with aluminium cross beams. Because of the light weight nature of the lanterns and the low profile zip cord that could be strung to the lights I could get away with a lot. The other key factor, which is a hot tip, is to use black rip stop nylon to skirt or turban the lanterns. It is light weight (unlike duvateen) and wraps and pins to taste. Personally, I love the way the light falls off on a face, particularly when it can be used close to the subject. Just remember, if the Queen had balls, she'd be King. Enough said.

Mark

Even I would have opted for Chinese lanterns in that situation. A nail on plate is a metal plate, usually about 4x6 inches with a 5/8 inch "baby" stud, (perfect for inserting into the largest hole in a gobo head) sticking out from the middle of one side. It's a common item on any grip package, often screwed to a pancake to put a small light on the ground (a rig we affectionately call a "directors chair"), but I couldn't tell you what baby plates are called in German. Remember the discussion called for a rigid Chinese lantern. You could easily screw two pieces of wood together and use a screw in eye-bolt for a hanging lantern, the most popular use. The wire could be non- insulated solid copper or aluminum around #8 gauge, which is pretty easy to find in hardware stores or electrical supply stores, but if I was desperate I'd use coat hangers, or fence wire from a farm supply store. You could tape, glue (consider temperature), or even solder the wires at the "south pole". You asked what I prefer? I have often used a little MR-16 bulb Soft-box which I make myself using a QVC projector housing on a little piece of wood. I make them with foam core "snoots" or "Croney-cones", black side in, and usually 216 diffusion about halfway between the bulb and the end of the snoot. There are a bunch of MR-16 bulbs available (they're projector bulbs) and I've used 12-volt DC bulbs as well as 110 volt AC versions. Pick your wattage and color temp, but be careful not to make something that will go up in flames on set. I make the snoot size per application, and I use black paper tape to control the spill, or wrap the light right

Page 141 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

around the talent’s face. They're light enough to hang, tape, or clip about anywhere. You can clip gels, scrims and half scrims to them. If you think about it, they're just extremely small light weight chimeras built specifically for the shot. They won't flare the lens, and in most applications I'd vote for them for quality of light, ease of use, and versatility over a Chinese lantern.

Panaruss

An interesting idea, but it seems like an awful lot of trouble. I'm not really sure why you would want it to be rigid in the first place (and that's not exactly what was requested in the original post). I kind of like being able to squash my lanterns into a 2000' film can at the end of the day and carry it away under my arm. Wouldn't rigid lanterns take up a disproportionate amount of space in the truck in relation to their usefulness? How about this: Ever notice the fixture plate that covers the ugly hole in the ceiling over hanging household fixtures (like chandeliers)? Some of these plates are very lightweight and the right diameter to cover the opening in the top of a lantern. They usually have a hole in the middle for the wire already, and sometimes the hole is threaded. They also usually have two holes on each side for mounting the thing to studs in the ceiling. If you can get a piece of aluminum or rigid plastic conduit the size of the threaded center hole, you're halfway there. If not, drill out the hole. Thread the conduit, screw it in, and you have a cover for the top, very similar to what David described in his original post. The challenge would be to find the perfect fastener to use the existing mounting holes to attach the plate directly to the lantern's wire support frame. Preferably you would use something that would hook around the top of the frame and extend through the mounting holes, allowing the user to tighten the plate down against the frame. Maybe a pair of small- gauge eyebolts with wing nuts? The eye bolts could actually live on the frame when the lantern is squashed. I think I would also want to find a way to brace the bottom end of the center conduit against the middle of the lantern frame for extra stability. A bit of wire twisted around in there somehow would probably do it until a more permanent solution could be devised.

Page 142 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It seems as though all the materials I've mentioned here would be available at your friendly neigborhood hardware, lighting, and electrical supplystores. In fact, I think I'll start looking. Anybody have any improvements or criticisms of the idea?

Chris Ray

Hi, I was Phillippe's focus puller on Mary Reilly - (where the pic in the Panavision catalogue comes from) and can tell you how these are made. There's no trade secret here, his gaffer John Higgins had these made up and quite a few people are using them in the UK - I've got a few in my garage! It's not the fixture, it's how you use it. ;-) In the UK - don't know about elsewhere I'm afraid - you can buy threaded quarter inch steel(or brass)tube which will accept a standard metal lightbulb fitting with a threaded hole in the base. Two nuts and large washers are also required. Cut a piece of tube about 12" to 18". Attach the lampholder at one end. The Chinese lantern that you should be able to buy in various sizes will have a simple internal wire frame to hold it open. At the top there should be a piece of the wire frame designed to loop over the cable in a domestic situation. Just clamp this in between the nuts and washers, positioned so as to hold the bulb in the centre of the lantern. It's a good idea to use a 2-3 foot flying lead on the lantern so it can be quickly replaced via a cheap connection block in situ, rather than wire them all up to expensive lighting connectors - they don't have a long life! At the bottom of the lantern cover the hole with a small piece of diffusion material, F3 or similar, secured with paper staples. Gelling the lantern was a perennial problem - large pieces clipped to the outside are awkward to secure and noisy. If you use them inside they tend to burn due to the heat of the photoflood. Best compromise would probably be inside on a wire frame constructed from a coathanger or similar stiff wire in a cylinder shape and secured via nuts and washers on the tube. To minimise spill you can paint the back half of some of your lanterns black with a water based paint. It's also a good idea to spray all your lanterns with a fireproofing compound before use - they burn very quickly otherwise and can introduce an undesirable orange flicker on your subject - and the director probably won't use the take anyway because of the look of faint alarm on the artists face...... !

Page 143 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Seriously though they can be hazardous and should be treated with respect. The cabling and the lantern aren't really up to constant use and it's best to make up a batch at a time. But the light they produce is terrific, n'est pas?

Chris Plevin

Page 144 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Cold Conditions

Cold climate cousins

I have been asked to research a mountain climbing doco shoot in South America. The producers are keen to go with small three chip Sony DV cameras due to their light weight and expendable nature. I have not shot a project with these cameras but I have played with them and have been surprised by the quality although without doubt inferior to 16mm or betacam.

Although I agree that these cameras are not "professional" as such but when climbing 6000 meters the light weight is very very attractive and the low cost means several cameras can be taken. My questions relate more to the operation of gear in temperatures likely to go down to -20 Celsius. Here in Australia I have had plenty of practice in the desert shooting at +45 C but little in "Arctic" conditions. Does anyone make heated or insulated covers for the small cameras and any other handy hints re gear and batteries when it becomes brass monkey weather.

Tom "leave the surfboard at home" Gleeson

I cannot make any comment about using the DV Cam as I know very little about it. However as far as keeping the camera warm is concerned have you seen/had any experience with the flexible heated pads ? (the only source I can find is RS components (book-2-564)Nov 97) These APPEAR from the blurb to be a very good answer to these kinds of problems. I was wondering has anyone had any experience of making a Barney for either a film or video camera from these pads?

Justin Pentecost

Page 145 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Once I had a problem while working with a JVC KY 35 camera which are very sensitive to low temperature situations. My solution was (while I was shooting in minus 40 degrees Celsius) to tape a pocket heater (which uses Zippo lighter fuel and last almost 24 hours) to the cameras heat sensitive head. The metal body spread the heat to the whole body and I had no problems with cold. I even didn't use a Barney or any cover. You may find these kind of pocket heaters (or pocket stoves, whatever they call) in most of the outdoor accessories shops.

I don't have any idea about altitude problems, but I watched two or three low budget Turkish documentaries which shot with V8 cameras. Poor picture quality but they had working if I could watch them. Hope this helps.

Dogan Sariguzel

I have used some of those disposable heating pads on a couple of shoots in the past. I find an interesting selection of these available in outdoor/camping & hunting stores. The pads come in sizes ranging from 4" squares up to 24"x24". I have an old [but incredibly sharp!!] Zeiss 10:1 T3 zoom on one of my SR-2 packages which tends to get a little sluggish when zooming in temperatures below freezing. I simply "activate" one of these pads and wrap it around the lens, of course making sure it does not conflict with any rotating stuff. I secure it in place with a long Velcro strip and insulate it with a piece of an old space blanket.

It works!

These pads are disposable and last an hour or two. Be advised not to rip one while it is on the camera, they are stuffed with some type of a "saw- dust" like powder. Maybe enclose them in a plastic zip-lock bag first. The larger pads could be stuffed inside your sound Barney to help keep the mag & body warm. And keep one in your pocket for yourself [don't forget your comfort too!]

Page 146 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

They warm up to around 120 degree F, not bad! Stay Warm,

Jeff

Thanks for the interesting information.

I have to confess that these pads were not what I had in mind (however I will go out and buy a few anyway for reasons you will see below :).

The pads I was referring too are flexible and cuttable to any shape (my idea was to make a heated Barney for my SR). They run on 12V power at various ratings from 1.25W (50x25mm) 80W (200x400mm).

Of course it very much depends on the size of your production. If you have to lug all your power up the mountain in a backpack then Jeff's solution would be by far your better bet.

Last January I did a shoot in Prague when the temperature was -25 degrees. I had a folded up (which is STRICTLY against the instructions!) electric blanket with a thermostat covering the camera which we removed to shoot.

I saw a company on the www that was offering a 12V electric blanket for about 30 or 40 dollars US. If you have copious quantities of 12V power then this is also a possible solution.

Justin Pentecost

I'm wondering if you have given any thought to how you will manage condensation when you open this Barney for film mag changes? Sudden temperature changes tends to muck things up. If you only heat the Barney to less than freezing, then condensation would become a non-issue. I would guess that + 20 - 30 degrees is within the operating temperature of most cameras.

Page 147 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've been amazed before at the solutions to problems posted here. I would love to hear some ideas on how to manage condensation if the Barney/camera is heated above freezing.

Cliff Hancuff

The answer is simple :) never let the temperature change too much. What we were really worried about was taking the camera from a warm apartment into the freezing outside. By keeping the camera constantly warm we avoided condensation altogether.

Also I am not sure about the camera being good to -30 degrees. I would think that at that temperature the lubrication would no longer be effective and would tend to drag the mechanism. Personally I found it more difficult shooting in Dubai going from hideous air-conditioning to the outside (45 degrees 80% humidity).

The answer to this was not to use the aircon in cars and leave the windows open. Interestingly it was possible to leave a vehicle unattended in this state.

Justin Pentecost

Maybe I haven't shot in cold enough conditions, but I have never seen anything that is warm covered with condensate when brought into the cold. The problem has always been in taking cold equipment into warm environments. If your concern were valid, wouldn't we be seeing moisture condensing on the outsides of warm coffee cups out on the cold locations? I'm not a rocket scientist, but in my experience, heat dries things out! :-)

Page 148 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We shot a feature years ago using an English ACL as prime camera. Quite a bit of shooting was done in sub-freezing weather, not a pretty situation for that camera! We made a vinyl weather Barney for the camera that had a skirt attached that surrounded the fluid head. Beneath the tripod we hung a 3000 BTU catalytic heater in the open air. The heated air would funnel up into that skirt and warm the camera (and the operator's eye on the finder!) Camera ran faultless and perfectly dry. On another feature we were shooting in upper Wisconsin in January with an SR-II. We used only a weather Barney, no heater. Although the SR-II is supposedly limited to -4 deg. F, we shot in -13 deg. F with no problems. The camera took about 2 or 3 seconds to get to speed, but ran in sync.

--Wade Ramsey

You may want to consider using the new Cannon 3 chip camera. It lists for $500 more, but has better optics (interchangeable lenses).

Try placing the camera in a sealable plastic bag (the kind used to store leftovers), the condensation will then form on the inside of the bag, not on the camera.

Jessica "too many cheapo industrial shoots" Gallant

...the condensation will form on the *outside* of the bag, not inside. Jessica, I know what you meant, but others here may not have...

Cliff Hancuff

Page 149 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

For a panavision Job, I Sewed a "PANANEGRO" Basically a duvetyne Barney, that I could stuff a small heating pad into. Kept the Torgue motors warm enough. Of course always needed to have a Genny from the electric department, but after the first request, they set that up within five minutes of arriving at the location.

Doesn't help you on top of a mountain though.

Steven Gladstone

The 3000 BTU catalytic heater I referred to in my other posting about this wasn't heavy, tho' a little bulky, and had a bail handle to carry it with. It's a Coleman camping product, and would have a lot of other applications on a frigid camping trip!! Most bareness are fitted, padded bags that surround the camera, usually with zip open segments so you can access various parts of the camera.

Another insulated bag (with heater) wouldn't be a bad idea for carrying loaded mags.

The arrangement I described for our English ACL was so warm I suppose the new magazine warmed up pretty quickly, and I would guess that since winter conditions usually combine with low humidity, the interior of a heated Barney isn't going to contain much moisture. In any case I've never had that problem and haven't heard it described as a possibility.

--Wade Ramsey

Page 150 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

First, be prepared to a slower working condition, everything is cold and slows down.

Film gets very brittle and razor sharp, load magazines in warm condition if possible. 35 mm cameras, load in warm conditions if possible, if not possible have a lot of patients. 16 mm cameras with coax magazines are easier to use.

If equipment is moved from a warm area into the cold, and it is not snowing you have no problem. If it is snowing, either pre chill the camera before going into the snow storm, or protect the warm camera with a wet suit or plastic covers. If you do not follow the precautions, the snow will hit the warm camera , melt, seep into the camera, and will freeze once the camera gear gets cold and the camera will stop working.

If equipment is moved from the cold into the warm environment, seal the individual components air tight in plastic bags in the cold place a towel under the gear in the camera before moving into the warm condition. Once inside a warm room, condensation will form on the inside of the plastic bag and will run down inside the bag, and the condensation is collected by the towel. Do not open the sealed bag prematurely, or condensation will form inside the camera gear incl. the lenses. It only takes few degrees temperature difference to create condensation. Once condensation forms on the inside of lenses, the damage is done and leaves many times spots on the inside of the lens elements.

Have the gear cold weather prepared and tested by the rental facility you rent from, it is recommended that mechanical parts on camera and lens gear is lubricated with special cold weather lubricants. Have the cameras tested in a freezing chamber, not for the mechanical but for the electronic components in today’s sophisticated, electronic camera gear. Bring along spare electronic boards.

Page 151 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Have enough battery power, remember the Ni Cad batteries loss 10% of their rated capacity for each 10 degree below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, it is easy to figure out what is left in good batteries at minus 20 degrees. Keep batteries warm, possible under your coats etc.

Power cables may crack , and zoom motors work slower.

Any more questions call the manufactures for more info.

Juergen, Arriflex

My experience is to keep all cameras below freezing when used outside so that no frost forms on them. If you bring a camera into a warm environment and the bring it back out {or the opposite} the moisture will condense on any surface including inside lenses or viewfinders. If you must bring cameras indoors, plastic bag them and allow them to come to ambient temperature before handling. try to preload as many mags as feasible before the shooting day when your hands are warm enough to feel the film and as always be wary of moisture if the equipment goes above freezing.

My experience with batteries is to wear them on your body inside your jacket and to have THREE times as many as normal. As far as preparing the camera itself remove all lubricants and replace them with a much lighter grade where gears are involved.

This is from my experience with two films that I shot In severe environments in Alaska and on top of Mount Washington in winter at - 30c

Mark Forman Film Productions

Page 152 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I did 2 weeks of shooting last January in Montana where the ambient air temperature was -14 degrees F (-25.5 degrees C) There was a constant 25 mph wind blowing, but we won't talk about wind chill because I hate to remember and cameras don't sweat, so it doesn't matter to the camera. We where shooting with an Arri 35-3 and a 435. We didn't have any trouble with the cameras at all. We did have trouble with the zoom lenses getting stiff. We used medical electric heating pads inside lens "barneys" that kept them warm enough to zoom and focus properly. We ran the heating pads from little Honda lunchbox sized generators.

We put the sealed lead acid camera batteries inside Igloo coolers with chemical or lighter fuel hand warmers inside and they worked fine. We cut little holes in the top for the cables to get out.

By the way, you will find out that you and your crew will freeze before the cameras do. The very very best cold weather boots are made by a company called Northern Outfitters (800) 944-9276. The boot is called the Expedition Boot. US$200 and worth every penny! It is very unique in that you do not wear any kind of socks with it, you put your bare foot in it. On the last shoot, the people that had them were toasty warm and everyone else, no matter what they wore, Sorels, etc, froze. The company makes a full line of cold weather gear too, parkas, overalls, gloves, etc.

Bill Bennett, Los Angeles

Page 153 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The only major problem I've had shooting at -25 was with an Arri 3, not the camera but the CE base, it went berserk totally unable to hold a fixed speed but worked fine at "normal" temperatures.

It's best to keep the kit at sub-zero to avoid condensation problems, I've shipped kit with packs of silica gel in the cases to keep moisture levels down as well.

Lenses tend to get very stiff and of course batteries die very quickly.

Oh yes, Jason made rubber coverings for the handle on the Arrihead, my fingers kept sticking to them!

Geoff

Page 154 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

CP16

I recently had some e-correspondence with Derrick Whitehouse regarding CP-16's and I thought the group might be interested in his comments on some issues which have come up on the list. Derrick says that you can drive the camera with 18V but you should not use 24V. Regarding shutters, he had several interesting comments. The three flavors of shutters are 156 degree bowtie, 144 degree bowtie, and 170 degree half-moon. According to Derrick, the smearing of highlights in certain conditions with the bowtie shutter is a design issue, not a maintenance issue. The 144 degree shutter is less prone so smearing than 156 degree. In any case, the conditions he described under which it can be observed: -- lens wide open -- lens at wide angle -- highlights in the top right or left hand corners. Half moon shutters were built into cameras sn 1995 and up. Bowtie shutters are not upgradable to half-moon. I would be interested in any other points of view on these items. (Jeff K.??)

Mark Schlicher Sunporch Entertainment

Page 155 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Derrick Whitehouse is a good friend of mine and the ace CP repair person. I agree with his statements fully. For CP repairs (and Steadicam sales, and everything else) he is highly recommended. Ken Hale, his lens guy, is also excellent and affordable.

However, I personally don't love the CP16R, I like the non-reflex CP. (Not with a zoom, but with a 10mm Switar and a custom optical finder.) Great camera, none of the shutter problems mentioned re the reflex, lighter, quieter. But that's a specialist opinion.

>Derrick says that you can drive the camera with 18V but you should >not use 24V.

But given how inexpensive and convenient the CP onboard batteries are, I can't imagine why anyone would want to use an external battery, except in an emergency. CP originated the onboard battery, a great and important feature. Who wants to wear a battery belt???!!

Jeff "CPs are fine, though I also own Aatons" Kreines

For my 2 cents, as a CP owner, I've liked my CP. It's a CP16 Reflex (the mirror, not an Angeniuex with the prism.) with a video prism and the half moon shutter. It's great for hand held because its light. I like to use an external battery because the on boards tend to die too quickly for my liking. As far as the shutter goes, do not get a butterfly shutter of any kind! They suck! If you do do a sunset with a CP with a butterfly shutter you will get a massive streak of light across the picture in every frame. Not good.

Page 156 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

As far as 18v vs. 24v, I've been using a 24volt block which I built for $150.00 US. Its top output is 26v and it lasts for weeks between charges, probably because the CP doesn't use much amperage. If your going to built a battery, make sure you use Lead Acid cells and 3 pin XLR connectors, that way you can use a Panavision battery in a pinch. I've also bolted a left side bracket on the CP so I can use the pan handle off a O'Connor 1030 head. I am curious though, Jeff, why Derrick says not to use 24v. The manual which I have for my body says I can go up to 27v. <:-0

One question: Can you shoot a 24 fps shot of an LCD monitor without using a TV sync box? Any permutations on said question is appreciated?

Michael Bratkowski

>CP originated the onboard battery, a great and important >feature. Who wants to wear a battery belt???!!

Until today I thought that was the Aaton7, Photokina September 1972.

--jp :-(

Don't feel too bad. There are enough pioneering features on the Aaton to last and last!

The CP was essentially the ultimate Auricon conversion. Not a bad thing, but evolutionary not revolutionary. I believe I saw the prototype CP16 (different handgrip -- non-adjustable, and Auricon centerplate) in late 1970 at Victor Duncan in Chicago. Yes, there were earlier cameras with batteries attached, but I am limiting this to shoulder-held sync cameras.

The Maysles brothers' "bazooka" camera had one, albeit huge and clumsy, and Pennebaker worked on it after a famous incident at the Monterey pop festival, where someone gave him some wine laced with acid and he forgot he was wearing a battery belt and that it was attached Page 157 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

to his camera, which soon ended up on the floor. (If you look at the stills of him there, you see his handgrip -- the little Arri plastic grip -- is broken off the camera.

Pennebaker was the first to put a handgrip on the front of the camera for shoulder-held use, a great invention!) Anyway, the lens was also knocked off, and Jimi Hendrix was on in an hour. Thank god for the portable Richter collimator... or Hendrix's amazing Wild Thing (w/flaming guitar) might not have been captured in focus...

Jeff "tell me another war story, Grampa Pennebaker" Kreines

Could anyone please tell me, assuming the CP is running up to specs, if there is a huge difference made by shooting on a non-pin camera like the CP? Also, does anyone know a nice way to check the gate on the CP without having to physically push the mirror out of the way? I know on the SR's you can just hit the test button and the mirror will swing around for one frame. Thanks very much,

Kevin Hoffman

Actually I feel the BL-mag is very simple to load, and certainly if you are shooting double system, then the BL is a hell of a lot easier to thread than the CP. Hand-holdability is a good point to consider. As for checking the Gate. DO NOT PUSH THE MIRROR. Think about it. You are often times focusing off of the image reflected by the mirror.

Push the mirror and you risk moving it out of the proper position, maybe adding a feew thousands of an inch to your ground glass distance ( although the lens to film plane distance wouldn't be affected), making eye focusing un-reliable. Of course you might just push the mirror hard enough to make it go out of timing with the mechanism. The mirror is meant to be driven by the Camera, it is not meant to drive the entire camera mechanism.

Page 158 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Of course these just might be me being extremely over cautious. The lack of an external inching knob is a pain. Run the take 2 to 3 seconds longer than the take. This should get the film into the mag. ( might need five seconds), and then open the camera door, and use the internal inching knob. Registration, A well maintained Camera will produce steady images.

Registration pin or no. However the C.P. 16 has a claw that enters the film in a curved rather than straight in manner. Whether or not this is a registration problem, I don't know. Are you doing double exposing Matte passes? The best way to check the registration is to shoot a Registration test.

My personal experience with the C.P.16 has lead me to the decision that every so often, check that the loop hasn't been lost, and never never start/stop the camera. Once I turn the camera on, I let it run for at least 5 seconds before stopping it. However most of my experience with CP16's were from College owned and maintained cameras.

Steven Gladstone

In general, registration does not get overly critical until you have something to compare it with. For example, if you're doing superimposition’s of titles over a distant mountain background scene, you might see some unsteadiness with non-pin-registered cameras. On the other hand, if there is no comparison reference, you would have to be pretty unsteady before anyone noticed.

Arri 16's, Eclairs, and Aatons have a pilot pin registration which is not a true registration pin like on a Mitchell or a Maurer. Whether the pilot pin is actually effective is the subject of some debate, because the pin has a bit of slop around it and does not "jam" the film into position like a true registration pin. At the risk of opening up a major debate, I'd venture to say the the spring loaded gate of a CP-16 probably gives one as much image stability as a pilot pin.

Page 159 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The mirror shutter on a CP-16R has a cycling circuit that brings the mirror into viewing position and closes the shutter...hopefully preventing flash frames. If that no longer works or you're shooting with a CP-16 non-reflex, use the main shaft inching knob inside the camera to rotate the mechanism. Don't want to fog the film inside the camera?....move the shutter carefully with your finger.

Norm Bleicher Panavision Dallas

Knock on wood, my CP-16R has not lost its loop on me, but I must add that Paul at Whitehouse did a superb overhaul on the camera (can you say ten cans of film on one battery charge? Now that's a smooth-running movement!)

Has your client had an overhaul? FWIW, I thread the top loop so it looks just like the threading diagram and I have followed the Sylvia Carlson book's recommendation of 1/4" clearance (when running) at the bottom. It seems like this approach results in a very specific number of perfs in the loop, but I've never counted. I'll try to remember to mark and count the perfs next time I do a scratch test.

Unlike Jeff, I don't skip the bottom rollers, just timid I guess...

Mark Schlicher Sunporch Entertainment

Page 160 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Complex Crane Moves

I have to make a shot in a few weeks that goes something like this: Camera starts seven or eight feet into a doorway, moves back leading actor through an (already) open door, out about four or five feet, boom up and tilt down with a pan to the right to reveal actor outside the door on a two foot ledge, twenty five feet up, on the third floor. The opening frame needs to be well inside the building and the final frame should be an *over* selling the geography and showing the ground, probably on a zoom so I can get a bit more size on our hero at the head of the shot.

So far the leading candidate for this shot is a Javelin, HotHead with some track on a seven by fourteen foot scissor lift. We'll stabilise the scissor lift by guy-wire from corners to equipment trucks and place the lift as far away from the building as we can - probably six to eight feet. Which is not a lot since it would be really nice to look almost straight down and NOT see the base of the lift .

This is the kind of shot I would think the Technocrane eats for lunch but there isn't one in town and we can't afford any non-local gear. No Titans. No Technocrane. I can't imagine getting a jib onto a Pheonix - I'd have to build up the base too much to accommodate the jib operator. I don't think any stand alone unit can get in ( at the head of the shot) as far as I need... Am I missing any options here? Is there a GML ? (grip mailing list )

TIA,

D.P.

Page 161 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

How about using a Steadicam with the operator stepping onto a crane outside? This gives you unlimited flexibility for the beginning of the shot and it should be no problem to achieve your desired final framing.

Bill (I like Steadicam) Crow American Interactive Pictures

OK Bill. It's good to like Steadicam, but how do you pull this off without the front end of the crane instantly slamming down to the ground. Stepping off a crane is one thing because you can always have a couple of guys step onto the nose when its on the ground, but stepping on while the thing is flying?

Michael Siegel

In the words of Tattoo... ""the crane! the crane!"" ...sorry.

This was used, in reverse, in ""Men in Black"" for the scene in which Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones enter Jeebs' Pawn Shop. The shot starts off high on the crane, sliding down to the street, then following the actors to the store front. If you watch closely, you can actually see the moment where the operator walks off the crane platform.

Barry Sonnenfeld did a GREAT audio commentary on the LD version, literally describing every single shot. Well worth the rental, even if you don't like sci-fi.

Jason Ahles

Page 162 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

This can be done , if one is careful, in the following manner: set up the crane so that it is balanced with the steadycam operator on it. Put it at the pick-up point with suitable ballast on it and then WITHOUT setting the tilt lock, crib up the back of the bucket with sturdy apple boxes or better yet solid pieces of timber. You should be able to unload the nose. When the operator steps on the crane, unweighting the bucket, slide the cribbing out and off you go!

I am not commenting on the appropriateness of this methodology for getting this shot, merely on the mechanics of doing it this way. A second, slightly scarier way is to have someone else on the nose who gets off when the operator gets on.. this requires a scaffolding for him to step onto and has lots of opportunities for problems to occur....but could be done

Mark ""the devil is in the details"" Weingartner

Well, sounds extremely dangerous to me. I think Michael's point is well made! You could use a cherrypicker as opposed to a camera crane, which wouldn't need counterweighting but I suspect the rise would be rather slow and jerky.

I think the original idea is about the most practical. The only alternatives seem to be either Technocrane or blue screen. You could get the art department to disguise the base of the scissor lift platform - section of alley wall etc? This might give you a little more elbow room.

Chris Plevin

Page 163 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Mark, doing this thirty feet above the ground is a recipe for disaster, quite apart from the problems of getting the operator onto the crane nose safely. This is the kind of shot remote heads were invented for. If there isn't enough money to bring in the suitable equipment from out of town, then putting technicians lives and limbs on the line instead is not an option in my book. Do it another way or do it in two or three shots.

Chris Plevin

Sounds like a good crane/head combo, but I question the steadiness of a scissor lift. Consider putting the crane on scaffolding instead, but be sure to check the weight capacity.

I worked on a shot in New York as a crane tech where we had a Giraffe crane with a CamRemote head on about 20 feet of scaffolding. The shot was of the Belvedeer fountain in Central Park for the film ""One Fine Day"".

The rigging grip was Matt Miller (NY based). DP was Florian Balhaus.

Don Canfield

I have half ruled that out since I don’t think I can get a crane that'll provide an adequate platform at the twenty six foot height required. Meaning, stable enough to accommodate a 300+ pound shift in balance at height.

That said, it would be nice to start with a bit more flexibility off the top of the shot...

D.P.

Page 164 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I think I was specific in my post that I was explaining how one can effect a weight change as described on a counter-weighted crane and that I was NOT recommending this as the methodology for getting this particular shot. Read my other safety related post and you will see that I am more conservative about putting people at risk than most people in this business...

...and I have spent many years strapping DP's into, onto, and under things, but only if the shot could not be done by strapping a piece of equipment there instead.

I am specifically not a proponent of doing this shot as a Steadycam shot, but I would not presume to pass judgement on what the ""one true right way"" to do the shot might be without knowing the specifics of the location , etc. I have spent hundreds of hours helping directors and DP's realize complex conceptual shots that never made the final cut...not because they weren't technically good but because, in the end, they did not tell the story the best way.

Perhaps another way to tell this part of the story will suggest itself.

Perhaps not.

Mark Weingartner

This is not a particularly difficult or dangerous shot.

It does require experienced and knowledgeable grips. Steadicam operator with rig, plus another grip stand on the crane's platform, and the crane operator balances it for this weight. Two other grips now step onto the platform from the outside of the rails, holding on to the rails. Steadicam operator steps off. Action! Steadicam operator steps onto the platform, grip on board spots him. (Optionally, he attaches a safety line.) Two other grips step off, and the balanced crane booms up to complete the shot.

Page 165 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The same technique can be used in reverse as well (ala the MIB shot.) This is one of the shots that Cinema Products teaches as part of their week- long introductory Steadicam training class. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't lost a student yet.

Bill Crow American Interactive Pictures

I remember a rig that attached a Steadicam op. (Jerry Holway I think) to an industrial crane (120 footer!!). The shot started as a standard Steadicam walk and talk leading a large group of people up a hill and then the operator was ""clicked"" by a grip to the crane and the operator flew 100 feet or so in the air to reveal the people had formed the Blue Cross symbol with their bodies.

The rig was a modified climbing harness that the operator wore under his vest and designed to have his legs pulled back so he could get a straight down shot. I think there were 2 tethers on the vest as well to stop the operator from rotating.

I don't know if this is of any use to you but it may get you the shot you need.

Denis Moran

Page 166 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

"Hi All, I've seen something similar in the promo-video for the Panther Pegasus Crane. They did a shot in a room with somebody leaving this room. They then flew out of the window and down to pick the person up leaving the house through the front door. All in one take. Maybe you can get your hands on the video just to see how they did it. It might give you an idea. I suppose you can make this shot with any other crane that is big enough, too. Hope this helps,

Matthias A. ;-)

>Chris Plevin While I agree with you, I think you may have misinterpreted my initial post in one respect. I DO have access to suitable equipment such as remote heads, some nice cranes, scaffolding and big scissor lifts. There was NEVER any question of doing this shot with a Steadicam for *availability* reasons.

I also strongly agree that use of remote heads is indicated whenever possible - there just isn't enough advantage to having an operator on a crane for most shots. Granted, the risks aren't huge but there ARE risks. I remember being at the highest *one-rider* height on a Phoenix that had been built on about five feet of scaffolding, it was windy, I was cold, we were loosing light....

My focus puller at the time yells up, ""Hey Dave. Two words, metal fatigue."" You know that dense feeling you get in the pit of your stomach...? The bastard! I've never forgotten that. BTW, the shot turned out fine.

D.P.

Page 167 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I think you're right although I believe we can stabilize the lift. We may have to use the scissor lift for time reasons. I think the scaffolding would be steadier, but the ability to sweep out the scissor lift (when the shot's done) and the faster set-up time make it appealing. The big limitation of the scissor lift is a maximum weight of 2,000 pounds. The scaffolding can accommodate more weight.

D.P.

Sorry Michael, I did misunderstand. You're right; my technique doesn't work for this.

This sounds like a shot for Jerry Holway (610/524-5979). Jerry is the master at flying with Steadicam. He regularly does shots where he is lifted straight up via a cable from an overhead crane. So, there would need to be a rolling scaffold platform outside the window. Jerry is attached to the cable crane, exits the window onto the platform and is lifted up. As soon as he clears the platform, it is rolled out of the shot. I don't know if this would be possible, (safety, stable shot when he is first lifted, etc.) but Jerry is the master of these kind of shots so he'd be the one to talk to.

Bill Crow American Interactive Pictures

Page 168 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I am also somewhat overcautious on this one:

Depending upon your crane and the number of extensions (especially rear extensions for counterweights) you could be well over this max weight with crane, hot-head, camera, counterweights, (and the small piece of track for the pull-out of the top door ???)...with 2-3 grips up there to perform the move (if I understand the pull-out correctly). Not a lot of room for that up there either !

Mind you, I have done a few crane shots, but never off of platforms. I have shot FX plates from scissor lifts, and they can be very difficult to tie- down nicely (we're talking some serious ""post-tensioning"" for a 25 ft. height). Otherwise, that scissor lift may be quite a wobble with that much mass swinging around. The center post of a crane going out of level that high up would make me really nervous.

I hope you'll be back here posting about how well it went and how smoothly and quickly your crew built and struck the rigging. But it does sound a bit dicey without a telescoping crane on scaffolding, or 2 scissored cranes, or doing it in cuts or wipes...etc.

Mark

Page 169 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 170 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Cross Processing

I have to re-shoot a dream sequence that was lab damaged. I’m replacing the original DP who is booked. it is the only color scene in a B&W feature shot on 16mm.

I suggested cross processing as an approach and the director loved it. He ordered Fuji 500EI reversal.

I've never shot cross process and don’t know a lab that does it. The director has run the rest of the show thru Allied in Dallas.

He wants it to be grainy, so rather than mess with the non- compliant reversal latitude I plan to shoot loose (leave room on the edges) and magnify the grain with a zoom crop in TK. I plan to shoot about 10mm loose. I'm hoping the 500 does the rest. but as for the handling of exposure I need advice. the only thing I could find through a web search on infoseek is that still photographers overexpose by 2 stops (doesn’t say what format) when crossing. should I follow this rule in 16mm? anyone help on this? I checked the web page also but didn’t find this subject. thanks,

Caleb Crosby

500 ASA in 16mm, and zooming in on that ? sounds grainy to me. :-)

Mark

Page 171 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

that’s actually what the director is wanting - I just don’t know how to expose for cross proc.

Caleb

can anyone help out with tips on cross processing reversal? I was just hired to shoot a low budget horror film (not as cheesy as that might imply) and in the script there are several flashback sequences that the director wants different and intense look to them. I suggested crossprocessing reversal since that seems to give intensely saturated reds and high contrast

I know that Richardson used it on UTurn and Dickinson used it on Clockers, and I’ve seen what I assume is crossprocessing on a number of music videos and commercials, any recommendations on films to watch that have this process? and finally, does anyone how the eclipse flashback scenes in Dolores Clayborne (excellent cinematography and an underappreciated film in my opinion) were done?

Page 172 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

spike lee's Clockers DP was Malik Sayeed. to get more information on cross processing in that film refer American cinematographer Sep. 95 issue cover story. few sequences in Steven Soderbergh's film The Underneath used this process.

I heard that experts at Kodak are doubtful about the life time of the cross processed negative, because of potential problem with the fixing process. Someone pl. explain how to overcome this problem. when you process Ektachrome reversal film in a ECN-2 negative bath, will this unusual process affect or contaminate the developer? can we use the same bath for normal processing and crossprocessing.? thanks kv anand.

Check out the film "Fallen". They had some scenes that might be of interest to you. The scenes are when the demon character is pursuing it's next host. I would be interested if anybody knows how these scenes where shot, processed and timed. Also looks like anamorphic distortion was added. The shots are really effective.

Joseph McDonnell

Page 173 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I shot some cross processing tests a few months ago, comparing 7248 with '40 & '50. I shot scenes in a studio, under fluros and day exteriors.

I won't try and explain the differences in the 'look' here, suffice to say, there is an increase in contrast and an extra vibrancy in some colour, with colour shifts. Anyone in Sydney (Tom & Toby) lurking on the CML is welcome to come in to Atlab and have a look and judge for themselves. However, what I can tell you is that we exposed the reversal stocks as per the rating on the can and processed as normal negative. Over exposure made the stock ungradable and under exposure made the blacks milky. We had two (2) choices during grading/timing - either grade the orange base into the stock (reversal stock DOES NOT have orange masking) or print with a 50 red/50 yellow filter. As we were comparing reversal with negative and wanted to get as close a match as possible, we opted to print with the filter, which gave us more favourable printing lights and subsequently more control with the grading. Grading the orange base into the reversal pushed the printing lights to the limit and left us with no room to move.

So how do you conform the negative? I would suggest that the cross processed reversal footage is made up on a separate roll, and that would then give you and the grader/timer the option to either grade in or print in the desired 'look'. By cutting the reversal and negative together will limit this option and may conclude in an undesirable result.

Ultimately, like anything else, do a test first. Good luck.

Simon Wicks Atlab Australia.

Page 174 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Kv Anand asked how to overcome the problem that cross processed negative may have a limited storage life. Probably the safest thing to do is to make an extra interpositive from it, and treat that IP as if it were your original. Let it be your most senior archival element. That's what we're doing on a feature that, for reasons intrinsic to the story, was shot on a mix of Super 16 and Super 8.

We regard the blow-up IP as if it were the original, but we also archive everything else. It's similar to making safety fine grains from nitrate.

John Sprung

Some labs simply refuse to process anything but negative through their ECN II baths, due to the potential contamination of the developer. We will cross-process small amounts of reversal (max 1,200ft) on a daily basis as and when required, although I can't recall ever cross-processing more than about 800ft in one day, and never over a continuous period i.e.; 5 days straight.

As for the longevity of the cross-processed footage - it varies depending on storage conditions, but we do know that it's certainly not for long, because the stock hasn't been through the correct process – it could go off in a matter of weeks or months. If it's being used for a film finished production, we recommend that the required shots be cut and duped as quickly as possible. If it's being used for commercials or music clips etc, then do your tk transfer ASAP.

Simon Wicks Atlab Australia

The current (July) issue of the English still photo magazine "Practical Photography" has an article on cross processing still color neg. and slide films. They show examples of 8 different neg. stocks and 8 different slide stock being cross processed. Especially with the negative stocks the

Page 175 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

results vary dramatically among the different films. Some films lost sensitivity, others actually gained speed.

In general they say that (still) color neg. films processed in E-6 produced slides that exhibited off white highlights, and overall casts varying from pink to blue, depending on the film, processing time and speed that the film was rated. In general it was advisable to push process to boost contrast. In general punchier, directional lighting was "better."

The comments on push processing and hard light I believe come form the fact that most of the sample shots looked somewhat muddy. The normal, unmanipulate shot of the same young lady against a neutral gray background showed "good" normal contrast and tonal range, even though she was shot with a soft box and reflector for fill. btw. The slide films processed in C-41 were generally contrasty with a warm shift.

The article points out that for a more extreme look (no sample shots) use Infrared Ektachrome slide film processed in C-41.

The new David Samuelson's "Hands-On" Manual for Cinematographers also has a good section on "custom processing." I won't quote from that excellent reference book since every member of this group should have their own copy by now ...

... Mako

Page 176 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Deep Focus

Esteemed CMLers,

I should know this, and probably once did ;

The advent of color motion pictures marked a change in cinematographic style, away from deep focus and with a (seemingly ever) decrease in DoF in general. I routinely work with people who are more than comfortable shooting wide-open, all the time. But I digress. I was posed this question by a film historian - why the change when color was introduced, and I gave him a range of possible answers, all conjecture on my part. Does anyone know the real reason? Deep focus can, of course, be done in color (as we all know), and sitcoms are living proof that folks can blast away @ 5.6 and 8 until the cows come home. So what happened? Color temp issues, slower stocks? Help.

George "likes that f4 a lot" Nicholas

I think you'll find that the move out of the studio to location shooting had more to do with this than the advent of color film. Look at the studio productions of the 50's/60's. Use of color, plenty of DoF. Recently I again saw Charlton Heston holding off the British with some help from Yul Brenner at the Battle of New Orleans. Shot in studio, swamp, fog, rockets flying, cannons going off...it was great....and sharp.

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP

Page 177 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I would submit the following equation as a partial answer: depth = budget.

Eric Swenson

You left out that "wide open" on those older lenses was T2.3, T2.8, T4., T5.6, etc. The T1.3 and T1.4 lenses came along much later. I agree that increased location shooting contributed to shallower depth.

Doug Hart

Well, the original 3-strip Technicolor had an EI of perhaps 10 (actually, that was the improved version). And the 3-strip camera couldn't take lenses wider than 50mm due to backfocus problems (this was before the invention of retrofocus optics).

Then, when color neg. came along, Eastmancolor ECN-I (also called 5247) was either EI 10 or 16. The improved version hit EI 25, and 5251 was EI 50. 5254 came out in 1968, and was EI 100 (a beautiful stock, much prettier to my eye than it's replacement, ECN-II 5247). It could push a stop or two. Haskell Wexler got some of the first batch of 5254 for part of "Medium Cool" -- and considered that stop an exciting gain.

In 16mm color reversal, professionals went from Professional Kodachrome (a low-con Kodachrome I stock, designed for printing and also used in the 40's as Technicolor Monopack) which was about EI 10. Then Ektachrome Commercial (7255 was I believe the first iteration) came out, EI 25. It was replaced with 7252, which could be pushed to 50! Beautiful outdoors, and made great blowups... but horribly slow for naturalistic lighting!

Page 178 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Obviously, all these limited depth of field, unless you used very serious lighting.

Me, I'd love to shoot at f/5.6 with EI 12,500 stock in very low light! ;-)

Jeff "push push push!" Kreines

The lenses have gotten faster, would be my first guess. Imagine shooting when wide open was 2.8 ( I intend never to shoot more open from a 2 again). However I would think that is only a part of the picture ( hah hah funny pun). More light equals more light control apparatus, which equals more Space ( harder on locations) and more crew, and all this equals more money. Budgets are getting tighter ( for most of us), Stocks are getting faster with more "ability to see into shadows" so controlling the higher amounts of light is more time consuming and more expense. Actors don't want to be under Really hot/hard lights. I think it takes a very firm creative decision to go with "Deep Focus", and to fight for it. Perhaps also contributing is the freer access to gear, which gives rise to less technically schooled shooters ( I met someone who called themselves a D.P. even though they had never actually shot anything, just assisted on - not even shot - a few video shorts).

Or as someone else succinctly put it "Deeper = More Expensive"

Steven Gladstone

Page 179 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Jeff Kreines has given the technical answer - slooowww stocks, as well as the optics involved in 3-strip cameras. Agreed. But if that was all, why wouldn't we return to deeeep focus as soon as the stocks got faster? Which they certainly have by now.

So will anyone have a go at a slightly more aesthetic answer? To me, deep focus looks "right" only in B/W. Maybe it's what I've learnt to see. But is there something else? B/W often needs lighting to separate subjects as there's no colour to separate foreground from background. So wouldn't shallow DoF have helped here as well? Or would it have been too much. Or does shallow DoF in a colour subject add just the right degree of photographicity (well I think I know what I mean by that), whereas B/W film adds it by the lack of colour?

Or is it just a matter of fashion and trend?

Dominic Case

History and technology aside, I agree with Dominic that deep focus looks "Right" in B&W for one good reason: Soft focus in monochrome can turn a background into mud! You may as well shoot Ingrid Bergman in front of a sheet of seamless paper.

Conversely, I think deep focus in color tends to have an equally negative effect. Since color is recorded with equal saturation no matter how far the subject is from the lens, a person wearing bright clothing, against a bright background will have an almost comic-book look. Very two dimensional. A shallow depth of field helps separate the main subject from the background, without the use of a lot of rim-lighting. It helps guide the viewer's eye to the most important element in the frame.

Hopefully, The AC has been told which element that is, exactly. (See the thread about "What Dreams May Come"--Poor Devil)

Joe "What shall it be, The Eyes or the Nose in focus?" Di Gennaro

Page 180 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

focusing is a creative tool as much as lighting and composition. it's possible that tv with its emphasis on close-ups has influenced the shallow depth of field.

I happen to actually get into out of focus as much as into deep focus. "Lost Highway" had some very interesting shots where the camera would go out of focus at determined times for a striking effect. a film that I found quite beautiful to watch (which will probably bring groans from anyone reading this) was Andy Warhol's "poor little rich girl" where one entire reel (out of two reels) is out of focus but it captures that fleeting existence/experience of the character, and aside from that, it just looks beautiful. on the other hand one of my favorite films is "last year at Marienbad" where Sasha Gierny (spelling?) has incredibly sharp deep focus that expertly captures the rigidity of the enclosed society and the rigidity found in Alain Robbe Grillet novels, a rigidity of an objective reality that is actually flimsy and constantly changing before our very eyes. like everything else, visual styles come and go, but the only good visual style is the one that is so intricately tied to its material that it is essential to the piece and without it, it would not be complete. besides, I like those old super8 home cameras that have a fixed focus and f- stop.

--for whatever its worth, octavio fenech – nyc

As an aside to these current posts;

On Ken Russells' film "The Boyfriend" the DoP David Watkin did go for Deep Focus on all shots and the standard stop of the day was in the realm of T8. If memory serves me right, they would have been shooting on 100ASA 5254, possible '47

However the studio power house at the ABPC studios at Elstree couldn't supply enough power for all the lights, so several 1000amp gennies had to be brought in.

Page 181 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

As a previous Post mentioned, the dearth of Deep Focus may have more than a passing relationship with today's budgets.

Les "The brutes, the brutes, my spectrum for a brute" Parrott

I agree with Dominic that B&W sometimes calls for deep focus. It can really work there. Part of it is also how we have learned to see in the last century.

I think Deep Focus shots in color have to be carefully production- designed and lit. Color can be a huge distraction to a composition. You are no longer composing just by shapes and tones, but have to give weight to a really saturated color that's sitting in the corner of the frame.

Therefore, I often see the problem with the background competing with the actor's close-up. I'd rather throw a complex background *slightly* out of focus (that can still be a t-5.6 in 35mm format) and let the actor's close-up "pop out" a little.

Perhaps if films were not so cutty, then one could hold on a color, deep focus shot a little longer and let you study it - as one would study a photograph. Often times we're shooting images that are seen for 3-4 seconds max and need to distil the essence of that image so that it can be digested in that time. Shallow focus sometimes helps to guide the viewer's eye.

Same goes for swing-shift.

And your sets had better be flawless if you're shooting at t-8. :-)

I just shot a roll of Agfa Scala 200 (B&W slides rated at 500, pushed one stop), and I was surprised to see how powerful the eyelights were. Nothing competed with the sparkles in the eyes. Never realized that until now.

Mark Doering-Powell

Page 182 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Deserts & Backlight

I have a scene in the desert to shoot with four women for a short film. I'm shooting this scene in one day. I feel that the most attractive light for them is to have them back-lit by the sun and fill the faces myself. My question is, If I block the scene so I'm able to shoot everybody with this ""back-lit"" look and just cheat the background, will it be too much of a cheat?

Or will people watch this and accept the fact that the sun is always behind them? Thanks,

Christopher C. Pearson

I can't address all the issues you raise but I can tell you that at this time of year the sun most closely approximates dropping directly downward out of the sky.

During the winter months the sun drops at the greatest horizontal angle.

Cliff Hancuff

Page 183 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Nestor Almendros, in his book A Man with A Camera, states very clearly that he would routinely cheat close-ups so that all the people are backlit within a scene....

So, it is done all the time but it doesn't necessarily mean that the story demands it, does it?

Ted Hayash

a few films to look at where they pulled this off successfully (just off the top of my head):

--The Natural (a lot of the baseball stuff) --some scenes in E.T. --And, I understand (haven't actually seen it yet) The Horse Whisperer (maybe it's a Redford thing).

Seems like the way to do it is establish a big ol' wide shot with your main characters backlit, then do the coverage with pretty long lenses to throw the background totally out of focus.

Phil

Check it out, definitely a Redford thing, I think it did not go unnoticed, I can't say Robert Richarson's work was great, he does some much better things, (I think Redford put some pressure on him or something)

Vasco Lucas Nunes

Page 184 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Hey, ""...everybody gets a backlight..."", it's a look. Go for it if you think it sits with your vision. If you're sensitive to the texture of the shots and things feel natural you should be on solid ground.

I don't think it's possible to *cheat too much* these days. There seem to be so many budget restraints and money worries that I believe knowing how and when to cheat effectively is an important part of our skill set. Granted, it's not always the best way to do things. BUT, knowing how to cheat a turn-around when the chips are down is one of the things that separates the women from the girls.

D.P.

Conrad Hall once said that he disliked ""slick"" photography because it was without flaws - which is not how he saw life. And I remember Caleb Deschanel once saying that in every shot there should be something a little out-of-control - I guess he meant that some mistakes are what give life to a shot

I have to agree with David.

Thanks everybody for all the input, This has been a tremendous help.

Christopher C. Pearson

Page 185 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Conrad and Caleb are two of the slickest DPs around - perhaps Caleb a little more than Conrad but...If you want grit you have to hire a non-USA, or at least a New Yorker, DP...before you flame me I'm only half serious...

When I was based in the theatre run by Peter Cheeseman (he of the Ayckbourne, Joseph trinity) if he was directing a show he would always leave a scene partially rehearsed. This put the actors on edge and kept them on their toes! It worked for a few nights at least...

When I was starting out I used to fiddle with the levels endlessly. Then a director said stop fiddling now or you'll take the life out of it. Took me aback but he made me see light in a different light again.

Nowadays when I light I try not to take too many readings. However, when I operate I still try to do it perfectly and envy those operators who add that little edge to their framing - and they're mostly Russian, Czechs, Polish, Hungarian, English (not so much) and some South American operators.

I've often thought of changing the GG markings a little off centre - maybe one day... It's funny how we all aspire for perfection when we start out but as we get closer to it we start to admire the not so perfect! If it hadn't been for Hollywood or Ridley Scott I would have *known* so many more women when I was younger! :-)

I guess I dislike all backlit scenes for the same reason now. Just my two rupees...

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman

Page 186 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Ahh yes, but it's been said, you need to know the rules before you can break them. Picasso comes to mind...

Eric

Page 187 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 188 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Director & DP’s relationship

I was wondering, what is for you, the perfect Director/DoP relationship? I'm very curious.

Kevin Demeo

No matter how many do's and don’ts you draw up about the roles of DPs and Directors the only way you're going to get what you want is to stick up for it and be prepared to walk if necessary I know it ain't easy but when a director says "time to put the promists in" that's the time to walk up to an actor and give some directions or shout "Action". Seriously, it's time to remind him gently who the DP is. The same with an Operator/director who decides your stop. Tell him the first time he does that that's your prerogative as a DP, if he wants to set the stop get a "yes, sir" man. I did a shoot recently where I was lighting and opping and the director wanted to ride the dolly *during* the takes. I did a couple of takes that way but I was bursting inside from holding back. In the end I just swallowed hard and at the risk of upsetting him I pulled him to one side and said I can't operate like that. He said OK and spent the rest of the shoot at HIS monitors. That's why we have vid assist - don't we? But I should've (with hindsight) told the director on the first take he can't ride the dolly.

I think all the tacit set rules are there for a reason and have been arrived at thru years of trial and error - you break them at your peril. It may seem OK for an Op to set the stop but down the line there will be problems. Wasn't there some posts about Asian AC's taking the readings?

Hmmm...now there's a practice full of pitholes waiting for DPs to fall into!

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman

Page 189 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Throwing my .25 cents in (inflation, you know) - I completely disagree. As a director of photography our job is to photograph the project according to the director's vision. The director IS the boss. If he/she decides for promists in a scene... That's what's gonna happen. If I feel strongly against it – I will argue the point, but ultimately the director's word is final. It is the director's ass who's on the line much more so than ours. The typical moviegoer does not go to see Kaminski's latest work -- they go to see Spielberg's. 90% of the world has no idea that we even exist... In my work ethic (and I never consider myself a "yes" man, but I do always try to deliver what a director wants) the director is my boss. My job is to serve his/her vision of the film -- not my own agenda. My own agenda must fall under his.

This is difficult in situations like my last feature where the director's vision was very contradictory to what I felt -- but we compromised. Ultimately he's happy and I'm happy with parts. It's a sacrifice, but a necessary one, I feel.

Just some thoughts.

Jay Holben

Jay, you couldn't be more right. OTOH I understand Shangara's frustration and there are definitely times when directors go to far- you're name is on the film as DP and you have to have the say in the photography. you're right its the film that matters. the public doesn’t know who we are or care. very true. but OTOH I know- and some respect (I repeat _some_) for my craft and role on the project has to be there.

He may be saying I want the BPM filter - but your AC may have netted behind the lens already, may be using a soft zoom and not want to filtrate. I donno.

Page 190 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

If he wants to ride on the dolly my job is to clear a place for him quickly. If he wants to operate a shot, well _maybe_ my job is to set the eyepiece quickly and tell him I can fire the switch on his call. that’s never happened but I agree- within reason what he wants is what has to happen. but if he wants to start in on my filter pack and my stop- then I need to talk to him alone and say "sir, please tell me what you want the shot to look like and let me get us there."

I think everyone may be right here. We are there to make HIS film and do what he wants- but we're the photographer not him- and there is a point beyond which he cant encroach. I don’t know what that point is- but I’m sure I’m not putting any stop on the camera but mine.

Caleb

in the end of course you have to do what the director wants, but it's a drag. after doing freelance cinematography for a couple of years I’m really starting to think maybe I’m not fit for it. lately I’ve had to deal with some megalomaniacs and it has driven me crazy. my problem is not that they want to ride the dolly or put a promist on the lens, but that they demand the most boring photography possible. my attitude is if he wants it he gets it. I set up the shot, I explain to him what it will look like on film, and I have him look through the viewfinder. that way no matter how bad the shot is, he has no one to blame but himself.

I see my role to be more than just a technician, not just a guy that knows the film stock catalog numbers and how to work a lightmeter, but as a contributor to the final piece, a collaborator in the work.

Page 191 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I’ve had the pleasure of working with some directors that trusted my sense of aesthetics and style and its commonly agreed by people who know my work that it's been the pieces that stand out in my reel. to me the ideal relationship between a cinematographer and a director is

SemioticK

I was in the position last week of having almost completed an entirely (personality) stress free three week documentary digi-beta shoot. The director had gone home a day early to keep certain appointments in London, and we only had a very short sequence to shoot in a factory in southern France.

For the preceding weeks the director had not only let me get on with getting the picture required, he had never asked to look through the viewfinder, only at completed sequences, unless we were recreating and dramatising when I gave him a monitor to look at. This director is very experienced, and shoots only what he knows will be needed, and seemed to trust me completely despite this being our first job together.

On the last day it was the producer in charge. This producer really wants to direct, and has shot a lot of (broadcast news) stuff of his own on DV. In the factory for the last shoot, he's watching the monitor, with a little lighting going on, suddenly its 'The light should be warmer....stop it down...... tilt up half an inch, I don't like that radiator.... look, just do it ok?' I found it very, very irritating, and the sound man gave me a rolled eye 'here we go again' kind of a look. There was almost a scene, but then the sun came out, and I took the CTO's I hadn't wanted anyway off my lamps to get more light out to balance the inside and mountains outside. By the time we were ready to actually shoot it, the lamps were bare, and the sun had gone back in so the scene was back to where I had wanted it to be originally. The tilting up half an inch was also forgotten about, as the subject leaned down into his computer, then sat up, etc etc.

Page 192 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Later, at the wrap dinner, after we had all shared a couple of bottles of wine, the producer was telling us that he had started as a student making anthropological films entirely by himself, and he felt he had a lot to learn about not being a one man band film maker. I chimed in with my 'Learn to let it go and trust the people you've hired at significant expense to do their specialist jobs . Respect them and respect your own judgement in hiring them.'

It seemed to go down well. Time will tell.

Chris Merry

Well, certainly. I completely agree -- in a perfect world, or even a good percentage of the time we're hired by director's (and producers) who trust our aesthetic and ability and will then defer to our judgement -- that's the way it's supposed to look. However, just as when I was gaffing, many DP's made lamp, color and diffusion calls very specifically -- which was frustrating, made me a glorified electrician more than a gaffer -- there are director's I've worked with who make lens calls and filtration calls for what they're looking for. I've worked with director's who are DP's who will tell me a stop they're looking for in a particular scene... It's the way they communicate.

Does that just make me a glorified operator? Or in the case of a recent commercial where the director wanted to operate a handheld shot -- I let him have it and I AC'd for him letting my first have a break... Whatever works.

In reality, if a director that I did not have a relationship with was making all the calls -- lighting, stops, lenses, filtration, stock, movement...

I'd probably question why I was there. I would certainly have a talk with him, but barring all else, I'd do what I was asked to do. But perhaps this stems from my directing experience as well...

Page 193 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

As a director, things are hard enough...

If I felt a scene absolutely needed a 1/2 Warm ProMist -- I'd ask for it. I wouldn't want my DP to get offended or pissed off -- if he had a problem I'd want to hear it -- but ultimately, If I want that Mist... I better get that Mist... Ain't I a bastard that way? :)

Jay Holben

Something like Steven Poster has with his director friend Jeremy (whose second name I forget, hope I've got the first right!). He once described how they get on so well that they had to stage a fight in front of the crew while they were shooting Roswell to be taken seriously. Putting on my Mullen hat: Roswell, Director Jeremy Kagan, DP Steven Poster ASC, American Cinematographer Feb 1995!

I've always thought that's how films should be made but too often people's insecurities get in the way and they create unnecessary tension or take it out on someone else and just create a bad stink on the set. Very unproductive.

I've had the good fortune to work with some first class directors in the theatre but in film I've had just bad luck. They've been either totally new to the game (fine and grateful for a couple of gigs only then they want to prove themselves!) or just OK at their job and relying on me to carry them! Before I retire I would love to work with a director who knew his job, had a good sense of humour and was secure enough to change his thinking when something better was suggested. I've worked with one such director as Camera Op but never as a DP.

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman

Page 194 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

In separate interviews both Sidney Pollack and Sidney Lumet pointed out that lenses are very much part of the Director's toolbox. While a Director could most certainly hire a strong DP and a strong Editor, completely defer to them and have a reasonable shot of coming away with a film that works as the Director expects, the odds are much higher if the Director understands the tools of those disciplines. Photography, and how to use it to communicate effectively to the audience is an essential skill to a Director, not merely the domain of the DP.

Judith Weston teaches a workshop called "Acting for Directors" in which the Directors must function as Actors. She believes, quite rightfully, that in order for a Director to fully communicate with an Actor, they must understand and experience the process first hand. Perhaps a similar experience should be requisite for DPs. Perhaps those of us who have never directed a dramatic project should do so in order to more fully understand the process and therefore how best to serve the needs of the both the Director and the film while on set.

Michael Siegel

<>

But would you say it in front of the crew, or talk to him privately before hand?

Steven ( Oh man, this topic is just too meaty) Gladstone

Page 195 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've directed, as well as shot, as well as gaffed, feature films and other stuff.

One of the reasons I like shooting the best of all is that if the scene isn't working, if the dialogue isn't working, if it turns out the actor was great in the audition but is a blithering idiot on the set ...... it's not my problem! I can still make the dang thing look good! That's my job, and I can control it, and it's not that hard to do (usually) as long as I have the tools and the personnel to make it happen. Directing a feature film is one of the most stressful things a person can ever do. People have NO IDEA until they've actually done it themselves! (if they would, so many people wouldn't want to do it) Ultimately whether the film is any good at all rests on the director's shoulders, no matter who re- wrote the script, mis-produced it, cast a lead actor who was wrong for the part, or shoved a re-edit down the director's throat. If it doesn't "work" it's for one reason: The director f***ed it up. But here's another thing about directing (which we all know): anyone can claim to do it. It takes absolutely no experience or expertise. You actually can fake it!

And people who are directing usually get there for one reason: Because they can. That's all. Not because they passed any test, or showed any talent in particular, but simply because they've been able to get into the situation.

And here we are, with all our experience and craft and technical expertise, trying to explain the most basic things to them sometimes. But other times, they actually do know what they're doing. I've worked with directors who could be excellent DP's if they chose to be. And if they want a 25mm, then who am I to argue, unless I think they're making a mistake? Why should I complain if they actually know their craft to that degree? I certainly know the craft to that degree when I'm directing -- I say what lens to use, so why shouldn't they? I guess it's like any relationship and that it all boils down to one thing - trust.

And like any other kind of relationship, it's hard to find good ones! And when you do, they're worth hanging onto!

Phil

Page 196 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I was challenged on the last feature project I shot earlier this year by a director with a very specific idea of what he wanted. Several times in the past I have talked about this here.

I was hired as director of photography of an independent film directed by a first time writer/director. I had a very hard time with many of the things he was asking me to do -- out of focus shots, "shakey cam," bumping the camera deliberately during a lock off establishing shot...

He wanted a film that demonstrated the imperfections of people -- something that wasn't perfect. Behind the scenes of this film were some extraordinarily powerful Hollywood players. People I have looked up to, admired and studied for many years -- and people from whom praise of my work was very important to me.

I had a different ideal for the film, and being more experienced than the director (and also being on the same page with the producer) I fought hard for my ideal. I argued when he asked for "odd" things -- saying that it wasn't appropriate here.

In the end, looking at the film -- I was wrong. Playing the film straight was wrong. Being more experienced then the director didn't help me. HE had the proper idea for the film. We've got to remember that even though we are "Director's" of photography – we really only are lighting cameramen.

The DP title has evolved through political pressure (and respect for our abilities) over time. We're not involved in the development of the script, the shaping of the actor's, the orchestration of the score, or the editing - - all of which the director oversees and considerably shapes the film. We are only ONE part of the film. Albeit a very IMPORTANT part -- but who are we to tell the director he's wrong? Especially if we don't have a pre- existing relationship with him and an understanding of how he works.

What about director's like Ridley Scott or Spielberg who, as I understand, do ask for a 35 over here with the camera this high...

And I'd WANT a director to give me his thoughts on how a scene should be lit -- what is he seeing? We many be looking at a situation COMPLETELY opposite. I'd rather tell him what I was thinking and make sure we both agree.

Page 197 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

If I light the scene and he looks at it two hours later... Not at all what he wanted, but we have no time -- so we shoot. Later on in editing – it doesn't quite work...

How many times has that happened? If you have a complete synergy with a director -- then things are great, but how often does that happen. I know we've all worked with director's who didn't know what they were doing. They make big mistakes and things turn out bad -- but where do we draw the line? Who are we to decide whether a director is right or not? If you want to make those decisions -- then direct yourself, in my humble opinion.

The best world is when you and the director are working together to continually better each other's ideas and shape the film together -- but in the ideal, the director is there to direct everyone into their idea of the film.

Theater is a writer's medium -- film is not.

Just my thoughts - as always, take them with a grain of salt... :)

Jay Holben

> But would you say it in front of the crew, or talk to him privately before • hand? • Personally? The relationship between the DP and Director is too vital to the entire workings of a set to have a stupid argument or degrade the DP in front of the crew. But there is a very fine line. Directing is a very hard job.

You are not only constantly bombarded with situation after situation that if you do not solve, the production will fall apart (that's your job), but you are constantly challenged. Challenged by actors trying to push you – trying to insert their own agenda -- challenged by a personality conflict between the make-up key and the 2nd AD that's slowing down the show...

Page 198 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

You don't need an outburst between the DP who is supposed to be your second in command, the liaison between you and the crew and you and the technical aspects of the film... I am a very hands-on director. I can't stand sitting by a friggin monitor, I am in there working with everyone. Taking a peak at the brush stroke the set painter is using, the lamp the decorator is putting on the table, the belt they're putting on the second actor in a scene, the quality of light and lens selection...

If I wanted something specific that happened to fall under the DP, I'd always talk with him one on one. I would never bellow out before a take starts -- GIVE ME THE 1/2 WHITE PROMIST! That creates a conflict and undermines the DP... I would talk to him during the set-up and make it one on one. If we had a conflict (I would certainly hope that a filter would not destroy a working relationship) I would have to question how important it was to me. If I was deadset (again as a director) then I'd have to do what it took to make sure he did what I asked. A disagreement over a filter or operation of a shot is more often than not indication of many deeper things going on -- and perhaps, like Shangara said, it not a collaboration that should happen.

On a recent commercial I did, the director wanted to operate a series of handheld shots. I quickly handed him the camera and stood right by him (as an AC for him) to make sure we were still both there working on the shot. It bothered me slightly, and I felt that the shots he did weren't quite what they could have been -- but in the end -- he was happy, he got what he wanted. I suggested another angle while he was operating and he went for it -- that's the right working relationship.

Later on, for the final shot of the spot he had a very specific move scheduled that due to time constraints we had to change. He asked for something different that wasn't quite as dramatic – a quick solution. I came up with a different idea that took a bit to sell him on, but in the end he saw where I was going and it was his call to use it.

That's the way it should work.

Damn... I'm really rambling about this one... Guess I got my blood pumping with this one. All in all -- everyone works differently. I'm a DP now because I'm a director. Meaning I have always felt to be a good director you need to understand and have a level of proficiency for each position on the set. I started as an actor, worked for quite a while to gain proficiency, then moved to being a technician... I found a passion as a

Page 199 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

DP, in equal competition as a director, so I've settled comfortably here for a while, honing this craft... This could account for my bias toward the director's side -- but what if everyone felt that their idea was right?

Bear with me for a second more –

Working in theater, during my last year I had the opportunity to do two shows back to back as a Master Flyman. Both were five character shows, and both casts were filled with five extraordinarily talented actors, great scripts, great sets, great costumes, great lighting... One had a mediocre director, one had a great one. The first show was a demonstration of five shows in one.

Each actor was doing his own thing (fantastically) but all of them weren't on the same page. They didn't have guidance. As a result, the show floundered.

It lacked focus. The second show, was right on. A unified direction kept everyone on track and the difference the director made was considerable... All in all -- someone's got to keep an eye on the big picture. We're just one piece of a much larger puzzle, that if made right, is truly a sum larger than it's parts.

Jay Holben

Remember: You can always add the letters "U.P." (under protest) next to your name on the slate for a scene you're shooting against your better judgement.

-Gerry Williams

Page 200 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Hmm, another webpage :-)

My own 2 cents :- Ultimately the director is in charge, it's their film, if you don't like their way of working then don't work with them again, but do this job properly.

I seem to get on best with directors who have a strong visual sense, they know what they want, and rely on me to get it for them, if I can push it further in that direction then great!.

We push each other further.

I have no problem with directors who want specific lenses, lights etc., as long as they know why they want them :-) and not just because they're fashionable.

I worked for 6 years with a well known stills photographer who directed commercials, he didn't light them and he rarely interfered, erm, suggested things :-). He knew that lighting for film was different to lighting for stills. On the other hand, he set the frame, his operator, and note that, HIS operator, knew what he wanted and framed the directors way.

As has already been pointed out I find the worst kind of director the one who always plays safe, who says he wants to be dynamic/adventurous and then insists on the most bland images possible.

Most important I want a director to respect that I know what it will look like on film, not what it looks like on the Video Assist, not what it looks like to the Eye, not what it looks like on Polaroid, but what it will look like after it's been shot on film and transferred to D1.

Cheers Geoff

Page 201 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I had the pleasure of working on a film as an Assistant with Director Sidney Lumet in the fall of 1997. The has not been released and is called "Gloria" . Mr. Lumet made every single set - Lens, position and height. In addition where dolly should start and end and marks for the actor. I had a hard time keep up with his frantic but controlled pace.

The DP was David Watkin which I think some members of the list know him personally. David never felt his toes were being stepped on because he came out of the British system of Lighting Cameraperson which made their relationship perfect.

Once the shot was set by Sidney David would light the shot through the camera not questioning the purpose or particulars.

Of course, Sidney Lumet has many years of experience so it was not necessary to question this and this also falls under the blanket of the British system as I understand it.

As an Assistant it was a dream and a real workout. I knew exactly what was going because Sidney was exact with his decisions and never changed them!! So there's my 2 cents.

Brian Fass

>Remember: You can always add the letters "U.P." (under protest) next >to your name on the slate for a scene you're shooting against your better >judgement.

Has anyone done this and lived to tell the tale? I mean as a DP and not as a matchstick seller! :-)

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman

Page 202 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

There's a good tale of this from Arthur Penn (re Peverell Marley, ASC) in the old book "The Film Director as Superstar" by Joe Gelmis, circa 1971. Penn (new to film, from a TV background) was directing "The Left- Handed Gun" (1958?) and would ask for, say, a two-shot. Marley would swing his putter and say dismissively to his crew "He wants a two-shot. Give him a two-shot." Penn insisted on using an Arri as a second camera, which Marley disliked, and all his slates stated that the second camera was unlit. Back in those days, Jack Warner was watching dailies... Lots of the Arri footage was used... OK, it's not that good a story...

Jeff "but I typed it" Kreines

>Has anyone done this and lived to tell the tale? I mean as a DP and not >as a matchstick seller! :-)

Unfortunately, I have had to resort to it on rare occasions. More often I would quietly have the Script Supervisor put a note into the script notes. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. :-)

Mark

> Has anyone done this and lived to tell the tale? I mean as a DP • and not as a matchstick seller! :-)

A number of times, sometimes you don't work with that director again, sometimes you DO work for that producer again:-), sometimes you get a call from the director saying "ha! it worked", rarely, you get a call from the director saying "you were right" At the moment that tray of matches is looking very attractive :-)

Cheers Geoff

Page 203 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

OK, Jay, let me try again (although Caleb has already beaten me to it).

I don't think anyone will disagree that it's the director's film, though to be pedantic I always call it the writer's film, but if you are hired as a "DIRECTOR" of photography then that word must have some meaning, surely.

There are the rare times when you are on the same wavelength as the director that when they say "time for the promist" or "let's do this hand held" you know exactly what he means because you have the same idea and then there's no objection - and you've talked about the look beforehand, anyway. The difference is in how they ask!

The director only thinks he's the boss because you let him! I think you have equal amounts to loose. Your careers and your self respect. He may earn more but then I say he probably deserves it. But your ass is just as much on the line - probably more so as when things go wrong YOU will be the most likely scapegoat!

>what a director wants) the director is my boss. My job is to serve his/her >vision of the film -- not my own agenda. My own agenda must fall >under his.

That's why I said you must be prepared to walk, meaning if your agendas differ -however, easier said then done. I have no problem with serving the director's vision, as a matter of fact I relish that, although it's much more satisfying to serve the writer's vision, but when a director says let's have a 12k thru the window and a smidgen of fill here and highlight that over there and ...you get the picture. What do you do then?

Who has the unnecessary agenda and counter productive at that?

Because it's a very short step from saying "next setup, the 35, over there looking this way" to doing your job "badly" and then blaming you.

Because, in my opinion, any director that rides the dolly during a shot or sets your stop for you is doing his job badly. And that can't be good for any film.

Page 204 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

If the director wants to ride a dolly during a rehearsal that's cool as long as he gives time for focus marks and for the Camera Op to rehears too. But during a take? Nah... I think any director worth their salt will turn people's creativity on and not depress it. There's nothing that turns people off then someone encroaching on their territory. And remember even the most humble spark is a creative.

And who is this Speilberg guy I keep hearing about? Kaminski, Toland, Zsigmond, Storaro, yes, but who ever heard of Speilberg? - and a foreign sounding name if I ever heard one. Tell him he's got to change his name if he wants to make it in this biz!

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman

> Before I retire I would love to work with a director who knew his > job, had a good sense of humour and was secure enough to > change his thinking when something better was suggested.

I thought I was the only one ;-)

Its surprising how many times I work with directors who are complete ignorants about cinematic language.

Most of the time they are very good at directing actors (and even that sometimes is questionable) and all they demand is to make a caption of the scene the actors perform.

It has to be as simple as possible without any interference with the actors. So the actors are completely free and can at every moment decide to change completely the rhythm of their movements, change direction etc.

And don't try to even miss a take, even if the grip was not prepared to having to running talent instead of a walking one as during the rehearsal.

But they don't use any film language, and they leave everything in the operator's hands.

Page 205 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

For my work it is very exiting because I have a lot of artistic input and I can propose a lot of shots to the director. But I am not sure it is always a good thing for the film.

When I propose shots, I make them in function of my interpretation of the script and even after talking with the director about the scene, I don't have the same vision as the director who follows the project from beginning to end.

Of course afterward the editors will cut the film into any rhythm provided we made different shots in a scene. But I think that the rhythm of a film starts in the preparation where the director makes his shot list and decide how every scene connects to another and how all the shots succeed one to another. And as Michael pointed out: " While a Director could most certainly hire a strong DP and a strong Editor, completely defer to them and have a reasonable shot of coming away with a film that works as the Director expects, the odds are much higher if the Director understands the tools of those disciplines. Photography, and how to use it to communicate effectively to the audience is an essential skill to a Director, not merely the domain of the DP."

But every film is for me a way of learning this very subtle language and I hope to assist a lot of directors for a very long time

Chris Renson

Page 206 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Enhancing Filters

What's the deal with color enhancers? I have a Tiffen 4x4 and have used it a couple of times in 16mm. Need to know more. Anybody use them? What's "them" anyway. Is that what makes commercials way punchier, that and cranked up transfer?

Harry

I've used both the Enhancer Filter and the 812. First off with the 812....it is more of a warming filter than an enhancer but is geared more to flattering the skin tones...especially for black people..highly recommend it. I used the 812 in combination with a soft f/x 3 on a music video I did for jazz guitarist Norman Brown. We were shooting in the mountain areas of the high desert two hours north of LA and got some great results. There was one scene where I was working with the artist performing next to a cherry red 57' Chevy. And the reds that popped out from that car were unreal...I loved it. There were other scenes where he playing his guitar and it was made of deep warm wood tones and the metal on it was gold....couldn't have asked for a better combination of colors with the filter I was using. The stop loss is about a 1/3...but I didn't compensate for it as I wanted it to do it's "thing". Now the Enhancer is even more geared towards the heavy saturation of reds and oranges....with about a stop loss of 1/2 to 1.....and if you want to see colors pop..this is the one.....nice to use outside..which is what it is geared for.....I wish I could use it to shoot something out in New England during foliage season...apparently this is what this filter was designed for when it got created. I've also seen other peoples work with the Enhancer when they do shoots in the Caribbean...pretty nice stuff.

Page 207 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

And yes we should not forget the power of Telecine to "Enhance" the Enhancer.

Luc Nicknair

I used to use one a hell of a lot, I probably will again :-) They seem to give a much added punch to some of the colours, more so than you can get in TK. Also can give you a hell of a problem with sunburn, even with very dark skins that don't appear to burn.

Geoff Boyle

I now use color enhancing all the time when shooting tape, often in 16 and sometimes in 35. Just did small add that had to look really punchy on 16. The enhancer with 7245 really gives a rich and almost 35mm look under the right conditions. On previous shoot I did the same product shot with and without the enhancer to compare and the difference was obvious but they were able to crank it up some with the telecine but not getting quite the same. Beware of fire trucks. On a corporate shoot we had a stand up with a fire truck in the BG and the results were scary. The enhancer had to go for this shot.

Daniel Villeneuve

Page 208 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I assume that we are all talking about "red" enhancers when we speak of enhancers. (Unless they've come up with some others in the last year...) Is it possible to preview the effect by eye or is there some reason that doesn't work? I've done some selective lighting enhancement in the past, but I haven't played with the filters. If I want an oak cabinet in the background to really pop, I'll hit it with a small light with 1/2 CTO on it. I recently shot an interview against a painted blue sky+clouds backdrop. Hitting it with 1/2 blue really made it come alive.

Art Adams

Often didymium for red enhancement. Use often for foliage or for exaggerated reds. The majority of the red shift on flesh tones can be extracted in printing or telecine for "normal" fleshtones

JDBelinski

I've used Tiffen's enhancing filter many times, especially shooting fall foliage, matches igniting at high speed, the circus, and et cetera. It enhances red hues to an extremely high degree and can give flesh tones an unpleasant magenta cast. Care should be taken with pushing the reds too far if you're finishing on the telecine, of course.

Steve

Page 209 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 210 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Eyelights

I'll be shooting my third low-budget feature in about two months (hopefully it'll actually get finished :-) It has an ensemble cast, and each character is in a different place emotionally and/or spiritually. For a couple of the characters, I'm playing around with eyelights and the subtle effect they have on the audience's perception of the characters. I'm hoping that some of you might share what films and/or paintings you think explore the different effects of eyelights in the most interesting ways. I learned a great deal from Alan Daviau's work on _Fearless_, and I've looked at a few paintings that have given me some ideas. But I thought I might draw on the venerable experience present on the list to possibly point me in a few directions I hadn't considered. I must shamefully admit that my art history knowledge isn't what it should be :-( So, if you reference artwork, please assume that I won't know the artist (well, I might...).

Chris Ray

It's an interesting issue because eyelights often suggest the use of artificial lights. Some DP's pride themselves on never seeing the fill light reflected in the eyes, especially on day exteriors. Others work very hard at always getting that sparkle in the eyes. Since you mentioned "Fearless", you are also referring to the practice of putting a strip of light across the eyes (ala "Dracula") as opposed to just getting a point of light in the eyes. On a technical level, I find that eyelights are very useful in a very dark scene, like a shadowy moonlit one. When the face is extremely underexposed, the sparkle in the eyes can make the difference between seeing their expression and focusing on their face - or just having it fall off into murkiness. An eyelight can make the face seem less underexposed. I find that it's amazing that something as theatrical as a strip of light across the eyes can generally be accepted by the viewer if it's correct

Page 211 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

emotionally. I had a shot where a girl is hiding from her mother behind a potted plant inside a dim living room. On the extreme ECU, I put a strip of light across the eyes (stealing from Daviau in "E.T." when Eliot is sitting on the lawn chair watching E.T. come out of the shed.) It worked very well. It sort of reminds of me of the old use of irises (soft black circular borders on close-ups in silent movies) - the shadows create a frame within the frame, emphasizing the eyes more. I've never found a really quick way of doing strips of light across the eye. On some lights, you can get away with black tape across the front of a snoot on the light. Usually I have to use a slit cut into a card positioned closer to the actor. Dedolights almost can give you that effect just by closing the barn doors down into a slit - I'm curious to try them with the projector lens and see if that's a quicker way of getting the slash across the eyes. Movies that have used that effect... Well, in "Jurassic Park", when the kid in the jeep at night (the T-Rex scene) crawls into the back seat to look out the window, he takes off his goggles and the camera dollies in - and opposite the key light is a strip of light on his shadowed eye. A similar lighting effect is in "Hamlet" when Claudius in praying in the chapel. I just saw "Lost Highway" and a phone conversation is played with strips of light across the actresses mouth and eyes. In "Dick Tracy", when Beatty enters Madonna's dressing room and meets her, there's a hand-held light creating a strip across the eye on the shadow side of the face.

David Mullen

Page 212 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Actually, no, I'm not really interested in the strip across the eyes. In "Fearless" I was impressed by the placement of the actual glint in the eye itself. I recall one scene between Jeff Bridges and Isabella Rosselini in which the points of light in the eyes had a subtle effect on the perceived emotional states of the actors. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I've seen it), the point of light in her eyes appeared to be right on the axis between the actors, so that she appeared to be intently focused on him. His eyelights, on the other hand, were reflected in the sides on the eyes, giving him a very distracted look. Basically, she seemed to be intently focused on him, and he appeared to be focused on nothing (or at least on something not to be seen with the eyes). I came across a painting called "Christ and the Womain Taken in Adultery" from 1621 by an artist named Guercino. The light in the painting was of no interest, but I noticed that the artist had given Jesus (and only Jesus) a glint in the eye, giving a piercing stare which seemed to go right through the judge in the scene. More than simply placing it in the center of the eye, the artist put it toward the top center, giving the face a more authoritative presence. My interest is in films and paintings that enhance characters' emotional states through the placement and shape of the actual reflection on the eyeball. We're also discussing the effect that taking the light away in certain scenes will have.

Chris Ray

I've wondered how a round silver ball, like an Xmas tree ornament, would work as a small hit in the eyes. You could mount it under the matte box or on a C-stand and let it just reflect stuff into the eyes... Of course, the highlight exposure might change over the course of the shot... but maybe that's a good thing...

-Art Adams

Page 213 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Daviau mentions the lessons he learned from shooting "Bugsy" in hard- light. He said that he used subtle shadows across the face to bring out the eyes; sometimes he darkened Jeff Bridge's forehead with a shadow from a flag. It borders on the theatrical, but it works. In terms of using a eyelight, check out James Wong Howe's work in "Sweet Smell of Success" - he lit Burt Lancaster with a hard top light that shadows his eyes and gave him a skull-like appearance, emphasized by his eyeglasses. I think he avoided an eyelight to make him more off- putting - or else the eyelight only ended up being reflected in his glasses and thus obscuring his eyes a little. Also, check out "Godfather II" - Willis varies the use of eyelights (combined with overhead soft-box lighting) so that you only see the eyes when he wants you to see them. And the first shot in "The Godfather" (the pull-back from the face) uses an eyelight to good effect.

David Mullen

Strips of light across the eyes

The Dedo projector lens is great for this effect. Not only can you quickly shutter the slit to the size you want, you can also vary the focus of the beam edge. Very painterly. Lots of control. The projector lens make this so easy that it's hard to show restraint in using the effect. But we must!

Tim Glass

Page 214 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Check out Philippe Rousselot's work for subtle eyelighting in low key conditions - I think one of the secrets is using a circular source, which gives a natural rounded reflection in the eye. The converse is also true - a fluorescent strip or a ringlight can give an unnatural look where one is desired. I love what a soft, subtle eyelight above the camera does to skin and cheekbones, too.

Chris Plevin

Eyelights are interesting. I think a lot of DP's who shoot a lot for television forget that an ECU on the big screen means the source for the eyelight is going to be very big and very obvious. People are used to square, round, and points, but it can be a great opportunity to insert a symbolic touch. Fire is cool, and if you really wanted to use fire try projected (or played back in a monitor) slightly slower so the flames have a great licking action. I've used Kino bulbs on C-stands to make a cross, vertical lines, horizontal lines, etc. I use 2 inch black paper tape right on the bulb to trim them down, and also to kill the light off the lens if they're out in front. I've worked with a DP who had a simple large bowl fixture covered with 216 diffusion and a 3200K bulb that he would move around by hand while looking through the viewfinder and then hold in place while a grip made it stay there (mounting it to camera, dolly, or on a stand). He never shot a close up without it. The Dedo's are a great light, but for the budget minded you can do almost anything with a Source Four ellipsoidal that the Dedo will do and the rental is much cheaper. They blade, they iris, they'll soft focus, and they're only 575 watts so you can stick em on those cheap household dimmers. I've used the blades hard for a bar of light right in both eyes, then use some Hampshire frost to soften it and even the light out (I could de-focus but I like the Hampshire), then dim it till it's just noticeable. Great for the dramatic tear scenes or whenever you want to pick up the eyes on a dark face.

Panaruss

Page 215 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Eyelights are interesting, indeed. Don't forget that many practical's on the set can become eyelights too. If the principal is sitting before a computer monitor or TV then the monitor itself makes a great eyelight -- same thing if they're reading a book or map, holding a notebook or clipboard, flashlight, and et cetera. They all make wonderful eyelights. So do those little battery-operated fluorescent's they sell at Home Depot. They also -- though I probably will regret revealing this (I've had lots of compliments on "the look") -- make really good "dashboard" lights; that is, the light one uses to light the faces of the principals in the car (at night, of course) as if the light came from the dashboard. Six across (in three pairs of two) gives a good T2.5 at EI500. If you're getting dailies, remember to tell the lab/xfer house about the eyelights. I've had CUs come back timed too dark because the eyelights raised the printer lights. This is not an easy thing to explain when EVERYONE is watching the dailies.

Steve.

Page 216 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Explosion Proof Shooting

Fancy a giggle? I need to put Stalex cameras on the ground floor of a 20 story building that will be demolished by explosives for a TV doc. We'll construct housings to protect the camera bodies. The cameras are rated to 100gs of shock in any axis, so its a simple matter of protecting them from 150,000 tons of concrete, cockroaches and asbestos. (contents of an average council block).

We will also put a camera on the roof, protruding about 8 feet and pointing vertically down. (I did this shot a few years ago on video, can't wait for a 500 FPS version)

Another camera will be on a ledge toward the top or perhaps being winched up the side of the building as it crashes to the ground.... As ever, it's the little details that need to be addressed and solved to improve the chances of success for these shots. I hope you can help. To improve image quality we can choose not to use a protective port on the camera housing on the ground floor and write off the lens. The interior ground floor shot needs to be quite wide, 100 degrees, so a 1 inch thick laminated filter will degrade the corners of the frame as well as require a much larger camera housing.

The budget does not allow us to write off 3 other lenses, unless protecting them will cost more than the cost of a used prime. Other than a ceramic material, which has a dimpled surface and is a little pink, similar to a Tiffen Warm SFX 2, are there other flats that can be recommended? Stacking filters has been suggested. Any ideas for keeping dust off the lenses?

Am I right in thinking that fine dust particles will be repelled if we positively charge the front element or port? Much larger particles of grit that will be deposited as a result of being propelled into the element

Page 217 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

could be removed with a powerful blast of gas. Is there a device that can do this?

Lighting for the ground floor interior has presented a big challenge. The ground floor external walls are knocked out leaving a floor, a ceiling and pillars. Daylight floods in - until the exterior walls are covered over with corrugated iron to contain blast debris. The interior space therefore is not conducive to a 500+ frame rate!

The lighting ideas so far are: A) Flash bulbs from Megaflash in Ireland. They have a bulb with a 2 second duration. These can be rippled to produce a longer duration. Usually used for small areas, cars, close ups of projectiles et. This could be an expensive option. B) Remove ten sheets of corrugated iron from ground floor and replace with 6 mm polycarbonate. Light from 150 foot with a small thermonuclear explosion.( or 3 x 20k Arrisuns).However as the dust cloud develops in the first1/2 second after detonation, it will reduce the light level inside the ground floor. Also polycarbonate is £90 per 6x4 sheet .

C) Build disposable housings with a simple reflector for 10k bulbs. Place inside building, probably about 12 feet from pillars. Any ideas on how long the bulbs will last? What would be a good choice of bulb? Placing the bulb in a sealed polycarbonate tube may work. The advice from GE is to insulate the bulb from the floor to reduce vibration.

D) Same as C but place lights in holes in corrugated iron. They would be much farther away from pillars so we would need many more. I Can't be more precise until next week when we have another recce. But they would be a further 20 feet away from the blast so may last a few seconds longer.

E) Combination of the above. The unknown factor in this shot is of course dust. Will it obscure the collapsing pillars?

UK Broadcasters are particularly touchy these days about filmmakers interfering with documentary subjects. So we have to shoot this for real. We cannot even cut-in a big close up of an exploding pillar, shot in another place. Pyrotechnics, for some added glitz, are out of the question too.

Page 218 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We will be satisfied just to get the beginning of the explosions After we have seen the site we will conduct tests at an explosive research establishment in a few weeks. The shoot is probably in March, so plenty of sleepless nights ahead.

Any comments or ideas, no matter how off the wall will be appreciated.

Mike Brennan

>Any ideas for keeping dust off the lenses? you could blow compressed air towards the lens flats. As far as lighting, how about an array of china lanterns sporting 1000 watt bulbs? Obviously you won't have to worry about the lanterns catching on fire, and they're reasonably small so they won't obscure the view of the crumbling pillars. They are also quite bright and very cheap.

Depending on how fast your lenses and film are and how large the interior is, the lanterns may provide enough light. Perhaps a combination of lanterns and external sources? ekiM.

how about the Hydroflex mattebox with a small tank of air (like those emergency scuba outfits?). I've used this with a low angle, very dusty dirt road situation to good effect.

Alan Caudillo

We have two shots to deal with, one is a camera on the 20th floor, positioned on a pole about 8 from the parapet looking vertically down.

When I did this a few years ago the port became a little dusty 1/3 of the way down, with fine particles sticking to the filter, 2/3 of the way down the camera hit the rising cloud of dust caused by the lower 20 floors impacting the ground. This dust cloud was very dense and as the camera Page 219 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

was moving at about 30 mph it was instantly smeared by larger particles of grit that would be probably impossible to remove with compressed air.

An onboard system to clean the port for the first 3 seconds would be useful. A can of dust off sounds ideal but I am worried that if the can became inverted the propellant would be expelled and therefore, ice over the port!

Has anybody come across a pressurized dust off product that does not contain a propellant?

The cameras on the ground floor can have a pressurized supply of air no problem.

Has anyone tried this under very dusty conditions? The duration of the shot is hopefully 3 seconds at 500 fps (1/2500th sec) on one camera and 1000 fps (1/5000 sec) on another for a close up, lighting budget permitting.

Mike Brennan

<> Falcon made a nozzle that was attached to a hose, that was in turn attached to the can. That may be what you need. The can can remain vertical and the nozzle moved around and positioned where you want. Auto racing ran into ( pun intended) a similar problem, and came up with a moving shield. Perhaps some sort of Disk, that spins and has the Shmutz ( a very technical term) removed?

By the way what is a Stalex Camera?

About not protecting the lens, it might be a possibility to damage the camera where the lens mounts to it?

Page 220 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

D) Same as C but place lights in holes in corrugated iron. They would be much farther away from pillars so we would need many more.

This sounds very exciting visually wise, especially when the dust first begins to rise.

I guess in this case the old standby advice "TEST TEST TEST" doesn't apply.

Steven Gladstone

Thanks, that a good idea and cheaper than 10k bubbles and holders, (£180 for a 10k bulb and £40 for holder) The concept of 60 to 100k of tungsten in the same area as detonating cord and explosives has still be addressed by the demolition team!

(haven't told them yet....) Exposures are 1/2500th sec for the 500fps wide shot and 2500th sec for the close up.

We may have no option other than to use HMIs. A Arri X light head is about £3000. If we could protect them they would be my favored lamp.

Has anybody used HMIs under strong blast conditions?

Mike Brennan

Sounds like fun...do you get to yell "Fire In The Hole!!!"

For the dust...creating a very high pressure zone in front of the flats would be my choice. In my non-linear editor I have 5 12v cooling fans that move 100 cuft/min each. If four of these were mounted in ports on a hard matte box that was sealed to the flat, each with its' intake side covered with fiberglass wool so you are not re-circulating dust, powered by a car battery.....it might do the trick.

Page 221 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

For light...flo's/nook lights/bare bulbs mounted on the backside of the pillars and above the cut line of the explosives....they will put some light the next pillar in line, provide some shape to each explosion and by lighting the developing dust clouds behind each pillar, will create a lighter valued background, making it easier for the pillars to stand out.....for awhile at least.

With whatever approach you choose, lighting the clouds of dust should be part of what you do.

How about putting some cheap laser pointers in there.....attached to the pillars you can create a grid in the smoke that may give a nice visual of the collapse when the smoke has obscured everything else.

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP

Panavision has one of these devices. I saw it used to prevent water from splashing on the lens. It's a Plexiglas disk that spins, throwing the splashes outward. I'm not sure how well it prevents against dust though. ekiM.

.25" clear polycarbonate plastic would be good for protection "if" it is well secured so that it doesn't implode into the lens. The unsupported area of the filter should be as small as possible to reduce the amount of pressure it has to withstand. The amount of distortion might be acceptable even with a wide lens. One problem is that it does attract and hold dust more than glass.

Page 222 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

There is laminated glass that is thinner than 1". But you should ask the manufacture if it will withstand the pressure.

Can you mount used Nikon lenses? That would keep the cost down of a total loss. One trick the atom bomb photographers used was a 45 degree mirror to reflect the shot into the protected lens. Good only for longer lenses of course and only until the first pressure wave.

>Any ideas for keeping dust off the lenses?

Air nozzles is a good solution. Props dept. has done this for us. We had to use two wide fan shaped nozzles with a lot of pressure to keep the dust off. This one you can test out before hand.

>Lighting for the ground floor interior has presented a big challenge.

Others have suggested quartz halogen T3 bulbs which come in at least 1500 watts. This sounds like the least expensive way of doing it (the cost about $15 each here in the US). A sheet metal shop should be able to make some inexpensive reflectors. Good luck & have fun!

Don Hayashi

I've seen one of these devices also, on the cover of Kevin Brownlow's biography of David Lean (A great read, BTW) On the subject.... Did I read correctly in a prior post that you are considering the use of HMI lights with a prism/drum camera at ultra High speeds? Am I wrong in thinking that this isn't possible, since your fps rate will far outstrip any kind of AC arc light, flicker free or otherwise? Have you discussed any options with your pyrotechnical folks about the possible use of something like magnesium flares as a lighting source? If they lay them down as part of the "charge", are you still subject to the admonishments of documentary purists. I'm not sure if I'm ready for that vow of chastity, myself. Hope your shoot is a real blast!

Joe Di Gennaro

Page 223 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

> Am I wrong in thinking that this isn't possible, since your fps rate > will far outstrip any kind of AC arc light, flicker free or otherwise?

I have shot at 1/5000 sec shutter speed with my Arrisun 1.2 flicker free. There is occasionally some flicker on the edges of the beam though, but nothing to worry about.

Magnesium is a brilliant idea but for its flickering nature and the large smoke cloud it produces. I recently tried to buy, from a defense supplier, the type of flare with a parachute that are dropped over battlefields. We needed it for a dramatization of a UFO landing. Very difficult to get hold of! Thanks

Mike Brennan

>Has anybody come across a pressurized dust off product that does not contain a propellant? How about designing a rig that blows pressurized air across the lens with the air piped-in from a compressor off-site or next to the camera?

Also, I recall seeing promo literature awhile back for HMI pars (4K-6K?) that were designed with both underwater housings and explosion housings.

Wasn't it LTM? I remember thinking, 'gee how many calls do they get for the explosive proof housings?' Anybody familiar with these units?

Jim Sofranko

Page 224 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Mike, Et al. I'm gratified to hear of your success with flicker-free HMI lights and prism/drum High speed. I'll be tempted to try it on my next Photosonics gig. I thought further about your needs for a somewhat expendable, powerful light source:

Understanding that you might be in a very explosive environment (literally) Have you given any thought to using the guts of an old carbon arc light? I realize they normally would require an operator to strike them and keep the anode trimmed, but depending on the lead time between the final walk through the building, and the detonation, perhaps they could be "struck on the run" and left to burn until the boom!

Joe Di Gennaro

Now...here's the cool way to do it.

From what I've seen watching doc's on demolitions...they blow the pillars in a sequence to get the building falling in a pre-determined direction. What would it take to mount the camera on speedrails and get up enough speed to start rolling on the first pillar and back out of the building just ahead of each explosion, staying just t of the dust cloud. Anyone belong to an amateur rocket club?

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP

Page 225 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Hello all: I just did a shot yesterday of a carpet cleaning "wand" pulling past/under an extremely low mounted camera. This wand is around 150 degrees F and has 6 steam jets. I was very concerned about potential lens fog. I had the prop guy bring in an air compressor which is filtered for airbrush painting. These produce an oil-less/clean pressurized air which can be regulated. We rigged it to blow across an optical flat and it worked great!

Jeff Barklage

Mike you said for a giggle !!

Well from Justin's "Stupid ideas R us" file comes this one :)

Get Kodak to let you have a length of safety base as long as your drop and 70 80mm wide. Work out a channel for this past the lens and a feed canister on one side. Either pull it past the lens with a motor or (better I think) attach the free end to an open umbrella. This would have the advantage that it would go quicker the further it has fallen also you could extend a bit of string to the top of the building so that the umbrella would not get stuck with the falling masonry ...

No I'm not drunk I'm like this all the time.

Justin

Page 226 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I had thought of a more British way to create the same effect- a bungy rope!

It could be pre tensioned across the ground floor and then its tether simply severed by the first explosion. It would fly across the ground floor, say 30ft in perfect unison with the sequence of exploding pillars. The problems with moving the camera quickly are possible blurring of the picture and snagging on of the many detonation cords that stretch across the ground floor like a spiders web!

Then there is the problem of extra areas to light. The light from the explosion is of course at an acceptable level but its duration is for about a1/10th second. A perfectly timed tracking shot full of one pillar exploding after another would work- on maybe the 5th take! A track on the outside of the building presents no hazards to the demolition team. Moving the camera would make the shot much more interesting and if timed correctly would make for a take of much longer duration. When we recce. I'll keep an open mind about tracking...

We are also considering a simple pulley arrangement with the camera at one end and a counterweight at the other, at the top of the building. The first explosion severs a tether at the camera end, releasing it to be pulled up the side of the building. Chaos would ensue when rising camera meets falling roof.

To keep the camera shooting straight we need two cables and a elaborate pulley arrangement at the top. The director loves this idea I hope we have the budget to try it, although I'm not sure that the dynamics of the building falling down will be lost by the camera moving up. Thanks for all your input I appreciate it

Mike Brennan

Page 227 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Get the camera rig moving before the first explosion to get up to speed and even if the explosions catch up to the camera, that would be a nice shot.

I have made a tube dolly with opposing concave wheels, the dolly platform was a high hat on a pancake. The tube was PVC and the dolly was mounted from the end of the track and locked onto the tube. If you attached your bungee to this, left the end of the track open with out a stop and at building opening, it might build up enough speed to launch itself clear of the building. Think of it as a slingshot.

Also, if the dust from the explosion is going to limit what you can get, why not shoot on the floor above. The building collapse could be thought of as a more important theme than the explosions that started it.

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP

Regarding lighting the demolition of the pillars in the boarded up ground floor. You might consider magnesium flares. They last for several minutes, they create a tremendous amount of light, and are disposable, so there is no great expense of trashing a lighting fixture.

Of course you would have to do some tests to see just how much light they make. And also to see if the explosion shockwave will "blow out" the flare, but I doubt it would.

Once magnesium is ignited, there is not much that will put it out. You will have to develop a remote method of lighting the flares.

I've never done this, but it seems like a great way to make a tremendous amount of light, in a reliable manner, for relatively little money.

Bill Bennett

Page 228 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Didn't LTM or someone have a series of HMI pars that were both waterproof and explosion proof? I recall seeing literature of that nature several years ago. Anybody have experience with them?

Jim Sofranko

Hi Jim, In my early experience with LTM units, I think it may have been "explosion PRONE" that was the norm.

Jerry (speaking for myself, as usual) Wolfe

I can't help feeling that we are all referring to HMIs that are sufficiently sealed as to be 'intrinsically safe' i.e. they won't cause an explosion in an explosive atmosphere. I'm not sure _any_ lamp would survive a direct hit...

One small point. I seem to remember from filming in a quarry that all the force should be held within the object being blown up. So a well controlled explosion is rather unspectacular a all you see is the rock face slowly separating from the rest of the quarry. Still, I'm glad that OpTex doesn't have high-speed cameras, I think I'll give this one a miss! :-)

Brian Rose

Page 229 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

> In my early experience with LTM units, I think it may have been >"explosion PRONE" that was the norm.

YeeeOoouch! Yeah I recall working with the smoke and sparks of the early HMI's as well as those huge, heavy ballast’s. Amazing how much more durable and lighter HMI's have become in recent years.

Jim Sofranko

Magnesium creates its own oxygen when ignited. It burns fully submerged in water.

As for flicker- I’ve not noticed this. it burns very white, towards the blue end if I recall rightly.

Caleb, New Orleans based, has shot by 'Flambé' during Mardi Gras

Has anyone used, or shot with magnesium flares? What colour temp are they?

In the good old wild west they are probably available at 7 Eleven, but in the UK, more difficult to buy.

Any suggestions for suppliers?

If we can get hold of them we'll try them on our test day.

Mike try anything once Brennan

Page 230 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

<< I can't help feeling that we are all referring to HMIs that are sufficiently sealed as to be 'intrinsically safe' i.e. they won't cause an explosion in an explosive atmosphere. >>

I think someone needs to explain the misnomer "explosion-proof". The term "explosion-proof" as used with lighting units means that the units are sealed in such a way as to not CAUSE explosions in a dusty or volatile atmosphere. It DOES NOT mean that they will SURVIVE explosions, although they may have a better chance of survival than non- explosion proof lights, because of their housings.

As for the current issue of filming a building demolition, I would first talk to the demolition team themselves. Most of these outfits regularly film or tape their work, partly for the publicity and partly to study the blast process itself. They may have plans to record the event themselves, or at least have experience with recording past building removals.

Doug Hart

Another possible source of magnesium flares is to contact a fireworks manufacturing or aerial display group. If they can not provide the flares and the expertise of how to remotely light them, I'll bet they would know who to call.

I found several fireworks manufacturers and aerial display companies with an internet search. Seems worth a try.

And by the way, I'm pretty sure I am not the only one here that wants to hear how this one turns out! Besides the difficulty of lighting the shot, I want to know how you are going to protect the camera from the thousands of tons of building that are going to fall on it.

Bill Bennett

Page 231 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

One of the leading manufacturers of distress flares is Pains Wessex in UK they're at www.painswessex.com/

After speaking with them I'm too sure that they are an option for my demolition shoot. They produce a lot of smoke and they burn at 2000 Centigrade.

They are set off by first twisting a cap and then striking it firmly, so setting them off by remote control is a problem.

The brightest burns for 40 seconds. We would have to confine the smoke in the building and away from our shot. The demolition company do not want a smoking building just prior to demolition. Doesn't look good on their showreel!

They have put me in touch with a ex employee who makes fireworks and who is willing to make a one off that could be electrically ignited. How will we protect the camera? Basically, there will be a precision built steel case around each camera made of 1/2 inch steel. This will be lined with 1 inch of very high density foam, (not much foam I know but the Stalex cameras can take 100gs whilst shooting) This will form the "new" body of the camera.

We will then protect these bodies against varying hazards.

For instance, the cameras on the ground floor will have to withstand the impact of the weight of the falling concrete, followed by the build up of pressure caused by the weight of the 20 floors above "settling" onto the debris pile. We can calculate the pressure with some basic arithmetic. If the building weight is about 150,000 tons and the debris pile has a footprint of about 100 square feet then on average the weight on any one square foot is 15 tons.

To accommodate this the cameras on the ground floor will either have another steel box around them, or an arrangement of concrete slabs forming a cubby hole or both! We will also weaken the floor to create a survival space underneath the camera. The outer case will be about about 30 x 30 x 30 inches and constructed of 1 inch thick flame cut steel plate. This box will take a direct hit from the pointed end a 500 kilo concrete slab, travelling at 40 mph.

At least that's what my engineer says....

Page 232 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The cameras that are on the roof, travelling down with the building need to be cushioned from their impact, of 32 mph, with the debris pile. They will be housed in one of the 1/2 inch thick steel boxes lined with foam. On the outside of this box we will secure a energy absorbing material that is lightweight and cheap. Materials that we have been investigating are aluminum honeycomb, as used in the auto industry (expensive), air tight plastic bottles, as used by paragliders (effective but bulky), rubber tyres (springy- the camera may end up 2 blocks away!), high density foam, formed into wire mesh box (effective but expensive). The last/first time I did this shot the video equipment was little damaged and we constructed the box without any impact absorbing material on the outside. The box ended up on the top of the debris pile, so we just walked up and hauled it away!

I hope we have as much luck on this shoot

This weeks "in" list

Flash bulbs from Megaflash in Ireland www.meggaflash.com 1000w bulbs from DIY shops for £1.20 each Compressed air Unbreakable Polycarbonate Honeycomb aluminum Cost/performance ratio of plate steel This weeks "out" list Exec Producer, who won't let me near the demolition team just yet (thinks I'll frighten them off-Ha) Unworkable polycarbonate 1000w bulbs from DIY shops that have nickel contacts that are impossible to solder Cost of puppeteer on shoot day to manipulate cables and strings to set off compressed air, flash bulbs, roll cameras winch cameras, close hatches ect etc Cost/performance ratio of physiotherapy. Cost of sniffer dogs ...

Mike Brennan

Page 233 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 234 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Fluorescent Lights

I'm sorry if this has been covered before, but I've searched the web site as well as the ASC manual, and I'm still stumped.

I will be shooting on location this weekend using uncorrected fluorescent's as the only source. The bulbs are "34 EnergySaver Cool", manufacturer unknown. I'm assuming that this means Cool White, which I further assume to be a color temperature of about 4150K.

Questions:

• Are my assumptions valid? • - What is the correct filtration on the camera to properly balance to tungsten stock? (I assume I'll need a MinusGreen and some fractional 85, but what fraction?)

• What will be the effect of this filtration on the EI?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Chris "OK, so I'm still new at this" Freilich

Page 235 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I will be shooting on location this weekend using uncorrected fluorescent's s the only source. The bulbs are "34 EnergySaver Cool", manufacturer unknown. I'm assuming that this means Cool White, which I further assume to be a color temperature of about 4150K.

Assume nothing with these things. I proposed the same question about 3 weeks ago to the CML and got fantastic results. (Thank you all!!!). The best advice I received was to use a color meter and not to guess. Cool whites vary in Kelvin and in green value depending on the brand.

This may not be good advice, but what I did was bought two cases of fluorescent's and then returned them after I was finished shooting. This sounds cheep, but I was shooting a no-budget film. This way all of the flo's I was using where consistent with each other. (not to mention that older tubes also change color).

My stuff came out great! I hope you have as good luck as I did.

Christopher C. Pearson

There has been lots of advice about this already. But since you are still worried I will jump in:

1. Don't 'assume' on the color temp. Rent or borrow a color meter and know for sure...be sure to measure on the color temp *and the magenta/green scale.* Used Color Meter IIs can be found cheaply sometimes as the 3 is out now. I bought a backup II for $200 last year.

2. If the fluoro tubes are all the same you are cool. Take some of those tubes and put them into Molescent or other home-made fluoro fixtures as a key or fill source. You know they'll match even without a color meter!

Page 236 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

3. And/or, having established what the color output of the tubes is, make up a gel package for small HMIs (like 1200 Pars or maybe jokers) which will match. You can vary the color temp for an effect but make sure the magenta- green range matches. I predict +1/2 and +1/4 Plusgreen and 1/2 CTO will give you a close match--your HMI may vary! Gelling small tungsten lights up with blue and +green is an exercise in frustration. I don't remember if you said that your location has windows. Bear in mind that if you have uncorrected daylight against fluoros which you are correcting, the daylight will tend to go magenta. In video transfer this can usually be fixed but you may not have that option. Of course you can gel the windows or draw curtains, etc.

4. I'd strongly suggest shooting 7246. Daylight balance puts you closer to the output of the fluoros than tungsten stock and '46 looks at least as good as '74 while being slightly faster.

5. I have shot under fluorescent's without a filter on the camera for years with great results. Why add glass and take away stop when you can correct it in transfer with much greater precision? In print your correction may leave some very slight evidence of the fluoro environment but that may not be a bad thing.

6. As I have been there myself I will offer my unsolicited opinion that nothing is more typical of an inexperienced or insecure DP than being TOO CAREFUL. I don't mean you should be cavalier about what you're doing, but that you should not let worries about HOW to do something get in the way of thinking about WHAT you want to accomplish visually. It's important to realize that even in a case like this, rendering a perfectly balanced and neutral rendition of the situation is not the only way to go. Sure it's the most obvious thing to do---but do you always make the obvious choice?

Technical knowledge is wonderful to have but I have known people who could quote the ASC manual from memory yet couldn't do an interesting shot or contribute an original idea to save their lives.

Page 237 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Have you thought about what the scene might look like if it were green? Vittorio Storaro has done this in 'The Last Emperor' and 'One From the Heart'--and he's no slouch. Or, if it's a night scene, what if the fluoros were off except maybe a few 'emergency' tubes in selected areas (for these you could use Optima 32s or Warm White Deluxe) and you could use tungsten desk lamps for practical's and tungsten all the way? (Warm White Deluxe is a cheap, easily available tube which is about 3000K with only a tiny bit of green-- John Alcott used to use them.) However you end up going, stay loose and have fun--you'll do fine!

AT

On an upcoming film we intend to use fluorescent's as part of the set design. To avoid the high cost of Kino tubes and ballast’s, we're going to go for a commercially available tube with a high CRI, and a colour temp of either 5500 or 7500. We intend to fit these using off the shelf high frequency electronic ballast’s(using a frequency of 120kHz) and my question is this: are we ok to shoot speed changes in shot, i.e. with 435, without danger of flicker? Are the commercially available ballast’s OK, or are the Kino ballast’s special in some way, e.g. squarewave rather than sinewave?

Again I intend to shoot a flicker test but would appreciate any comments.

Chris Plevin

Page 238 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Chris my recollection from the research I did a few years ago is that the significant difference between the ballast’s that Kino uses and commercially available high freq. ballast’s is that the Kinos overdrive the tubes, e.g. pushing approx. 900 milliamps through a four foot tube. This, incidentally will change the color spectrum output of the tube, notably adding a slightly stronger green spike from the more excited mercury vapour in the tube...but getting back to the issue, I do not believe that IN PRINCIPLE the flicker characteristics will differ between the commercial high freq. ballast’s and the Kinos. This is a guess based on recollections and conversations with ballast manufacturers...PLEASE TEST!!! ...and let us know what you found. I would suggest a test with three cards in frame, one lit with a tungsten light, one with a Kino, and one with a commercial electronic ballast. The tungsten - lit card will control for any anomalies caused by the camera.

If you get test fixtures from Cirro-light in London, please give my regards to David Morphy. He may even lend a fixture for the test...(one can hope!)

Mark

Page 239 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Also - in regard to the Kino ballast’s - they cycle at 25,000 Hz - which makes them "flicker free" at any speed. I'm not sure that a 120 cycle will be safe for ramping - depending on what speed you choose. Since the gas will discharge at twice the frequency - 120 cycle will give you 240 "flickers" per second. The rule of thumb seems to be a "shutter speed" of not less than your Hz cycle - so as long as you stay at 1/120 of a second or faster you *should* be fine. -- Also keep in mind the decay time for the phosphors against the tube might make things dangerous at anything other than 180 degree shutter.

This would mean that you really couldn't go any faster than 60fps at 180...but again - as is preached over and over - test, my good man, test.

Jay Holben

Jay, I think you misread the posting, the ballast I checked out runs at 120,000 Hz. Should be flicker free at that speed. But I will test - Mark described exactly what I had in mind - and report back.

The Kino tubes have a high CRI, about 95, and of course everything offered up as 'film equipment' is more expensive; the ballast’s are nicely packaged and are dimmable, and the lighting fixtures are well thought out. That's what you pay for, I guess. On an associated note, I saw some fixtures at the TV show in London by a company called Videssence, which were very bright for small size and power. They had some deep egg crate accessories which made the soft light much more directional at the cost of a stop or so, but the tubes they used were of looped construction, like a U shape, and thinner than Kino tubes. Samuelson Lighting in London have some, although not on the hire list yet, and they look well worth checking out, particularly for location lighting.

Chris Plevin

Page 240 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

There's also a German company - High Lux that makes the same thing – although not quite perfected. They go by the principal that a fluorescent is only as bright as it's surface area - so a 2' "U" shaped lamp has the same brightness as a 4' tube in half the space. Add a second "U" to that and you have the output of an 8' tube in a 2' space... They get some great output from the fixtures, but they still haven't quite gotten the spectrum right. Ah well...

Back to the drawing board...

Jay Holben

Regarding output, surface area is only part of the equation...current is another part, and one reason for using larger diam. tubes is to stop the mercury in the tube from getting too hot which reduces efficiency and shifts color temp.

Most of the compact fluorescent lamps out there are not really good CRI yet...and boosting them (overdriving them) only exacerbates the color problems. There is a rumor about of an upcoming very high CRI compact fluorescent lamp made under exclusive contract to a company that provides fluoro stuff to our industry...more to follow.

Mark

Page 241 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 242 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Focusing

You've probably already heard this advice Vis a Vis focusing, focus marks ... * The only focus reference that is worth anything is one that doesn't move. * Ninety percent of the time when your focus goes soft it's because you are focused too close. In other words if the operator says you are soft, best bet is to ease the focus back. * If you get "surprised" by an actor leaning in, such as when a person leans forward to get up from a seated position, the focus adjustment is invariable one and a half feet. * There are definitely times now-a-days when you can pull focus off a monitor, especially long lenses wide open. Useful for tight inserts (following a pen across a page), swing/shift lens shots, snorkel/borescope shots. It doesn't work if the camera zooms and you are on a dolly or jib arm/remote head, because you will not be able to interpret the video size change as being a push in (focus change) or a zoom in (no focus change). * Focus as seen on video (video dailies!) might look OK but might not be good enough for the big screen. On the other hand, a shot that looks slightly soft with projected dailies might be perfectly adequate for video. * There are times when the operator must pull his own focus. A human's 3D vision peters out after about 300 yards. With extremely long lenses (1,000mm) past 300 yards you cannot reliable distinguish where your target is in relationship to possible focus marks. You might if you have a very uncluttered vista. But if you have say a horsemen riding towards you among a bunch of brush it's almost impossible. btw. you have about 70' depth of field with a 1,000mm at 5.6 focused at 900'. * You should know the distance between your out stretched finger tips, and half of that, etc. Finger tip distance is close to your height. * Always guess the distance before measuring it. * I like to use a retractable metal tape measure for close in work and to have handy for measuring distance references in the set, i.e. tables, linoleum squares, rugs, etc. I use a small 3/4" by 12 or 16' metal tape measure. People with larger hands don't mind using a 1" by 25."

Page 243 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

* For very close up work, know the distance from the film plane to the end of the lens or matte box. Judge distance from the front of the lens/matte box to the subject and add the known distance back to the film plane. * Don't clutter your lens with too many marks. You'll just confuse yourself. * If you are doing a lot of long lens work in a set area (sports arena) draw a little diagram with distances indicated. * Keep in mind that your focus distance is an arc around the camera, not a line perpendicular to the camera. * Don't make too much of an issue about focus so that everyone starts to become hyper aware of it. They that count will start becoming paranoid and it becomes a big deal. But if you need time for marks, speak up. And speak up if you need another take. Cheaper to do it now then having to reshoot. Don't bug the operator by constantly asking him if focus was OK You'll have to learn to know whether you can trust him/her focus eyes. * Always watch dailies from as far away as you can. Everything looks sharper from back there. :-) * Always look at rushes and study your work when you have the opportunity. * If you are putting marks on a studio follow focus marking wheel, put a reference mark on the lens barrel that corresponds to your closest focus mark. You'll need that to realign your follow focus with the lens focus barrel if they come adrift just before you roll. * The length of your camera + mattebox/shade is a good travelling distance reference when working off of a remote head/crane arm. * A laser pointer aimed at your track focus marks is definitely a worthwhile aid for doing critical dolly shots (and jib arm shots). Also use it to project a travelling focus point at the talents feet when doing tight dolly shots. Cinema electronics makes lasers that are syncronized to the camera shutter. You can have the laser dot in the shot and the camera will not record it. Great for shooting on featureless cycs and table top work. It tends to make a lot of people nervous at first because with persistence of vision the dot always looks like it's on. * Go see the (recently released in the US) movie "Without Limits" about runner Prefontaine. Amazing 800 mm high speed running shots done with the Preston Light Ranger focusing aid. That device uses an operator (usually the 1st AC) controlled/aimed infrared laser to place focus. Note the laser aimer can't see what the long lens operator sees. They have to talk each other through the shot if there are moves to other subject

Page 244 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

matter. (The device needs a heads up video display for the laser aimer!) As a focus puller you will dream. about having a Light Ranger. :-) Before each shot, think FAST - Focus, Aperture, Shutter, Tachometer (fps). concentrate ... but good luck anyway ....

Mako Koiwai :-)

This is some of the best information I have ever heard regarding following focus. I would add the following information learned from my mentor, Tommy Morris: • Learn your depth of field. Know what the lenses can do. They can be your friends. • All you really need to do your job is a ball point pen, a slate marker, a tape measure, a set of small hand tools, a Swiss army knife, some camera oil, Q-tips, a camel hair brush, a clean cotton handkerchief and a Kelly wheel. Everything else is part of your act. • You can fit exactly one case of beer and five pounds of ice in a Mitchell 1000' mag case. • On tricky dolly shots, keep the slate close to you. If you think you are blowing the focus, discreetly kick the slate of the dolly and let the sound man cut the shot. It only works once per show.;-)) -- Ed Colman

Mako your advice was superb ... there are just two tiny things I would like to add :) There will come a moment when the shot "can't" be done. Deciding when this is is hard you have to take lots of factors into account. For instance I did a job (a Super16 commercial) shot in someone’s living room. The camera was hand held the stop was T1.3 on a 50mm prime. The actor was working without marks and the operator was moving around as well. The room was only about 12' square and was very crowded Distances were 4'6" to 6' and the director wanted it constantly in focus. What I should have done was to (politely) put my foot down and try to get the DP to either raise the light level, stand still (just let the actor do the moving) or move a lot of people around so I could see both the camera and the actor at the same time. As it happened we spent an hour and a lot of

Page 245 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

film trying to get it right. This makes me a dickhead. Yes you are the focus puller, under normal circumstances there is no reason for you to even question the setup but sometimes it has to happen. The usual response (not from the operator from the director or production) is but so and so did it on such and such a production.

I have been exceedingly lucky to have always worked with wonderful DP's when the going gets tough like this.

Remember there is no such thing as "Impossible" just logistically impossible. This job would have been easily possible in a studio with removable walls and lots of space were I could see everything . When I first started focus pulling I used to practice with radio controlled cars on a tabletop.

I had a friend who wanted to operate a geared head and we would both practice with his girlfriend operating the radio controlled car (which I had pasted siemens stars on). Start with a 50mm lens at T1.3 then later move to a 100mm. Practice like this gives you a certain fluidity of action and concentration. Also it inspires confidence in your own abilities. How much better to have an operator shout SOFT at you in your own home when you know he is your friend and that nothing is lost than on a film set with 50 people watching what you are doing and cursing every time you get it wrong ?

ALWAYS be nice to your loader :) (be nice to everyone in fact)

Justin Pentecost

Page 246 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

A few minor additions to Mako's Detailed list

I always put the mark to sync up the follow focus and the lens at the infinity mark. At frequent intervals check your cloth measure against a steel tape measure, sometimes the cloth ones can stretch. Never measure distance to a person's face with a steel tape measure. This makes the many thousand dollar a day models, and the D.P. very Nervous.

Steven ( I cut an actors hand accidentally with a steel tape measure once, the make up person got all the credit though) Gladstone

• Remember that focus carries 2/3 back from the point of focus and 1/3 in front. If you are in doubt, cheat an inch or two forward. (Of course remembering Mako's caveat about close focus). • Pulling focus on moving shots has as much to do with music and rhythm as anything. The rehearsals are very important (when available) to find the rhythm of the shot, and once you and the operator and the actor are locked in, making the shot is much easier. When you are told to 'shoot the rehearsal' it's not a rehearsal any more. • A good dolly grip is worth his weight in gold. (Not always an insignificant amount). He can tell you if he is an inch or two off his mark, and you can sometimes compensate. You should have your own dolly marks anyway so you should already know if he has missed. He can also totally bone you. • Treat everyone nicely. The loader, the operator, the PA's, everyone. You never know if the guy/gal filling the coolers one day won't be producing your next project. • We are all only flesh and blood. There are some shots that are 'logistically impossible'. We can only do our best. No one can be perfect 100% of the time. • It helps if your DP supports you. I was doing a shot many years ago on a table top toy shoot. We were following these one inch long cars blown around by streams of air. Long end of the zoom, plus 2 diopter, the whole thing. I was having a tough time keeping it all sharp. The crew and AD started complaining. The Cameraman, God bless him, stopped the show, looked at everyone and asked if any one else thought they could do my job any better.

Page 247 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Everybody shut up and we got the shot. • Regarding TC's story: I think that is the exception rather than the rule. You can't really do anything about ignorance except try to educate people. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes behind a camera knows what a difficult, nerve racking, unsung job the Focus Puller has. If the DP doesn't respect this, there is nothing to do but try to work with him/her as long as you are able, but sometimes, we do have to stand up for ourselves. Try not to burn the bridge though. (Well, you may have to burn it, try not to dynamite it.) Remember, it is a very small community. • Most importantly, try to have fun with it. When it is all going smoothly, you know if you nailed the shot or not, and you don't have to ask the operator if it was sharp. When he starts asking you if it was sharp, you have arrived. -- -- Ed Colman

For instance I did a job (a Super16 commercial) shot in someone’s living room. The camera was hand held the stop was T1.3 on a 50mm prime. The actor was working without marks and the operator was moving around as well.

The room was only about 12' square and was very crowded Distances were 4'6" to 6' and the director wanted it constantly in focus.

Interesting problem. One solution would have been to use a thin carbon fishing rod stuck on top of the camera with its tip at 4 feet or even 5 feet if possible. This is assuming that the operator is standing and the rod doesn't "interfere" with the lighting. With this rod giving a 4 feet reading and putting a bright mark at 3 feet, one can "see" a lot more easily the finer distinctions between let's say 4'3 and 4'9.

Page 248 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

A 2nd assistant with a fine eye for distances can also help in these situations by giving you some cues over talkies with headsets Over the years I have collected different kinds of fishing rods (Mitchell are my favorite) and rubber sticks and find them a lot more handy than lasers because when stuck to the camera they give me a constant reference in space and are usually a lot closer to my field of vision which is generally the actor's face. I use them when markings are not possible or because I know I will not have the time to read them.

Generally these are shoulder shots or fast tracking shots with the talent moving close in to the camera at one point. Finally these rods, if properly positioned, can prevent the actors from moving in too close to the camera. On some occasions however, these rods can upset either the actors or the director, so I use them care and take them off the camera between takes.

Leo Mac Dougall

A focus-pulling mantra that I think holds true: "You're only as good as your operator" And it goes the other way as well: the operator is only as good as the focus puller. Lil' Focus tricks to humbly add to Mako's:

"Finger marks":

When the subject approaches quickly, put your thumb on the wheel so that it stops in the 12 o'clock position when the lens gets to what you expect to be the closest mark, say 3 feet. That way you can keep sighting the fast approaching object but can feel where 3 feet is via thumb and finger position. I would also have a finger at 4 or 5 feet. You still have to look at the lens to fine-tune, but it can really help "feel" the distances.

Depth-of-Field charts on big primes:

This works great on Panavision primes since they're nice and big. Put tiny little depth-of field marks on the lens (above and below the focus index mark). Use colored tape to color-code them. Just 2-3 stops worth,

Page 249 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

and different for each lens depending on focal length. On a 200mm you might only have 5.6, 8 and 11 at the most. On a 17mm you might have 2.8, 4 and 5.6 (anything more wraps around the other side of the barrel where you can no longer see it).

Great for really quick judgements on focus splits...when doing hand-held with method actors or other ridiculously blocked and unrehearsed scenes. A thankless skill. Keep in mind that it's not THAT accurate on all primes, since they are engraved to match any mechanical discrepancies that throw the focus scale out of perfect, geometric progression. In my experience they're usually really close.

Put something soft on the end of your steel-tape measure (such as a tiny boxing-glove that normally sells as a keychain). It puts the actor at ease when it zips out within inches of their faces. Sometimes, you really should not use it, but it is a great tool 99% of the time. Enjoy the time that you would rather pull focus without marks. Set goals for yourself such as: I will not use a tape on lenses shorter than 50mm (unless the subject is really close). Checking your work in dailies is 50% of the job. You will no doubt be a good focus puller when you enjoy this aspect, but don't get too cocky either.

Don't forget about the speed & timing of the pull. It's not just about getting to the right marks and achieving sharpness, it's how one arrives there. Fast, jerky focus pulls can look really terrible. Go to dailies and see how timing your focus-pull with a head turn or a camera movement can completely disguise it. Your work should be sharp, but invisible in it's means.

Statement of the obvious:

Work quietly whenever possible. Being a camera assistant affords you a position very close to the camera, which is also where the DP, Director hang out and need to converse. Do your job as surreptitiously as possible and eavesdrop on what's happening. If a backlight is being put in, go ahead and put on an eyebrow now and re-balance the camera before the light flares the lens...that sort of thing.

Mark Doering-Powell

Page 250 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Great to see all of the other focusing advice and tips! * The best thing is just getting lucky, which after awhile does happen. I got to spend most of today sitting under a perfect warm autumn sun next to the San Francisco bay, turning a locked off Platinum with a 10mm lens on remotely. While the director and the agency pondered the variables in our test, the DP and I got to watch a great air show (including the Navy Blue Angels) which just happened to be occurring right in front of us over a sail boat speckled bay. Sorry - it was just one of those great pay back days ...... :-) ********************************************************************* I forgot to mention, yes I do have the end of my steel tape measure covered with a soft white square with a red X on it. I always try to measure off to the side of the actors face and I do pay great attention to what I'm doing when I stick that tape measure out. I've noticed more actors will now actually take the end of the tape measure and bring it next to their eyes. I think we've actually started to train them ...

Concerning Justin's focus horror story in the small room ...

I was working with a new (to me) DP when he asked me to put the 135 on the camera that I had been asked to set-up hand-held. I knew we were going to be wide open, T2.1, and I was wondering how long I was going to last. I must have been radiating fear because he quickly said "Oh, don't worry, I do my own hand held follow focusing." Whewwwww. He showed me that he had a special way of setting up the shoulder rig for his BL4 that allowed him to support the cameras weight plus finger the follow focus whip. (He palmed the left hand support so that his fingers were free to twiddle the whip.) He was magnificent in following the action and keeping things in focus. Turns out that he came from a documentary background and had always done his own focusing. His "special" trick was that instead of trying to always follow focus with long lens he would move with the subject matter. It didn't bother me that I was essentially a highly paid loader that day!

I think I've seen almost as many operators on movies get into trouble because of a high percentage of out of focus shots as focus pullers. The directors were incredulous that the operators either hadn't made it clear enough that there were focus problems or hadn't tried to help more with focus, i.e. the shots started out of focus meaning that the operator hadn't handed off the focus to the AC with a "it's sharp - here!"

Page 251 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I know that in Hollywood more and more focus pullers are using remote follow focus systems that allow them to situate themselves where ever it's advantages (and not just for handheld or jib arm work). Some people find they can be more accurate judging distance by being more at right angles to the camera and subject matter. Band Pro (and soon Preston) offer simpler, lighter single channel wireless follow focus options. I recently had to do an un-rehearsal sequence with little kids and a mom sitting and playing and running around a picnic setting on a beach at twilight wide open, 1.3 with a 65mm. The camera was on a remote head on a telescoping arm.

The DP/operator talked the crane grips through the shots via headsets. We were all over the place, continuously moving, and including inserts of toes wiggling in the sand, etc. No time, no way to ask for focus marks. I'd say at least 95% of the footage was usable focus-wise. The fact that we were wide open made focusing pretty easy! The director was very happy. For the ultimate on everything about focusing, see Fritz Hershey's book "Optics and Focus" (Focal Press) for camera assistants. 280+ pages, from basics to very technical to Zen. (Even) I haven't been able to work my way through it.

The very best general book on assisting, that I think everyone could learn something from is Doug Hart's The Camera Assistant, also Focal Press. Doug was Gordon Willis AC for ten years, besides working with other top DP’s.

I remember some test scores from when I was a kid. I was only average, but I scored very high in knowing where and how to find information! But honestly, I have managed to absorb some of what I've read .... :-)

... Mako - CML is all about sharing .... anybody want to "share" my ..., oh oh, almost forgot the rental houses are listening ..Koiwai. ;-)

Especially in light of the recent discussion concerning the many soft shots in "What Dreams My Come," I want to let everyone know what we did on our recent Disney World commercial in Orlando.

Page 252 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We had some night exterior shots over water at the Epcot Center using a 300mm Nikkor F/2.0. (Note that every 300mm Nikkor that I've ever seen adapted for motion picture use has been a T2.3, 2.4, as measured on the light transmission devices at various rental houses. If you look through that lens and open up the aperture, you will see that at some point the iris disappears behind a restriction. If you check the aperture ring you'll find that that happens around t2.3, 2.4. Opening the aperture any further has no effect.) The camera was on the shore; we were shooting a family at the back of a boat that was moving away from us. I simply follow focused while looking through the eyepiece while our DP operated off of a monitor. Another DP that I work with also "allows" me to do this since he actually prefers to operate off of a monitor. I'm finding that at least in commercials more and more of the operating, especially jib arm and low angle hand held work (of course remote head work) is being done off of monitors. For one thing, the CEI 4 & 5 taps (Arri and Panavision) and the 435/535(new) IVS taps are good enough to allow that.

I did a Japanese Honda spot a few months ago where the Japanese DP probably looked through the camera eyepiece twice in three days of exterior work. He loved using my 5" TransVideo on-board monitor. (I thought the on-board monitor was suppose to be for my benefit :-) Although I understand the position that the focus pullers were in on "What Dreams May Come" (see my message after talking with them from a couple of weeks ago) I can't help but think that at least on some of those stationary close-ups, focus could have been improved by looking at a monitor.

I remember doing a shot where we followed the feet of a rodeo cowboy all around the field with a 600mm wide open. We got great shots that I seriously doubt I could have done without focusing off of a monitor. I find it especially easy with long lenses and no depth of field (obviously!). And we were able to do it "right now" with no waiting to get focus marks or set-up/calibrate/rent a Preston Light Ranger, or restricting the talents actions.

Monitor focusing can also work great when shooting inserts, following a pen across the page, etc.

Another way of using a monitor to do focus is to note size on the monitor with a focus distance/mark. Full head is one distance, half a head another distance, etc.

Page 253 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

These techniques are not a way out of being able to do follow focusing the old fashion way but are often a tool to use if pressed for time/losing the light or for unusual conditions like shooting across water, (PanaTape is only good to about 18/19 feet). It sure beats the 3,000 feet of almost entirely unusable footage that I once saw from our "B" camera on a boat to boat sequence on a feature. Btw. it was the operator that caught hell in that incident. He didn't report the problems and he never seemed to grab the focus, at least at the beginning of the shot to give the focus puller a starting point. *************************************** Another excellent but slightly time and manpower consuming technique to guarantee usable long lens focus is the side sighting method. A sighting mechanism is situated 90 degrees to the line of action (say a car coming towards the camera). Inexpensive rifle scopes can be purchased for $30, but you can also use a "C" stand arm arrangement. One needs to fashion a marking disk and a pointer. I used wire for a pointer and paper plates for a disk through which my tripod/"C" stand penetrated. Usually utilizing a walkie talkie for communicating, the sighting device is aimed at a point where the object will be (stand-in, PA or actual object) while the focus puller eye focuses on the same object, and a mark is made on the disk opposite the pointer and on the lens/follow focus. You do this until you have all of the marks you think you need.

During the shot, one person must follow the subject matter with the sighting device, another reads off the numbered marks on the sighting marking disk and relays them to the focus puller who just matches the numbers. Of course some form of anticipation must be built in. The good thing about this method is that you don't have to have actual physical marks along/next to the pathway that the subject matter is following. This means this method can be used for shooting over water or through the air.

Sometimes the sighting mechanism can't be 90 degrees to the subject but it will still work. Keep the pointer fairly long so that the marks aren't too close together.

Some AC's have made very professional looking rigs with Delron or nylon marking disks, etc. If anyone is interested I can get you in touch with someone who has made up a very nice rig.

Page 254 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I personally don't use this method since it's usually too time and manpower consuming. I made it up for a shoot where I was warned that we would have a lot of long lens at the camera work. It turned out that every shot was in a hallway or tunnel where there was not room off to the side!

I did have my rig with me for a specific job where we were going to be following a car coming right at us with the Clairmont 1,000mm T4.5 lens on a dry lake bed. I explained the rig to the out of town/new DP that I was working with. He had never shot a car commercial. He said no we won't need to use that.

I don't want to take the time; I can do the focus myself.

_Part way_ through the second take he let go of the focus knob and told me that I better do the focus myself!!! We had a poor video tap (not one from Clairmont! :-) and poor monitors. We ended up taking the time to set up some cones for focusing marks ...

Enough to make one buy a camera and call oneself a DP! :-)

... Mako Koiwai

Page 255 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 256 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Filming Smoke

In light of very disappointing initial results, I'm triple checking myself here... I'm doing some work for a friend, shooting elements for CD cover art for a garage band he's been working on. I recently shot a wisp (plume?) of cigarette smoke to be composited with the band's name for the cover of the CD.

Shooting Vision 500T (5279) rated at 400 ISO, I used a 6x9 ERS from about a 3:00 position to sidelight the smoke against a black (duevetyn) background. I incident read the ERS at T8 (at 1/125 of sec (shooting slides)) and shot at T8... Shooting very close to the plume of smoke (only thing in frame, cigarette was below frame line) about a foot away... Got back a VERY thin (anorexic) negative with damn near NOTHING on it... I'm at a loss...

HOWEVER... I did not shoot a gray scale ... and damn near everything I have run through this lab in recent months has come back disappointing... (how can you tell if something has REALLY been pushed when you can't trust printer lights or the lab??)

Any thoughts would be fantastic. As a side note, I didn't directly backlight the smoke (from a 12:00 position) because I was forced to shoot this outside and I was avoiding all the other extraneous crap in the air... Thanks.

Jay Holben

Page 257 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

>incident read the ERS at T8 (at 1/125 of sec (shooting slides)) and shot at T8...

Did you happen to take a spot reading of the smoke ? If it's a really whispy cigarette smoke, it might not have been thick enough to catch enough side-light. If the smoke were f-5.6 spot (brightest parts of smoke), then a t-3.5 lens stop would have yielded a thicker negative (a light-gray smoke). Incident to ERS may still say f-8.

As was implied, had the smoke been backlit at T-8, it may have exposed a little brighter on the neg. But side-lighting works if you're a spot- meter addict. :-) With smoke elements against black, it's best to overexpose 1/3 to 1 stop since most of the frame (behind the smoke) is black (1/3 stop was done by rating the film at 400). You have a choice in post to composite the smoke white, or with less luminance: gray.

Of course, it could be the lab, the film, the meter, the camera, the lens, the light got bumped...but it seems one of the biggest variables would be the density of the smoke, no ?

Or maybe it really didn't stay in the soup long enough...

Mark

Side-lit smoke is not going to be nearly as visible as backlit smoke. Also, if you metered the wisp of smoke with a spot meter from the camera position, you would want to open up from what the meter gave you, since the wisp should be white-ish against the black background, not medium grey. If you read a t/8, you probably should shoot at a t/4.

Page 258 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I find that when filming against a black background, sometimes the subject itself needs to be a little hot for the image to feel correctly exposed - in other words, the frame should have a range from something dark to something hot. If you put something medium grey against something black, it feels a little murky. This becomes even more important in black & white photography; the image needs a certain "snap" - a nice dynamic range of blacks, greys, and whites.

David Mullen

Wow, how much extraneous crap is there in the air where you shot, if you have to worry about hiding it and at the same time you're not getting exposure on your side-lit smoke ? !!

I don't know about metering this stuff, smoke efx are an eyeball thing to me. If this is a still you can bracket anyway.

And - are you shooting then 5279 as a still film ? Do you really trust the still labs that do this stuff ?

I've found that to 'sell it' with smoke you need easily 2 or 3 times as much smoke density as your eye thinks, and maybe more. I've used 5 or 6 cigarettes mashed together out of frame just to represent one. I did some medieval church scenes in my feature "Wired Angel" with a censer. For about 3 or 4 setups, I bought a pound of incense. The religious supply shop said something like "that would last a Church a month or more" And I was very tempted to supplement the real incense with a Rosco 1500 and a plastic tube...

Page 259 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It's just that thin line between realism and overdoing it.

Also, 3:00 is maybe too subtle. You _must_ give smoke, steam, etc enough backlight.

And as I'm sure you know, saying the words "roll camera" will always cause a change in wind direction...

-Sam "get a good Key Wafter on the crew" Wells

Page 260 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Green Screen (16mm)

I am going to use green screen in a section of an upcoming 16mm spot to isolate some waving pennants and then bring them into a shot. not having a lot of16mm experience I wonder if one camera is better suited than another, SR or Aaton. thanks in advance tom Weston

I don’t think that the camera really makes the difference, what you are looking for is probably a nice stock like the 45 to reduce any risk of grain.

Serge Desrosiers DP

The answer here is again Film, or Video? I will not debate which camera is steadier, (actually I had an old A.C.L. that was as steady as any SR I’ve ever compared it to.) However remember this, as I understand it, in telecine, 16mm is registered on the side of the film, as is the Aaton. So if the film is not slit precisely the image should not weave in the telecine, as the exposed image will still be in register with the edge of the film. However since the image in an SR, is registered to a pin during exposure, theoretically if the film edge isn’t perfect in relation to the perfs, there may be weave. I am not sure exactly how film is registered in 16mm opticals, however I would guess it is by registration pin. This may not be an issue, if you are only dropping one image on top of another, and not doing split screens, and lining up matte edges, and the

Page 261 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

such. Of course if the camera you use is not up to specs, then good registration is highly unlikely. I hope this helps.

Steven Gladstone

Since the 16mm perforations were never designed for full registration pins, at Aaton we preferred to follow the ‘One Line’ (side guide) ‘One Point’ (claw dead point at very low speed) classic geometric alignment system. The end result is that XTR’s deliver a frame to frame registration which is better than 1/2000 of the frame dimensions both vertically and laterally. Who else? There is a fixed guide and a lateral pressure guide at the image level on all Aaton cameras (like on telecines), as opposed to film channel top- right and bottom-left posts found on some other cameras; thus NO loop stiffness dependant lateral weave at all. Furthermore this lateral pressure guide, combined with the 8 micron vault shape of the rear pressure plate, insures such a perfect depth positioning of the film (good for breathless images) that the aperture top and bottom horizontal rails are no longer necessary: that is why a Super16 Aaton XTR shows much less dust and hairs on the picture than any other camera.

Jean-Pierre

Page 262 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Thanks for such great input. This kind of info is really helpful to those of us who work almost exclusively in 35. Myself, I am a visual effects specialist, and registration is of the utmost importance, hence the exclusive use of 35mm. In often asked about the feasibility of shooting something on 16, and till know I’ve always thought it was a really bad idea, primarily from the registration point of view. It’s really helpful to know that is not necessarily the case. Thanks for the explanation!!!

Don Canfield

I spoke with someone recently who had been approached by a large broadcasting company to modify their SR3s to solve the weave issue. He was able to make a prototype gate that (at great expense) did somewhat solve the problem, but then the funding for the project (and many other things) was cut. He said the weave was often on the diagonal, due to the opposing loops in the SR magazine. (He doesn’t really want to make these gates, so I won’t mention his name.) Interesting... I think the Aaton proves that simple and elegant is usually the best approach.

Jeff ""speaking in hushed tones"" Kreines

Surely Jeff it would have been less expensive for the broadcaster to go with the AATON XTRProd rather than re inventing the wheel with expensive mods and then they could have the great benefit of AatonCode, integrated video assist and a 12 volt low power operating system just to name a few features! But then as they say ‘ you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink!’

John Bowring.

Page 263 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Whilst I think weave/stability may be a problem for those who print, and lets face it, it shows up less when projected than when composited on tape. I also believe that stability of any film is becoming less and less of an issue as it’s very easy to stabilise an image later. We’re arguing pink, lime green or scotchlight balls for a motion tracked shot at the moment :-)

Geoff Boyle

Many telecines (especially unmodded Ranks) also add weave to an image... you might run a test film through the telecine (a simple grid will do) to check its steadiness.

Jeff Kreines - DeMott/Kreines Films

thanks to all for advice on this question. we shot this week with an SR2 and it turned out great. I shot with and without a net and found that we were able to cut a matt just fine with the net so we are going with that version (I prefer the look).

Page 264 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

one interesting (surprising to me) effect. we shot a row of banners against the sky then lifted a 12x12 green screen (from Fore Peak in Orlando, fla., a great source for terrific and reasonably priced green screens) behind them and shot them again. the idea was to make a matte of the pennants that we could raise into the shot upside down thus creating a menacing jaw (hey, it wasn’t my idea). the pennants were opaque white but aged to the point of being grey. they were back lit. against the pale blue, partly cloudy sky they were about 85 i.r.e. during the transfer, however, when the green screen was lifted behind them their value shifted to about 70 i.r.e. nothing changed from our angle. not the stop. not the lite hitting them. when I shot it I assumed the difference I saw was do to the contrast difference between the sky and the green screen but, low and behold, it was actually there on the negative. we had to ""fix"" the discrepancy with the quadra (guess who was the ""saviour"") because we wanted the upper and lower ""teeth"" to match. it turned out fine but I still don’t understand the density shift.

Tom

Page 265 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 266 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Gun Flashes

Some of you have probably done a lot more gun shots than I (on film that is), hence the reason for this post. In the recent action footage I did, the director was sometime disappointed because not all the gun flashes show up on the film. Of course we all understand why, knew about this problem beforehand, but also realize we are pretty much powerless to do much about it. Machine guns and shot guns are usually all right because they have a longer lasting flash. Even though the gun guys are using special gunpowder mixes to cause longer duration flashes, handgun flashes often happen while the shutter is closed. Even if one were to do 10 takes of each shot there is no guaranty that it would work for all gun shots. Especially in a shot where the actors fires multiples shots, the chances of getting them all on the film are reduced even further the more shots are fired. It's really a toss of a coin. It sure looks odd when someone fires and you can see the recoil but no spark. Now some know it all editor told the director that using slower shutter speeds would help. Gee, some rocket scientist there, quick call the Nobel society. We were already shooting with the shutter at 180. Reducing the frame rate in order to slow shutter speed, already at 180, would diminish the chances equally, not to mention the really fast pace action shots we would get by undercranking. Old Chaplin meets Rambo :-). Anyway I told the director that this editor should stick with editing but.... that I belonged to this really good and intelligent e-mail group and that I would submit the question. Using Panavision cameras with a 200 degrees shutter would offer a marginal improvement but that would not be the solution to all.

The guys in post-production say it is a relatively simple, and commonly done, task to take a gun flash from one gun shot and copy it to another where there is no flash. That sound all right but $$$.

Daniel Villeneuve

Page 267 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Daniel...after 10 years of low budget features and half a hearing loss later...their is an answer. Creative Efx, in San Fernando CA., makes a neat line of guns which take electronic ammo charges, which are safe at any distance, even less than a foot, and produce a long duration flash. You don¹t need a pyro guy, or a gun expert, and they look good. The trade off is that the charges cost about $4 apiece, and not every gun type has been modified, and their is no chamber or moving parts which limits close ups...

Howard Wexler

Test-test-test!!! The armorer should be able to provide loads that will give you the flame effect you want. Remember the type of weapon will influence what type of muzzle flash you get. M-16's and MP-5's all use the "Hollywood" flash suppresser (a small "restrictor") in the barrel that increases the gas pressure so that the weapon will cycle with the lower pressure blanks. This would tend to reduce the amount of muzzle flash you get. There are many specialized weapon loads out there...so consult with your fav (licensed) armorer. Also, playing with the shutter angle and overcranking might give you some interesting effects. And remember safety for everyone involved. Especially with the talent and safe directions for pointing the muzzles of the weapons. The Brandon Lee incident was a tragic and senseless accident.

-bill

What you were seeing was the gun flashes running slightly out of phase with the shutter in the camera. The same thing happens when you see HMI "flicker" with magnetic ballast’s and an off speed generator or camera (or if you have really bad karma that day, BOTH.) When it is only slightly out of phase it is seen as a slow darkening and then lightening of the lamp's apparent exposure on the film. When it is more out of phase, it gets brighter and darker more quickly and appears to be more of a "flicker."

Page 268 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The rate of cycling is dependent on the "beat frequency" between the two, the camera frame rate and the flashes per second of the gun barrel flash of the HMI flash. You either need longer duration gun barrel flashes, or sync the flashing to the shutter speed.

Bill Bennett, Los Angeles

Guns with electronic flashes: Creative Efx 818 365-0655 Ammo for electronic guns: Edolmar Eng 818 365-9208 haven’t used them, but have seen it on film and they work well, with a long flash. No pyro guy, permit or fire officer needed. Only works with modified guns, currently only 9mm and a few others. About 4 bucks a pop, not including gun rental...

Howard Wexler Los Angeles

If they exist, then the folks that would have them is Stembridge gun rentals in Glendale (818/246-4333). Syd Stembridge has done just about every imaginable type of speciality guns for movies.

Bill Crow

Has anyone ever tried using radio to give these signals ? All you would need would be an opto slotted disk mechanically connected to the output shaft and two tone generators (one for open, one for closed). On a very small set you could get away with using 50.5 licence free equipment (like a baby alarm or kids walky talkies). The receiving equipment would simply be a small unit that receives the tones and interrupts the firing of the weapon when the shutter closed tone is heard. any delay in the action of the guns could be compensated simply by rotating the disk on the camera so that the shutter open signal could go out before the shutter really is open.

Page 269 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

As far as interrupting the gun goes (and I am hope no one considers this to be off topic) how did they interrupt the machine guns on first world war fighters ? This is a similar problem to ours (except that their propellers had way smaller blades than our shutters).

Justin

Obviously, the solution is the new AatonTCGun. A very accurate timecode generator on each gun, jam-synced to the camera, locks the gun's firing to shutter-open points on any Aaton camera. In addition, a timecode-controlled limiter can drop the record level of any digital recorder for the duration of the gunshot (tho many recordists prefer analog for guns). This circuit was originally designed for the Chinese military, when the Chinese Documentary Studios purchased 40 Aatons some years ago. ;-) (Actually, I would think that these guns could be wireless by now, each with a little receiver.)

Jeff Kreines

Page 270 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Infra Red

A pilot we're involved with needs to shoot a helicopter surveillance sequence that would, in real life, be shot with an electronic infrared camera. I talked to Kodak here in LA and was told that the infrared motion picture film was only available in 35mm, 150 foot lengths (2481 Black and white, or 2443 color). Has anyone had experience (hopefully recent) shooting infrared (not still photography)? Any hints or tips? And where can the film be ordered from (Kodak Hollywood doesn't deal with it)? Thanks in advance......

Mike Most

Okay, first of all you need to realize that what the infrared film sees is different than what the electronic infrared camera sees by a long shot; the High Speed Infrared peters at at 8500 A and can't deal with non- actinic sources at all. But it _does_ look different and your viewers probably won't know the difference. High Speed Infrared is available as a Graphics product and can be ordered from a Kodak Graphics dealer.... make sure you get the right perf because it comes in a bunch of goofy perforations. Don't shoot 2443 unless you have access to an ME-4 lab and are ready for a nightmare.

Scott Dorsey

Page 271 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I just shot a whole mess of the black and white infrared film (2481) last week with good success. Here's what I learned: The film is available from Sammy’s Camera in Hollywood in 150 foot lengths on "100 foot" daylight spools. (It is a 4 mil polyester base, 2 mils thinner than your usual base, so they are able to get 150 feet of the stuff onto a "100 foot" daylight spool) The company I worked for bought Sammy’s out, so you might have to wait until the next shipment comes in. You must re-spool the film on to cores in the absolute dark. You must do it slowly to avoid static, about 10 minutes per roll. You can not load the film into magazines using a loading bag on location, the cloth of the bag transmits IR energy, it will fog the film. Only a loading darkroom on a camera truck will do. Black plastic sheeting or black painted glass windows might block visible light, but will transmit IR energy and fog the film. The film must be kept at 50 degrees F or below. We put a small refrigerator on the camera truck and used dry ice in coolers for the magazines. Put a couple of layers of space blanket over the camera when you are shooting to avoid stray IR light leaks. The film's polyester base conducts IR light like a fiber optics do. You should try to load the magazine on to the camera in subdued light. The film has *no* anti-halation backing, nor does it have a gray dye in the base like the B&W films do. Any camera with a polished chrome pressure plate will *not* work. We had Clairmont Camera modify an Arri 35-3 by installing a black plated pressure plate into the camera. It worked well. You can not use the normal witness mark for focus. The infrared light falls in different plane that the visible light. We had Clairmont put special temporary IR witness marks onto a set of Zeiss prime lenses, we measured the distance then used the special IR witness mark to set the focus. The longest lens you can hope to have focus with, even with the special witness mark, is about 35mm. It is recommended to use as deep a stop as possible, at least a 5.6 or 8. We did most of our shooting with the 10 and 14mm lenses. Anything longer and you can't guarantee focus. It is almost impossible to put IR witness marks on a zoom as the new witness line needs to be in a different place for each discrete focal length. Still zoom lenses do it with a curving IR witness line off to the side of the primary witness line. You must put a Kodak Wratten 87 or 87C filter on the lens. The filter looks to the eye like *tar paper*, absolutely BLACK. Harrison and Harrison can make the filter in very short time after you request it. We got some in 2 days! You can not see through the lens with this filter on. Fortunately,

Page 272 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

B&W CCD video taps *can* see through the filter. We used a "bumble bee" video tap from Clairmont with the IR cut filter removed. Exposure is a guess, as no light meter is measuring the IR energy, only visible light, which the film does not see. I used the recommendations in the spec sheet for daylight exposures, you know, "Sun over left shoulder...., Cloudy bright...." and got good results. You can get the spec sheet from Kodak's "Fax-back" system. (800) 242-2424 the document you want is: 150602 F-13 ver. 4/96 "High speed infrared film" You call and select the document, give the system your fax number, and it sends you the tech sheets which have a lot of useful information. Since you are simulating a FLIR surveillance system, I would recommend you contact the people that make the actual airborne FLIR systems. Contact the Burbank / Glendale Police aerial support unit at Burbank Airport and get the name of their system supplier. I would bet money the manufacturer or their rep would lend you the system, and install it on the helicopter for you, in return for credit. I know that KCAL channel 9 News flew with a demo FLIR system during the big fires a couple of years back, it was a company demo system, gratis. I believe the output is NTSC video, recordable on a standard recorder. The problem you are going to have using the IR B&W film is you need to use a long lens to simulate the point of view of an airborne helicopter. It will be impossible to focus the long lens. Also, the FLIR systems see much farther into the IR spectrum than the B&W IR film does. It can truly see a hot engine through a car's hood, and the glow of a person's body hiding in a bush, something the B&W film can not do. Hope this helps.

Bill Bennett

I did some research on infrared when I still worked at Schumacher Camera (Chicago). Never shot it myself, though. Call the KODAK people. They have a bunch of literature on IR. Some of it is not in print anymore; I was able to talk the representative into making me a photocopy of some material. Here is a list of KODAK publications relating to IR film: - KODAK Infrared Films (N-17) - Pictorial use of Kodak's B/W high speed infrared film, 2481/4143 (no number) - Applied Infrared Photography (M-28)

Page 273 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

- An excerpt from the KODAK "Basic Scientific Photography" book, pages 27-30 (N-9) All these contain cross-references to other IR publications. Especially useful is M-28, since it has many examples of color IR photography in it. If you can, get the original or a color copy. Looking at a B/W photocopy of a color IR photo tells you very little. Since shooting IR is VERY different from shooting normal neg., definitely shoot tests. Also be aware that the temperature of the film can (and will) change exposure! Leaving a camera with IR film loaded in the sun will dramatically change what you are getting. When I researched IR, I asked around this board, and got an answer from Denny Clairmont: "On February l5, Marc Shipman-Mueller asked about using infrared film in motion picture cameras. Lately, Clairmont Camera has had several customers do this. There are several things that need to be done. First of all, the Kodak black and white film has no anti-halation backing and because of this, a camera with a totally black pressure plate needs to be used. This leaves the Arri 2C, the Mitchell cameras with rollers on the pressure pod and certain Eyemos. If you have a pressure pad with a shining chrome bar or anything in the picture area that is light colored, the light will pass through the film and reflect forward and be photographed. We recently had this happen with normal black & white film. You can check with Kodak but I believe only l00' daylight loads are available in 35mm black & white infrared. Remember you will need Bell and Howell perfs l866 on both sides which is the standard perfs used in most of the world. You can use infrared filters #87, 88A or 89B in front of the lens which will not let any visible light through - only infrared light. Reflex viewing on the camera will, therefore, do you no good. This filter is available from Harrison and Harrison. You can use a red #25 or RD-5 filter that will let infrared light pass through as well as visible light. Shoot a test to determine the look and exposure you're after . Infrared light is a different wave length than normal lenses have their back focus adjusted to. Most still lenses have either a red dot or some sort of a red mark near the normal witness mark and with these you should focus by eye to the normal mark and then shift the position you have focused to the red mark. If you focus by tape measure, use the red mark to set the engraved distance on the lens. A lens technician, using a collimator, could put red marks on your lenses by comparing a still lens that has the red mark with the same focal length cine-lens and, using the collimator, mark the red mark using the same back focus offset for the

Page 274 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

same focal length still lens. I would not use zoom lenses. Even though I have not tested them with infrared, I would be surprised if there wasn't focus problems. As far as heat is concerned, I don't know of any problems normal film wouldn't have. All film should be processed as soon as possible and I don't know of any problems that normal film wouldn't have. Kodak has a pamphlet on using black and white infrared film. There is color infrared film and you can get all kinds of odd colors depending on what you are photographing and the color of filter you are using. Commonly you use a yellow filter for the color film. When using black and white infrared, anything with chlorophyll in its surface photographs white (if you photograph a forest, it would appear to have snow on the trees and grass). Tungsten light has a lot of infrared light and it actually increases if you use a dimmer and dim the light. "

Marc Shipman-Mueller

Hi Everyone, Has anyone shot with Kodak's new colour infrared stock? This is the still film that can be special ordered for larger quantities for motion picture use. I know people who've talked about using it, but no one has yet. What kinds of filters work best with it? How do you rate it? What special handling issues are there to deal with when using this film in a motion picture camera? I just bought a roll of it for my still camera, and I plan on taking it out this weekend to capture the vivid autumn colours that are out now - just to test out the stuff and see what it does. Also, anyone have any experience with the new Ilford SFX B&W 'pseudo' infrared stock (motion picture-wise)? This has been floating around in my head for a while, but I've never has the chance to use the stuff. Curious,

Jeremy "F3" Benning

Page 275 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

You want a #12 yellow filter for general purpose photography, just like the older ME-4 color infrared material. The stuff does behave differently when processed in E-6, VNF, and Aerochrome chemistry, with the E-6 having the highest gamma of the lot I recommend the book "Applied Infrared Photography" available from your local Kodak dealer. Very good introduction to infrared work.

Scott Dorsey

I found the Ilford SFX extended range film to be very disappointing in terms of an infrared look (in stills), certainly compared to the "regular" true Kodak infrared B&W film. The Ilford film just gives you a little haze penetration but none of the obvious white foliage look. Their was an issue of a British still magazine a few months ago that tested various colored filters with a Kodak color infrared film. At that time I wrote a message describing the results of that test. I can't find my copy of that issue at the moment. Perhaps Geoff archived that message ... ? Recently both Otto Nemenz and Clairmont Camera had infrared shoots take equipment out of their facilities. You might check with them ... I know you need to use a black pressure plate, have an infrared focus witness mark added to your lenses. Using a 435, (or of course Panaflexes) you can use the visually opaque infrared gel filters in the camera so that you don't have to use an infrared sensitive video system to operate off of.

Mako Kowai

Page 276 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Shot some stills with it a couple of months ago. Then tried a lot of pure colored filters and wedged it a bunch. From memory, here are the results: The two best looks are with a yellow (12) filter or with no filter. All living plant life turns red so best shots are outdoors. I processed in E-6 for a very contrasty look. It is very unforgiving film. a half stop difference is pretty significant. Lastly and most frustrating is, I found no good way to determine proper exposure!?! There may be a way out there, I'll let someone else figure it out, the stuff is VERY expensive.

Eric Swenson Loading IR in the dark.

I tested the SFX 200 with the Gel in the gate of the 435 and thought that it did give a good IR effect. See the frame grabs on the website :-) Cheers

Geoff Boyle

Page 277 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 278 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Interaction with Directors

Excuse me, but I'm getting a little confused. I know that the Director of Photography is responsible for the images. And the Director the Performance. I also know that the Director of the film has approval of the frame. However isn't the image supposed to be a collaborative effort? Isn't it the job of the D.P. to contribute to the story telling process, and not just compose and light "pretty pictures"? I am really just beginning to shoot for people. I've found so far that some directors aren't really good at communicating why they want something framed a certain way. I think that inability hurts them as directors, but they are green, as am I. When we do understand each other I find that I'm more comfortable with the image, and I feel able to enhance the shot even more, in a way the director likes. I know that there are some really bad Directors, who for whatever reason won't share information with anyone, they just want it done their way with no input from anyone else. I would hope that at some level, these directors become the exception, and not the rule. Forgive me if I seem obtuse, as I said I am only working on small really independent projects, for now. I thought it was the "Directors" picture, not ours. We should have input, and so far the directors I've enjoyed working with, always were conferring with me, but if we (as DP’s or Camerapeople) don't understand the Directors aesthetic, or their reasoning on framing, then isn't it our fault as much as the directors?

Steven

All true, But many directors out there do not have complete confidence in their DP/operator or sometimes not that much, or possibly too much, confidence in them selves. It is usually more touchy the first few days

Page 279 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

with a new director but after a short while I find that understanding of each other's requirements and trust is easily established. If a director still does not trust an obviously capable DP/operator after a few days I thinks he is the one with the problem. I worked a quite a while back with a director. He was a very nice guy but from his behavior and attitude on the set we could tell that if he could have done all the shoot all by myself and take all the credit, he would have. He was endlessly making, mostly, unwarranted comments about framing, getting really technical with the lighting aspects and generally getting on everyone's nerves. Directors who don't understand and develop the sense that it's a team effort based on fluid communications between a few key players will never be fully happy with their results and make everyone miserable in the process. Just as DPs have to understand the complicity between themselves the grips, electric’s and AC's.

Daniel Villeneuve

IMHO: As far as Producers and the financial guys in suits are concerned it is the Director who is ultimately responsible for the film in its entirety. Provided he/she has a reasonable degree of inherent trust in the DP, a wise Director will work to form a collaborative relationship. The resulting films tend to be just that much stronger. However, when all is said and done, it is important to remember that any flaws in the resulting film will be attributed to the Director first and foremost. The best Directors have a solid command of all cinematic tools including lens selection, composition, camera movement & the application of lighting in a dramatic or comedic sense. When a Director has been saddled with a DP he/she has little faith in, the Director would be performing an act of professional suicide, and would be negligent in his/her responsibilities to the Producers and financiers, by failing to take control of these issues.

Page 280 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It seems to me that the optimum situation is always one where the Director and DP have established significant trust in each other overtime. In the real world however Directors and DPs are constantly working at forging new relationships and that's one of the more interesting aspects of the business. There is usually something new you can learn about your craft from the other guy!

Mike Siegel

Of course it is a collaborative effort - that's part of the fun, if you enjoy interaction with people. There are no real exact boundaries, except that most directors do not get involved in technical detail relating to cinematography (like taking meter readings - but I'm sure someone has met an exception.) While the D.P. is responsible for the image, the director is responsible for the whole movie - which includes the image. So we work for the director. But there are as many types of directors as there are people. Some have little skill in visual storytelling - and some think they do, but don't. Ozzie Morris once spoke about the two types of directors that he's worked with: the one that leaves a lot up to the cinematographer and the one who controls every aspect of the production. He said both types can be enjoyable (more enjoyable with the first type), but if the second type is very artistic, very intelligent, and well-prepared, it can be more rewarding experience. Certainly John Alcott learned a lot when he worked for Kubrick, even if he also liked NOT working for Kubrick so that he could apply what he had learned on other films. I would love to do a movie with a director that was such a visual genius that I could learn something from him. The reality is that I've met very few good directors, at least on the visual end. But as long as they are talented with actors and writers, and are well-prepared yet flexible, then I don't mind being more in control of the visuals. Ultimately, it's the director's movie. I want him or her to be proud of the final product and feel that it represents their personal vision.

Page 281 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Hopefully, my aesthetics will coincide with the director's and I can feel that the final film represents my vision also. If we absolutely don't see things the same way, then maybe he should have hired someone else. I can bend my approach to suit most directors, but if I'm absolutely convinced that his ideas are wrong and damaging, then I have to tell him. If he can't justify his decisions to me, then I start thinking about how to get off the film. But I haven't had to do that yet - I'm pretty good at talking to directors and coming to a consensus.

David Mullen

Well, nearly. I agree with what you say. But some directors are amazingly poor at communicating what they want, and you practically have to be telepathic. Also I believe that not a few directors don't really know what they want until they see it. In this case even telepathy can't help you - something more akin to clairvoyance is what is required! But I always try and draw out as much as I can in terms of visual reference, be it film, photography, paintings, graphic art, comics, anything, before starting to shoot, and trying to deduce and construct some sort of aesthetic for the project, if nothing more cut and dried is offered up. What pleases me most is when I do this and the director approves, or if I can improve(in their terms) on a visual aesthetic which has already been defined. I do think that there really isn't much point in trying to shoot in a style of which they disapprove. This generally leads to much argument and sometimes early retirement! I think you can try to move them in a particular direction if you truly believe the project merits and warrants it, but you *must* convince them by argument as well as example.

Page 282 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

But I think most directors engage DoP's (and operators, here in the UK) on the basis of what they can bring to a project in terms of a visual aesthetic. Even if they have a strong vision to start with, the DoP, camera operator(if he/she is allowed) art department, actors, in fact anyone on a set where contributions are encouraged, can enhance the aesthetic. For me, co-operation and discussion is very important, and although I've done my fair share as a 'dolly jockey', I much prefer projects where there is an intelligent and co-operative attitude towards the work in hand. Where this atmosphere prevails, no-one feels discouraged from making suggestions, and knows they'll be seriously considered and used(or not) if they are in the best interests of the film.

Chris

Page 283 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 284 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Invoices

What length of time is standard from sending off an invoice to receiving payment?

How long would you generally wait before getting back in touch? What would you then do, send another invoice, a polite phone call...?? Any thoughts and ideas appreciated. --- Rab Harling

When I send in an invoice, it depends on whether it was for equipment I rented or for services rendered. For equipment rented I usually try to get payment in full upon return of the equipment. Most companies I deal with are ok with this. For those that aren't, I give them the requisite 30 days net. For services rendered (model making, rigging, etc) it's usually 1/3 up front, 1/3 upon delivery, 1/3 in 30 days. Again most companies are ok with this relatively standard time schedule.

Ok, so for the other bad boy companies that take their time..... I've found that a phone call after 1 months time almost always gets the check out. I will ask them at that time ""when can I expect the check"" and if I sense something amiss I'll ask for some honesty with ""is there a problem with the invoice"". For well run professional companies paying bills is done on time.... it's just good business to maintain good working relations with your suppliers and they know it.... they stop paying I find because they themselves have a financial problem.

Page 285 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

And then again there are, always have been and probably always will be those companies who seem to do everything they can to keep your money as long as they can. I think their philosophy goes something like this.....

Why pay to piss someone off when you can do it for free.

Peter Weiss

Justin’s guide to getting your money and sitting on it ... Invoice ... (stating 30 days, make sure you have all the info on it) after 30 days ... call up very nice and friendly ask ""Did I invoice you for such and such a job ?"" Make out that it could possibly be your fault. Of course it won't be BUT you can make sure. 1. They have your invoice 2. It has been signed off by the producer. 3. See no2 above .. you therefore have no dispute with the producer. as long as there is no dispute. You can politely remind them that the account is overdue and could they please pay it quickly. If there is still no cheque after another 5 working days.

Then you can reasonably call them up and ask why you haven't been paid. If you fancy the hassle then you can ask when it would be convenient to come and collect the cheque. If you don't want to actually go and collect the cheque ... (which I think is a pretty sad state of affairs anyway.) Then a letter form the Union usually helps a bit.

If all these fail ... then basically your relationship with the production company is over.

Justin

Page 286 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

A good move is to ask the production accountant/manager up front, what are their terms regarding contractors invoices. Thirty days is a reasonable amount of time to have elapsed before making enquiries I feel - after that, maybe fax off a copy of the original with a friendly reminder written across it.

Another idea is to call and say that you're not certain if you mailed it to them which happens more as I get older ;-) and to check to make sure it's in their system. Here's a good moment to drop a reminder.

BTW, I called an accountant at a particular production office yesterday to ask about an invoice that is more than 79 days overdue. She told me that she will be opening the office mail shortly, and if any cheques have come in for them, she will try and pay me in the next two weeks. This not the way it is most of the time I'm pleased to say.

PdV

I usually invoice a production company on a thirty day basis, with the following tag line featured prominently on the bottom of the invoice: Invoice is payable and due upon receipt. Invoices not paid by XX/XX/XX (30 days after invoice date) will be subject to a 10% (ten percent) service charge of $XX.XX. Then, if I don't receive the cash by the end of thirty days, I simply call the prod. co. and ask about the invoice they received... and when they hem and haw, I simply fax off a new invoice with the additional service charge attached... works every time... The easiest defence in this situation is to say, look, if you didn't pay your phone bill on time, would the phone company let you float for a few more days free? just my $.02 phil

Page 287 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I now do most of my work on payroll rather than invoice, but when I do invoice for my services I generally invoice separately for expenses as ""due on receipt"" and for my services ""net 30 days"" with a penalty of 1 1/2% per month after that, which I believe is the max allowable here in the USA

At 30 days I generate another invoice showing the new total which usually scares up a check for the original total. I don't push to get the 1.5 %...I know I am unique, but most producers consider my services to be a commodity they can purchase any number of places and I cannot afford to scream about 1.5% and lose the client's good will. Every once in a while a client who has not paid in the first 30 days just pays the penalty without protest. weird!

Mark

It is not the end-all to timely payment problems, but I am a firm believer in the art of the Deal Memo, no matter what kind of project you are working on.

If you have an Agent it is the agent's job to ensure these bases are covered.

If you don't have an agent, there is no reason why you can't draft an acceptable Deal Memo yourself. This also allows you to document other addenda such as per diem, release of your work, travel, contingencies, etc. (all of which are of course negotiable). In my experience, it is always best to address these issues up front. If an employer doesn't agree with terms and payment schedules, the contract gives them an added impetus to address the issues before the job begins. sample Deal Memo point:

3………..I will bill by invoice, and first half payment is due upon completion of photography, final half payment will be made on or before . . . .

-Mark Simon

Page 288 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I am afraid that the companies that owe me money from long jobs all had deal memos...they don't contest that they owe me the money...they just claim that they don't have any.

I have not experienced a difference in problems getting paid between my ""handshake"" jobs and my ""Deal Memo"" jobs. For the years that I worked in NY as a gaffer I did a lot of short jobs for which I would show up with a crew and a grip truck based solely on a conversation with a UPM I didn't know, a faxed call sheet, and a faxed copy of a proof of insurance from the production company.

The vast majority of the clients we met this way paid us on time (or nearly so) and called us again, and many recommended us to their friends. While I am not suggesting that a Deal Memo is in any way a bad thing, and while I firmly believe that getting the terms of an agreement down on paper can circumvent much adrenaline-raising disputation later, I want to caution anyone against the mistaken belief that a piece of paper will get you paid when they don't want to pay you...contracts work well with parties that are honest with each other and not so well otherwise. I will say that when it starts feeling funny and you start hearing plausible excuses for why checks are bouncing or not showing up, you are probably about to get screwed. I have only ever bounced one check in my entire life, and that was a bank error not mine. I have only had one payment check bounce on me that was immediately rectified...in every other case there were long, drawn-out scenarios surrounding our finally getting our money.

I used to worry about the perception of not ""trusting"" producers who had good excuses...I now figure that at the point that I am not paid on time or paid with a bad check, the producer has lost any claim on my trust whatsoever...I probably won't work with him or her again anyway, and I am more interested in getting my money, my crew's money, and my company money than I am about inadvertently insulting a producer by causing him or her to lose face.

Page 289 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

There is a real problem with small production companies which often get stuck in a cash-poor situation because they have to pay us and their big behemoth of a client is late in paying them. Notorious 400lb (182kg) gorillas in my past include AT&T, IBM, GM, and Bell Telephone. My feeling has always been that if a producer is up front about the fact that they can't pay me until they deliver the product and I agree to do the job, so be it. If they complain later to me about this problem I have no sympathy. I always end up explaining that my suppliers and landlords won't cut me any slack and etc etc etc blah blah blah.

Mark Weingartner

PS My apparent ""sloppiness"" in going to work without a signed deal memo has been pointed out as an indication of my naivete and hopeless optimism about human nature in general and producers in particular. On balance I do not think I have been burned any more than my more suspicious ""negative"" co-workers have ...but my naive view of the world is easier on me. :-)

It is not uncommon for a contractor to bill 1.5% per month (18% annual) interest for late payment in excess of 30 days on a 30 day net invoice. This is no different than what a doctor or dentist would charge on a late bill. As an ""employee"" on a time card (in the US) technically the employer has 24 hours to pay for services rendered. Typically one week grace is given until the Thursday or Friday on the following week, allowing the employer of record adequate time to process payroll. The bottom line is if an employer can't pay in a timely manner the only thing you can do is make sure you are covered contractually if you need to press the matter from a legal standpoint. Generally, a producer will not sign a deal memo if they anticipate a problem paying you in a timely manner. I can almost guarantee that they won't book you on a Pay or Play unless they have been awarded a job and have firm confirmation on the dates.

-Mark Simon

Page 290 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

this topic is interesting. The thought occurs to me wondering why we don't start taking Visa and MasterCard.

Here's the idea....

Sign a deal memo outlining the exact payment for the shoot. The deal memo should have on it the credit card number of the person who is paying. Before the shoot call the credit card company to verify the card is good. After the shoot, simply submit the card number for payment. If the producer balks then you have the deal memo to back up your side of the story.

Drawbacks are a bit more delay in payment and a credit card surcharge as a vendor. But if you are stuck with folks not paying or paying several months late then this might be a way to solve the problem. I'm seeing a bunch of corporations who are beginning to REQUIRE that their vendors accept credit cards as payment.

-JR Allen

Page 291 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 292 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Jokes

Once we had a 1st who kept borrowing others tools. Arrgh! We took his measuring tape(a steel 25' ) and trimmed it to 7'. He goes speeding off and BAM. Like a Trout in a stream.

Does anyone else have some good Practical jokes? I pull out a few if I think the time is right. I have an exploding sharpie pen....perfect for that tense moment on a lowbudget movie. Also, a pretty good looking Prime lens made out of PVC plumbing parts, painted black with lens markings and loaded up with Plexiglas "lens" parts.

Great to drop and freak everyone out. Not for every gig of course... Anyone else?

Kurt Rauf

Please excuse the run-on sentence that follows, it's necessary for the mood of the gag. I've found that if you take about 3 feet of raw stock, tape the ends together to form a loop (emulsion side out), then tuck about 6 inches of the taped part inside the lower part of a mag Barney so the loop of about 1 foot dangles from the mag, and then tell the assistant that you heard strange noises during the last take, you should be prepared to call 911 or know CPR.

Page 293 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

An alternate take is to just do it and then stand back and observe as it's discovered. I've noted that the standard response is for the A.C. to first look around to see if anyone else noticed it, then pull the Barney.

Jerry (give and take) Wolfe

P.S., this is not recommended if your A.C. is large/vengeful/the producers kid.

When I was a loader, the focus puller on a film decided to have some fun on April Fool's day. The cameraman was in on the game and went with it. I was instructed to load 100' of gash stock into the take-up side of a 535 mag and keep this mag at hand on set. After the first scene of the day was in the can, there was a reload and the focus puller was checking the gate. Quietly he pulled the mag of exposed film off the camera and replaced it with my mag of gash. Nobody on set was paying attention as they were all thinking about the next scene; that is until the focus puller started having difficulty with the camera. As he was clearly struggling with the film in the gate, the cameraman, 1st Ad, directors (they were twins) started crowding around concerned that there might be a problem with the difficult scene we had just filmed. Just as the tension was reaching its peak, the focus puller feigned losing his grip and knocked the loosened catch on the mag allowing all the 'exposed' film to come spooling out onto the set floor. Everyone turned to me in horror and I had to admit that that was the already exposed film lying in a pathetic heap on the floor. The expressions on the directors' and actors' faces are ones that I will take to my grave with me. Fortunately as we were already five weeks into the shoot and everybody was very happy with the results so far, the joke was taken with good humour.

Tim Palmer

Page 294 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I once taped the clapper closed on a sound take in response to some practical jokes going around. It was an intense bar fight on a smoked set, with Kevin Bacon and another guy all wet down for sweat and posed in punches for the close ups. Camera rolled and "marker" was called. But the slate was taped shut and wouldn't open. Camera was cut and my friend and I laughed at the embarrassed 2nd AC pulling the tape off the slate. The director got ticked and asked us to leave the set and when we went outside we encountered the sound man with his speakers up full and about 100 locals listening to the entire scene. We were a little embarrassed. But the next day Mary Steenburgen, who was producing the film, came up and told me she was very upset with me. Expecting to be reamed out, I started to apologize when she said she was upset that we didn't let her in on the joke beforehand. She thought it was very funny and from now on to let her know of any good practical jokes going on. They're fun but often at someone's expense. One must be careful. Regards,

Jim S.

OK . . . . here's a few more. When I was a Second AC once while slating, I accidentally knocked a burning cigar our actor's mouth. Just about the time I was feeling two inches tall, the First AC turns to me and says, "Don't worry about it, I knocked a bottle of ink into William Holdens lap once!" God Bless Ya, Pete Kuttner! The best and cruellest trick ever played on a Best Boy by his Gaffer (I know I have told this before) . . . . While at lunch, the Gaffer puts one of those clip-on reflector units that you generally put a standard screw in light bulb into behind every HMI in the studio. The rub is . . . in every one of the clip-ons, he screws in one of those magnesium flash bulbs that look like standard household bulbs (you know, the ones that cost about 10 bucks a piece). We get back to the set from lunch, and the AD yells, "We're Back, Light'm Up." The Best Boy throws the master bull switch, and it looks like he has blown every globe in the house in the process, drops to his knees like a lightning bolt and pulls out his meters . . . you can guess what the expression was when he figured out the joke was on him.

Page 295 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Last one . . . a grip falls asleep on the set wearing his sun glasses. His fellow grips seizing the opportunity, slip his glasses off and covers the lenses with black tape, and put them back on him . . . still asleep, the Key Grip hollers, "Will someone PLEASE get me a C-stand!" I swear he thought he was blind for an instant. –

Mark Simon

A friend of mine once had a fellow doing a "Making Of" of his shoot who had the habit of leaving the video "Making Of" camera on the floor in a corner where he thought it was out of the way and going off for a cup of coffee. During one of these absences, the special effects guy glued a black tape onto the video lens in the shape of a crack. When the guy came back and turned on the camera to shoot, he was appalled. However, instead of looking at the lens, he put his finger on and had the misfortune to miss the tape. He then proceeded in panic to white and black balance the camera, try all of the camera filters, the genlock and phase buttons and anything else that could be pushed on the camera. Every so often, the DoP would wander by and shake his head in "consternation". Finally, after about 15 minutes of agony, he noticed that some members of the crew were having trouble trying to hide their laughter. Then it finally occurred to him to check the front of the lens.

Bruce Douglas

Meanest trick I've heard of. 1st AC friend of mine goes into the darkroom during lunch and notices loaded/exposed mag sitting on table to be downloaded. He downloads the mag and crams a bunch of film from the scrape bin into the mag. Retapes the magazine so that it looks still loaded. The loader comes back after lunch with the most sheepish look on his face.

Bret

Page 296 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I heard this one from a Gaffer who said he used to work at the old General Camera. A Panaflex mag comes back at the end of a feature with the word "chatters" in big red letters on camera tape stuck to the mag. As soon as the check-in techs open the magazine they hear the chattering noise. It is a pair of those wind up teeth, chattering away.

Steven Gladstone

When I was a student I had the opportunity to watch Ivan Strasburg light a shoot with Mike McShane (a very large Canadian comedian). Half way through the afternoon the gaffer brought me a polaroid camera, of the sort that feed the picture out of the front as soon as the picture is taken, and told me that the make up artist had asked him to take a still of Mr McShane, but that he didn't feel he had the necessary photographic skill to do the job properly, and would I mind? Of course I was only too pleased to help, and so I took the camera and asked Mr McShane to come and stand in the light to get a good likeness. Just before I took the picture the gaffer reminded me that the picture needed to be a biggish close-up, so I leant a little closer and pressed the button. Out of the camera, right in Mr McShane's face appeared a big close up alright, but of the gaffer's hairy, and very white, arse. Mr McShane looked closely at it for a couple of seconds before muttering "Damn, these British makeup artists can't do anything right. The script says I'm supposed to have a tan."

Chris Merry

One day when I was an AC, I was prepping a camera at a rental house, and my second came in to load the mags for the next day. The prep tech at the rental house thought he was being cute when he told the 2nd that there was a really bad light leak in the darkroom after she loaded all the mags. So living up to the old adage of don't get mad . . . get even, I thought I would get him with the gag light meter routine which was half of a ping pong ball glued to black foam rubber, the spitting image of a

Page 297 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Spectra. Seizing the just the right moment, his back to me while he was writing up the order, I yelled, "hey Joe, can you hold on to this for me?" I proceeded to toss the meter in the air.

He turns with astonishment and drops the 6X6 filter he is holding, which of course shatters into a million pieces.

It turns out that the filter was sub rented, and I had to call Denny Clairmont and explain how the filter got broken . . . $250 later, the joke was on me, and that was the last time anyone ever saw the most expensive gag light meter!

-Mark Simon

I once did a picture with a DP who shot an excessive amount of Polaroid’s for every scene in the movie. Bored with this practice, I took a white showcard and wrote in big bold letters *TRY 2.8* . . . I underexposed it by a stop and left it in the camera so he would double expose it when making his evaluation . . . he wasn't amused, but it was rather funny at the time! -

Mark Simon

Page 298 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

One of our favorite tricks is to take the pocket "happy snap" camera, foolishly left lying about by one of the married crew members. You "borrow' it whilst the said crew member is otherwise busy, and sneak off behind the set to run off some quick snaps of a willing female crewmember's breasts and arse, no face, of course. Then you sneak the camera back into the rightful owner's place of safekeeping. Then you wait, giggling at the thought of him asking his wife, "Honey, while you are out, could you please pick up the processing I dropped off yesterday?" And of course you know she is going to check out the photos on the way home! Great fun! Best to be off the set on a run for whatever, when he arrives the morning after!

Bill Bennett

When I visit sets these days, it all seems to be long faces, with the fear that if anyone actually has the temerity to laugh or to be happy, he will be sacked on the spot. A few practical joke from the past: When I started in the labs (well in the sound dept actually) I was sent off to stores for a Long Weight. Now I knew that weights were hung on the side of the processing machines to maintain correct tension so I naturally assumed that I had been sent to collect one of these. So I waited, and waited, and waited..... I was victim No. 35 on this one! On a BBC drama series, there was one particular actor who insisted on always looking through the camera, much to the annoyance of the DP. We cured this one by closing the shutter and smearing the eyepiece with black makeup. Obviously, he couldn’t see a thing so I explained that you had to rotate the eyepiece to open the shutter.... He went through a complete rehearsal, no realising while the whole crew - including the director - were killing themselves laughing at him. A couple of sound ones (well, we all work together, don't we?) We were shooting a film of a lecture given by the late Sir Alexander Pilkington (of the Pilkington Glass Works - a huge British company) After the main shoot we asked the client to help us out with a buzz track. We carefully explained that we needed a continuous sound to go into the background and smooth over any edit points. So far, so good. The sound recordist then got him to don a lapel mic and make a buzzing sound, thus 'Buzzzzzzzz' Naturally, he wan't having it, he knew us only too well! So I explained to him that we weren't kidding, that the sound would be put through a pink noise filter to randomise it. Being a Scientist he fell for it

Page 299 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

hook, line and sinker! There he stood, in the middle of the lecture theatre going 'Buzzzzz' for all he was worth. But the recordist shook his head, 'No, it needs to go up higher.' Our client immediately got the picture and proceeded to Buzz one octave higher. 'Cut!' By now, I chirped in the fact that Sir Alister had been on a stage (since struck) and that the echoes were therefore different. So we then had the client standing on a chair, buzzing away, blissfully unaware that the crew were creeping out of the room! Only two other comments, this is quite true, and for some unexplained reason, none of us have worked for Pilkington Glass ever since.

Brian Rose

Page 300 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Krasnagorsk

I have been seeing ads for a K-3 16mm camera for really cheap and am now wondering if it is a semi good camera for the low price of below $1000. My budget is really limited and I am wondering if I should get that camera or wait and save my money for later when I can afford another camera.

Mathias Elgh

I think that the K3 is the same Russian made camera I saw in Moscow last year. I had a look at one there, they were asking something like $100 for it, it looks a lot like the old Bolex's but not as well built. Haven't seen any film shot with one. You have to wonder who will fix it when/if it breaks and if parts will be available, considering the state of the Russian economy. I'd wait till I had more money for something more well known and proven.

James Neihouse

Page 301 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

There's a group called Reel Trading in New York that sells and repairs them. The packages they sell are several hundred dollars, but they have been modified to eliminate a faulty autoloading system and properly calibrated. Reel Trading has a Web page: http://www.concentric.net/~Jdq/reeltrading.htm It seems that very few of the cameras are properly calibrated out of the factory, and they jam easily unless they've been modified. Once the modification is done, you have the equivalent of a decent reflex Bolex, without the same lens options (it has a different screw mount--I'm not sure what it is). I've used it myself, but if I were buying a camera in that range, I would rather have a Bolex.

Chris Ray

I couldn't agree more about the Bolex....I have been to Hell and back a dozen times with a Bolex, and they have never let me down yet....

Kevin Bassett

Surely agreed. The Bolex _is_ my favorite camera for short-run MOS work. I really am impressed with the quality of workmanship on the things, enough that a good one is more stable than some pin-registered cameras I have owned. Admittedly, though, most of the lenses being used with them are pretty dreadful, and the prism arrangement makes it impossible to for me to use many of my favorite lenses. But seeing that you can find a Bolex Reflex for less than $500, it's hard to beat it.

Page 302 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Skip the Krassie, and get me some Sovcolor stock! Is anyone importing the Agfa-style stocks from the eastern bloc, and arranging processing for them? Until about ten years ago, you could get the Agfa reversal stocks and chemistry still, but when the reversal market died they pulled out. A shame, as the ball-and-chain coupler chemistry always gave me a very clean and subtle pastel shading that I miss.

Scott Dorsey

Page 303 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 304 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Latensification

Hypersensitizing doesn't give you much of a film speed increase, but it does give you a vast reduction in reciprocity failure. This is a big issue if you are photographing comets with hour-long exposures and clockwork pointing mechanisms, but it doesn't buy you much at 24 fps. There are all sorts of different recipes.... a pressurized hydrogen/helium mixture is popular, as are mercury vapor and ammonia. Each have advantages and disadvantages but none of them really are useful for cine work.

--Scott

I've based this on a piece by David Vestal and Ralph Steiner from a forthcoming book. Their line is that the only way to keep the threshold exposure low enough is to do it very very slowly, and, of course, only after exposure -- never before. 7 to 15 minutes, 10 feet from a very very dark (they suggested a green safelight filter over a 7.5w bulb with a black mask. Then there is the other technique, Concurrent Photon Amplification, which was discussed in Pop Photo in the 70s. Involved tiny tiny lamps at the film plane that exposed the film right as you shot. I actually built this into a CP for testing, which showed promise, but since we were able to shoot 7250 instead of 7247 for the film in question, it became a moot point. I believe that Deluxe General's AL400 system was just a big room with rollers and a dim lamp, that the film cruised through on its way to the processing machine. Anyone here ever use it? >Also, anyone know anything about hypersensitising? It's a technique of >exposing the rawstock before exposure to a gas (Helium?). A colleague >tried it to shoot Halley's comet some years back. But the comet was such >a fizzer, all the helium in the world couldn't help.

Page 305 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It is written up in many Astronomy magazines, but the problem is that the film must be loosely wound, so cine film is a problem. It's done with gas (forget which, but not helium) and in the old days it was done with - - eek! -- mercury vapors. Apparently it works well, but must be done in advance. Also, might not keep well after hyping. Anyone else have other info?

Jeff "hyped up himself" Kreines

The gas is Hydrogen. There was an article in Scientific American Magazine in the late 70's (???) which described the process. I tried it at the time with some B&W emulsion - and can say that it works....but was more bother than it was worth.

Paul Gaffney

I was recently told that it takes Three photons to Activate a grain of silver. Of course this has to be a generalization as Film ( color film anyway) is made up of ten different layers. with three different layers for for each of the colors. A slow , medium, and fast. Latensification sounds like just an extremely low level flash. Is it only for Black and white? Does there make a difference Pre or Post exposure?

Steven ( Nit picking over three photons) Gladstone

Page 306 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

If it gets much less than 3, we'll have the quantum physicists after us.

Never mind about the speed of each layer. The faster emulsion layers have larger grains in them (strictly crystals of AgBr, not grains yet). Being larger, they present a larger surface area to the stream of photons, and collect more direct hits sooner. 6 (or 3) photons is enough for any crystal, however big. That's why fast films are grainier. I've learnt (since my last posting, and thanks to Walls & Attridge, Basic Photo Science, Focal Press) that latensification in normal photography is done _after_ the image exposure. The long duration of 15-30 mins at very low intensity takes advantage of reciprocity failure to minimise the fogging effect. 6 photons in less than a second will expose a grain: 6 (or even more) photons in half an hour won't, as the effect of the first one has decayed before the last one arrives. So unexposed film isn't fogged at all. However, slightly exposed film already has a few photon captures recorded, so it only takes a couple more to start the image effect. But in practice, how effective is it? Anyone know?

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

Explain this to me. As I understood it, what flashing does essentially is that it raises the toe of you curve into the latitude, as a straight horizontal line at, say, 3 1/2 under within the appropriate exposure time (pre OR post). I have post-flashed before, but never pre-flashed. I can't understand why, in theory, pre wouldn't do the same. Flashing in basically a double-exposure so what does it matter the order in which both exposures are taken? In theory, pre and post should yield the exact same result. No?

Serge Marcotte.

Page 307 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Apparently it does work. Gives perhaps 2 stops speed gain with no additional grain, which is why I am interested. You should do a little test... and tell us all!

--Jeff "that's low LIGHT, not low life" Kreines

I have Pre flashed, I never Post flash. this is based on tests done with stills. I felt that Post flashing brought out more grain, even though they were flashed the same amount. The nice thing about the stills, was that by happy accident, I had offset the frames and so only half of each frame was flashed.

Flashed some 7277 in a test once with an extremely low level of CTB ( Accidentally, I meant for a higher flash). The shoot was tungsten balanced. Gave the film a really nice snap though. Much nicer than unflashed, and certainly better than the heavier flashes.

Steven Gladstone

It's not the same thing as flashing at all. Flashing increases the base fog and shortens the dynamic range. See Dominic Case's excellent explanation to understand how Latensification works -- it's the slow exposure that permits the photons to accumulate and kick over those grains that have gotten some exposure.

Jeff Kreines

Page 308 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Gentlemen, have been following this thread. Thanks for dredging this one up Jeff K. and thanks for following it down Dominic- anyone know of a lab that offers this procedure currently? 2 stops with no fog. But only in the lower blacks, toe, (ZONES 1-2?) I wonder what this looks like... anyone suggest a film known to have undergone this process for a video rent look see?

Caleb "no plans to build a lab anytime soon" Crosby

Sounds intriguing, OK for stills, but not really practical for motion picture. Also, I worked out the exposure, it's a normal fogging light plus a 4.60ND filter. (That's a stack of 5 x ND9s then a bit more). That's about as dark as my darkroom anyway. The calculation's there, free for anyone who wants to try. Dominic Case Atlab Australia

My e-mail has been fouled up for the past 2-1/2 days (local problem) and as a result it can't read out a good number of the posts that are in the In box, including several on the latensification thread. So someone else may have covered the following: These are some gleanings on the subject taken from C. B. Neblett's book, PHOTOGRAPHY PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES, a 1942 edition (these techniques seemed to have been more widely attempted back in those days, due to limited emulsion speeds.) Neblette: Hypersensitizing was done with ammonia, ammoniacal silver chloride, mercury, or exposure to a weak source for a period of 30 min. to 1 hr. after exposure in the camera. In the case of the ammoniacal silver chloride, plates were immersed for 2 min. at 65 F, & dried as quickly as possible w/o heat. Speed increase was 2x to 7x, depending upon the emulsion; slower emulsions showed greater effect than did faster emulsions. Treated films would keep only a day or two before fog began to show.

Page 309 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Exposure to mercury after exposure for 20 to 30 hours at room temp. increased speed 2x - 2-1/2x varying with emulsion type; some emulsions didn't respond at all. Bathing an exposed emulsion in a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide for a few minutes at room temp. increased the speed, but it varied with the emulsion and the pH, so it was impractical. After exposure in the camera, an exposure of 30 to 60 min. to light of such an intensity as to produce a fog density of approx. 0.2 increased the speed 2x to 4x. The effect was greater on slow emulsions than on faster ones, and contrast was reduced, so greater development was needed. The speed increase was NOT obtained with shorter times of exposure at greater intensity levels, nor if done before camera exposure. Again, these are of 1942 vintage. They would seem to be of limited value today, in view of the fast emulsions and special processes available.

--Wade Ramsey

>At 15 minutes per frame exposure? Well, on a tall continuous rack in its own room, with lights on both sides, the throughput wouldn't be all that bad. That's how I'm building mine, if I ever do. (The room is built... but it's become a bit of a storage area...) Brings to mind a lab that decided to do flashing the cheapo way. The built a chamber onto their processing machine. It did work, but the speed variances led to exposure variances...

Jeff "someday someday" Kreines

Jeff, thanks for the vote of do-ability on latensifying. The way I figured it if you ran frame one thru the box at a governed speed and arranged an equitable light path for the train to follow- it could travel steadily- if not quickly. (like you say some height would be important- but that would create a prob. with the even light path. yes?) Ideally, I guess it would be long and flat, like a stretched railcar and go thru several successive boxes up or down along a wall. say 20 18" X 18" boxes stacked atop each other - each about what? 50 feet long? depending on what you had more of to spare, headroom or carpet area.

Page 310 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The flat design would let the light be on top (and bottom) and remain even- speed then would just be a function of travel duration. low powered fluorescent tubes would seem ideal. either that or lots of sockets. I'm just speculating but why would this take any longer than the process bath? just have to make plenty of long boxes that are wired and light proof- or light proof the room. Either that or a centrally located lab, preferably in Ohio, could install junction boxes (really long 18 x 18's) that follow the phone lines out to several states- and we could feed our underexposed footage right out of the changing bag into a spigot type thingo that would latensify the film en route (kind of a slow boat to Ohio type deal) and the lights could be on dimmable system depending on the mileage incurred. One easy swipe of the bank card and... wait, isn't there any way to latensify IN POST??

Vote Crosby in '98 "a lab on every block."

I'm just speculating but why would this take any longer than the process bath? You're right - it wouldn't. I'm just intrigued by the low light levels required - enough NOT to fog film in 15 or 30 minutes. I reckon (real back of an envelope stuff here) that a _single_ 100W tungsten lamp would do the job in ten minutes at a distance of ten metres with a 3.00ND filter. (That's black with a capital B). Smaller chamber, more filters needed. Any light leak would spell disaster! Easier to buy a faster film stock :-)

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

Page 311 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The still people use a 7.5W light bulb, in a safelight housing, at 10 feet. But there are smaller bulbs than that... And there ISN'T a faster stock! We're talking available darkness!

Jeff "make mine toe" Kreines

>just have to make plenty of long boxes that are wired and light proof- or >light proof the room. Mine is a room 15 feet long, 4 feet wide. Rollers in the center, very dim lamps at each end. Depending on whether it's 16mm or 35mm, up to 48 strands, 8 feet tall, so, that's nearly 800 feet of exposed surface footage. At a 15 minutes exposure, the speed would be 53 feet per minute. My racks probably will be shorter, but it's not that bad. This is a personal lab, not looking to run a lot of volume. Boxes isn't a great idea, because you really need some serious distance between the lamp and bulb. In my case, I was folding the path -- lamp right near the film, facing away from the film, bouncing off a wall and back, for a nicely diffuse light source from an effective distance of 14 feet or so. I'll try and test it, at least with short strips, in the next 3 months.

Jeff "darkness on the edge of town" Kreines

Years ago, Neblette claimed fast stocks didn't show much improvement, compared to slower stocks. Interesting to see if that still holds true with fast Vision stocks! If 79 can be exposed at EI 2000 or so with no increase in grain, someone better go into business latensifying it!

Wade Ramsey

Page 312 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Mattes

A friend called me up yesterday and asked me to post this question. What happens exactly if you were to put a matt over a lens that was smaller than the front element ? Not small enough to vignette but large enough to obscure part of the front element from receiving any light ?

Justin

I've also heard that all glass has a certain amount of flare, thus reducing contrast depending on how much light hits it's surface. Using hard mattes will reduce the light hitting the front element, affecting contrast differently depending on lens / matte combo.

Dave Trulli

In my assisting days, I spoke with several well established firsts (read: 'ol timers) who said that they never used these mattes because it would suck light away from the lens itself. I myself wouldn't use anything tighter than a 75mm matte for this reason. Was I too paranoid, maybe. But one of these guys told me he did tests that confirmed this light loss. Of course, we're talking a third of a stop at most so...

Ken Glassing

Page 313 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Artificial Diaphragm. Like Matting out the front of a 200mm Nikkor, it would act as an additional Iris, and underexpose your image, also out of focus highlights would change shape to match that of the matte, at least that's what I understand to happen.

Steven Gladstone

Steven is correct in saying a small matt will act as a reducing diaphragm, reducing the exposure reaching the film. This is assuming that the matt "smaller than the lens diameter" is virtually against the lens' front element. If it is far enough forward to begin taking shape it is simply a small matt.

Wedding photographers often have used the effect Steven mentioned, that out of focus bright objects tend to take the shape of the diaphragm. They will make a heart-shaped or cross-shaped diaphragm, place it against the front of the lens, then shoot a closeup of the couple with out of focus candles burning in the background. The candle flames will take the shape of a heart or a cross.

A related curiosity occurs during an eclipse of the sun. As the sun's disk is partially obscured, becoming a crescent, foliage on the trees become diaphragms and the spots of sunlight reaching the sidewalk are crescent shaped.

--Wade Ramsey

Page 314 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Anything that reduces the front aperture reduces the stop.

Focal length divided by aperture gives you F stop.

Reduce aperture.....reduce F stop.

Period.

Geoff Boyle

Depends on the lens of course, but if you put a hard matte in front of a fast long lens you will often cause a 'waterhouse stop' effect. I mean like an 85 or 135 hard matte in front of a 200 or 300 Nikkor. You can tell this very well by 'a-b'ing it...the image is noticeably brighter without the matte. I first noticed this while doing a pickup shot for a MOW and saw that the image brightened suddenly when the AC swung the mattebox out of the way prior to checking the gate. It looked like an ND had been pulled--at least a full stop difference. Those big front elements are there for a reason, and they need to be exposed in order to gather in the light!

I think this is not understood by many AC's, who are understandably anxious to keep out flares. In many movies with long-lens work you can see circles of confusion from distant highlights which have been turned into rectangles by the hard mattes.

And the DP was probably wondering why those shots printed 6 points lower than everything else!

Alan

Page 315 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The matte will act as a Waterhouse stop, reducing the amount of light reaching the film.

And on a long lens, you'll get those nasty square shaped edges to any out of focus highlights near to the edge of frame. I hate that.

Chris Plevin

There is an additional effect, and that's veiling glare (sometimes called flare). If you're using a zoom, e.g. 5:1 Cooke and you have a set with a lot of light coming in from the side and top (i.e. overall flat lighting) then masking down will dramatically reduce veiling glare, thus increasing overall contrast and reducing the stray light in the shadow areas. This can seem like reduced exposure. In isolation of course, you _want_ to reduce veiling glare, but if you're cutting together shots, then you should try to keep in constant. Of course, with video, you can adjust the black level and gamma to compensate, but we'll keep away from that particular discussion!

Brian Rose

Page 316 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Then what is the best procedure when setting up a mattebox with an adjustable internal bellows on a zoom?

For example, if you're putting using an 8-64 only at the long end, should you set the bellows for the extreme wide end only?

And then use the eyebrow and side wings to cover the tight end?

And aren't your eyebrows and sidewings doing the same as a hard matte, effecting your true aperture?

Don't worry about it, this problem only occurs with long fast lenses when they are being used at wide apertures.

Think of it this way: a Nikkor 300mm T2, wide open, has an aperture that is 150mm in diameter, right? That's over seven inches. Obviously a hard matte for an 85 is smaller than that, therefore the hard matte becomes the iris, since it's the narrowest opening the light has go through to get to the film. That's why it's like a 'Waterhouse stop,' a sheet of metal with a hole punched in it--the most primitive kind of iris.

On an 8-64 at the long end, wide open, your maximum aperture is only about 27m in diameter, about an inch. So you've got lots of room to bring in your mattebox, or shade, or hard matte, or whatever.

Alan

Also out of focus lights(with a long lens) turn into the form of the iris. Hexagonal or circular so you probably tell what lenses were used without seeing the credits that’s if you know what your all irises look like.

Brian Fass

Page 317 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 318 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Meters

I always used to wear a Belt with up to 3 meters on it, I'd spot the highlights, put a domed spectra up for fleshtones and walk around a bit with a candela to get area readings and to double check things. yes, getting thru tight spaces and shutting car doors was a problem. I felt like a grenadier.

But no more. I recently bought a Minolta F spot and now I find myself using nothing else. Gone is the meter belt, and I work faster now. one potential problem is that the buttons are easily bumped and I have caught myself with shutter speeds and ISO's bumped. luckily it hasn’t cost me a shot yet, somehow you tend to notice this and pause for a sec worrying about your last shot - and if its not a fleshtone- moving on and trusting Kodak.

With actors I still like to use my old spectra pro (by far my favorite meter) I don’t like to point and squeeze at peoples faces unless I have to (feels rude) and I’ve noticed that actors sorta like the old spectra, its friendly. otherwise I'll use my hand in their light (back or front depending on their tone) and open a stop, but generally I don’t see why to pull my incident meters out anymore. Am I missing something?

I look in the frame for whatever I want my middle tone (gray zone 5) to be and then measure the brightest and darkest areas and work from there. 3 quick clicks if pressed. personally I’ve been exposing down (under exposing) to increase the black levels and amplify the effect of edge and rim lighting. I don’t get to see my work much these days so I’m dealing in theory- but the directors have been calling me back for more abuse. I didn’t buy the 508 because it was unavailable, but there was also the prob of grabbing the meter out of the holster all day. those dainty little domes on many digital meters bother me cause I wonder if they'll hold up to being grabbed 200 times a day- and they sit in the pouch such that the dome gets grabbed- and I'm amazed at how thin (and sorry, cheaply) many housings are manufactured- even in the "expensive" meters. (no names) That’s why I like my old spectra’s- its solid. (altho the inner mechanism seems made of gossamer and cobweb)

Page 319 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

So, I just am curious about the metering habits of this esteemed group. have I got lazy? and by the way- I really hate the 'pleather' genuine artificial cases that new meters come with. I'm a case freak, leather lover (pure vanity) - I once saw an ad for what looked like nice handmade leather meter cases- anyone have a line on such creature comforts?

Caleb "measure once, cut twice" Crosby

I too love the Minolta Spot F. I cemented a little guard over the buttons that always get bumped to keep that from happening. One of my favorite features is one I "stumbled" into: Take a spot reading of whatever it is in your scene that you want to be a mid-tone (where you are going to set the lens stop) then push the "A" button in the middle of the top row. Then every reading you take after that is in number of stops and tenths over or under (negative indication) relative to your "base" or mid tone stop. This is *extremely* useful. It is much faster than actually reading stops and then adding and subtracting in your head, something I have trouble doing, especially if I am at an in-between stop for the "base" stop.

This information of how many stops and tenths over or under "base" is what I really want to know anyway.

To get out of that mode, press "clear" and the meter reverts back to normal. Happy metering.

Bill Bennett

I found it interesting to read your email about lightmeters. I myself only use a Minolta M spotmeter (the same as the F, but without the flash option and it uses a different harder to find battery). I have often been bugged by others about the fact that I only use a spotmeter but to me it makes perfect sense, I can really get specific about what I want to measure, what I want to blow out, what I want black.

Page 320 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

on one shoot I had a very obnoxious crane operator (part time DP) questioning my competency because I only used a spotmeter and I was really annoyed. I felt he had no right to try to put me down in the middle of a shoot in front of other crew members just so he could show off his knowledge (film school learned rules) of cinematography. I was hired on my reel, not on the light meters I choose to use. once you're competent and secure in you ability with a spotmeter I hardly ever see any reason to use anything else. I do always carry an incident light meter in my kit though, mainly as a backup in case my spotmeter conks out but also just to have handy for anyone with any challenges to my light reading ability. as for pointing the meter at actor's and performer's faces, I find that they very quickly they learn to like it, sometimes even act offended when you read the people around them and not them. no offence to "the talent" but often it seems they love to have anything with a lens pointed at them as it validates their "specialness" on the set. o. fenech

I would have pulled him to the side, quietly so no other crew members heard, and asked him if he wanted to leave!

You are the DP, you have the right to do as you will on the set [as long as it is your job and not chasing the script girl...]. If this fellow could not understand his one and only warning...then fire him on the spot [but first mention your intentions to the UPM so a few phone calls could me made first!]. A good crane op is wonderful, a loud mouthed crew member is not. It sounds like this guy is sore because you got the gig and all he got was an opportunity to push you through the air....well that's reality! I would not trust the fellow to hit his marks correctly after his outburst, and that makes you look really bad to everyone [if you were also the camera op].

You, as the DP, have every right to use whatever tools you see fit to calculate the correct exposure, if that means you wish to stand on your head and gargle a mouth full of water as you read your meter, then so be it!!!

Page 321 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Cross that fellows name off your list [and secretly e-mail it to me so I never run across this jerk too!]. Good luck,

Jeff Barklage

Caleb, You are not lazy. I haven't used an incident meter in over ten years (Wait a moment, maybe I'm lazy too. You raise an ugly point). I have an incident meter in my case. But I've never found a reason to bring it out. Bill's trick is really useful. I not only use that but I have to admit that I sometimes take a Highlight reading and memorize it. Then take a Shadow reading and memorize that. Then I press the "A" button. I check that against a Grey Card and find that "A" always gives me a value within a tenth or two of my own calculations. Uncanny...

And speaking of Grey Cards...

There is a great little tool that I use. It is called "The Last Grey Card" and it comes in 4x5 and 8x10 (inches). The 4x5 fits perfectly into a Tiffen Panavision size filter pouch. It sits in my back pocket ready to use. And it is washable. They are grey on one side and white on the other. I buy them by the dozen because I end up giving them away. They are a product for the still market made by Unicolor.

You can call them at 800-521-4042 ext. 322 and ask for Susan. Or you can write to: 7200 Huron River Drive, Dexter, Michigan 48130-1099 USA

Or ask your local photo supply house to stock them. It's the best $5 you'll spend in a while.

Steven Poster ASC

Page 322 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I still rely on my Minolta Spotmeter F - it came with a little plastic piece to glue next to those pesky, easily pushed buttons. I used to use the old Spectra Pro, but have damaged enough movements in my career that I finally switched to the new Spectra, which is great. I was sceptical of the new Sekonic (is the 508 the one I'm about to describe....) until I actually saw one on a set. It can memorize two ISO settings (great for Polaroid’s), a zoom spot meter, the collecting dome can adjust from flat disk level to sphere by turning a little bezel around the edge of it and it uses a thumbwheel to adjust the film/shutter speed from 300fps down to 3 or so. I've owned a Sekonic before just for the flash meter capability, and disliked it's collecting dome, but this meter really impressed me. Usually, the all purpose tool does nothing well, but I think I could make an exception here.

As far as metering habits, I know of many who use the spot meter exclusively. Me, I use my incident meter usually at the beginning of a setup to make sure that I'm in the ballpark of where I want my key light to be - and then light by eye, and check with the spot as we get close to being "there". Perhaps a final check with the incident meter, and we're rolling...... (oh, is the stop on?)

Ted Hayash

:::blink, blink, blink::: I'm going to try to be somewhat moderate in my response, though my first instinct would have been to fire off a colorful, "Bronx Style" string of expletives at this crane operator that involved fornication and rolling doughnuts...

More likely I would have responded with something along the lines of: "Really? You should spend more time working with one of these meters, they are really slick. They are much handier and more accurate than anything you learned in school, but only for those have the patience to learn how to make proper use of one. Many people screw up exposure by assuming they know how these things work."

As most all here know, I'm am advertising still photographer but it strikes me that there are similarities in the talents called upon in my

Page 323 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

work and a DP's. As such, I don't think it is a stretch to assume that we all have a moderate amount of anxiety when it comes to choosing an exposure that never leaves us, no matter how experienced we become. On the other hand, each of us has come up with their own methods of calculating exposure that reduces this anxiety to a minimum. I can't imagine questioning anyone else’s "correctness" in metering methodology any more than anyone questioning mine. Your post is not about meters but about a crane op who's etiquette is in dire need of a "tune-up" (firing).

Years ago I used to trade out assisting services with other beginning photographers I knew helping each other working on photographs for our portfolios. We had a very clear understanding that whatever the other wanted do, got done. To this day I'm sure in my heart that one of these photographers I traded services with must be at least partially blind, what he wanted to accomplish on the shots I helped him with were truly terrible. Even then, though my instincts were screaming inside me to "fix" things, that's where they stayed, inside.

Before this gets to become a rambling, let me finish this quick by stating the obvious...

It's the film that counts, not the genus and species of cat who's eyes you use for a meter. ;-)

Cliff Hancuff

I think that spot metering is the opposite of lazy. It requires slightly more work to find your own average by "zoning" highlights and shadow areas to get a more accurate exposure. I also think that the the use of incident meters for fleshtones is overrated, since all the dome does is average all of the light. Doesn't help you much if you're shooting dark- skinned talent or lighting someone by using their natural sheen, or certain high-key situations. I swear I've photographed some actors with 55% reflectancy ! I'm also a leather freak, but I like it because it lasts forever (OK, they also look better). And yet my meters are still in nylon padded cases (it's the

Page 324 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

only thing I've found to put my Spectra Pro-4 in the "lumishpere down" position since I don't want to yank it out by the dome. Also have developed a cool flip-draw-out-of-the-holster technique that impresses clients. :-)

I've always zoned the frame with my spot meter, but I still find my incident meter handy in "lighting air" sometimes...I don't always have stand-ins there, so it's a good way to paint some broad strokes. I also find it useful when I'm really rushed on a shot that I'm grabbing "docu- style". Perhaps I'm slower at spotting and zoning my frame, or too thorough, but it's faster for me to get an incident reading to key or camera than to miss a shot.

I also check it against my own spot calculations. Always loved the photograph of Maysle with the incident meter attached to the mattebox. I'm still looking into that Sekonic monster spot meter (not the 508 combo). But it's listing at $750-$800 ! And it's been difficult to get feedback on this meter's accuracy & reliability.

Mark Doering-Powell

I am reminded of an article in American Cinematographer where Doug Slocombe (who shot several, if not all, of the Indiana Jones films) described how he came to use no meter at all. He said that he used to light by eye, and then use the meter to check after the setup. He finally realized that he didn't need the meter at all after finding himself turning and/or covering the meter to adjust it to the stop that he wanted it to read, not simply reading and accepting the meters findings.

Ted Hayash

Page 325 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

If the monster Sekonic that Mark is referring to is the L778, and I don't know of a bigger meter :-), then it's the one I use as my main meter. I love it, the ease of adjusting Highlight & Shadow limits, the 5 exposure reading memory and display, the way that it forces up the value of my Everex & Duracell shares...... The only limitation that I've found with it is measuring blue screen and TV screens, but then only my Pentax spot seems to manage those. I carry a couple of Minolta Incidents, a Spectra Candela, a Minolta CT meter and a B&S frequency meter, I used to carry a Minolta spot as well but I gave that to my operator.

Try the big Sekonic, if you like spot meters then it's for you. Cheers

Geoff

If I can be suffered the bandwidth for a little tutorial, maybe someone out there can benefit:

I believe we are beneficiaries of the marvellous exposure range of negative stocks. Even though we may erroneously select a midtone that isn't really as close to 18% as it should be, the neg. bails us out with its range. Perhaps Cliff, as a commercial still photog., will agree that shooting for reproduction on color reversal film presents stiffer requirements than shooting neg. The necessity for really precise exposure and careful control of lighting ratio is considerably greater and the incident meter, used properly, of course, makes it relatively easy.

Page 326 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

With reversal (for those who may not have experience with it) the danger is overexposure. If the highlights are washed out there is no redemption. When your most important area is a light tone, say a pale Caucasian face or a product that is a pale pastel, +1/2 stop will probably be disaster. On the other hand, underexposure must be used judiciously, since there isn't a lot of range that direction either. Keeping the scene within the narrower limits of the film by spot reading the highlights and shadows will not necessarily zone that important flesh tone where it ought to be. Everything has to be carefully read. While a spot meter can be used with great success on reversal, I don't think you can be quite so quick and casual about it as you can with neg. On the other hand, when shooting darker flesh subjects the incident meter won't provide the comfort level it does on light flesh! Someone criticized the incident meter because the dome just averages all the light it receives. I've noticed that a lot of photographers seem not to be aware of the reason for, and proper handling of, the domed meter (and it is very irritating to see them produce excellent results despite their ignorance! OTOH, I haven't seen many do well with reversal film if they don't really know how to handle it.)

A true incident meter has a flat receptor, because "incident" light, technically speaking, is light that is incident to a flat surface. The flat receptor causes the meter to read illumination that mirrors the cosine effect of light falling on a flat surface from angles other than normal. But most of our subjects are 3- dimensional and there are often multiple sources of illumination. The purpose of the 3-dimensional receptor, or dome, is to make it possible with one reading to achieve the best exposure on reversal of 3-dimensional subjects lighted with multiple sources. The meter is held at the subject and pointed toward the lens and the dome averages the sources to split the difference. But this is for uncontrolled lighting, where you have to make the best of what is there. The secret to its correct use is to realize that if you are controlling the lighting you need to defeat or change out the dome. If you are controlling the lighting ratio you don't want the meter to compromise what you've done.

So cup your hand around the dome and point the dome at the source to read the key, then the fill, etc., to determine ratios. You can look at the dome to see what sources are actually reaching it by looking for their spectral reflections on the dome surface. Or you can use the flat receptor in place of the dome. To determine exposure, shield any

Page 327 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

backlight off the dome and point the dome between the key and fill to achieve the maximum reading.

And as has been mentioned, the incident meter is the quickest way to "light air!" All of this is critical for reversal. For negative, not nearly so much precision is needed. Crack the aperture open a bit for safety! But if you follow the above procedure for negative as well, you'll achieve great consistency.

Thanks for reading!

--Wade Ramsey

A word of warning: Perhaps because do few people use their flat photoreceptor disc, many manufacturers calibrate the meters with the photosphere and the flat disc may not match. In the case of my Spectra Pro IV, we ended up adding a very slight ND behind the flat disc so it would match the dome...with one of my Sekonics a dab of dirt effected the same change. Granted, a 2/10 discrepancy is virtually meaningless in the world of neg., but I shoot a lot of slides (for therapy) and more importantly, I would rather correct the discrepancy than try to remember which way it goes each time. As a gaffer, I think meter calibration was more of an issue for me than for my DP clients...it was attendant on me to match their meters, and in some cases I would have to change my ASA by a third of a stop so that I would call out numbers that would agree with their meters.

When you are the DP, other people have to conform to YOU :-)

Mark H. Weingartner

Page 328 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

That is very curious! I have used--and still do--dozens of Sekonic Studio meters, from the days when it was the original Norwood Director through all models to the current L-398M; Spectra Professional and Professional II; and Spectra Combi 500 and Combi II. In every single case, the flat disc receptor reads LOWER than the dome, by about 1/3 stop. Putting ND behind it would make it read even lower. And this is when reading a source perpendicular to the disc surface, so cosine effect isn't involved. (Although we have several Minolta and Sekonic digital meters, we don't have flat receptors for them, so I haven't tried them.)

I've always attributed this to the greater surface area of the dome collecting a bit more light, even though the source is perpendicular to the meter front.

Back in the days of shooting titles on B&W reversal, i.e., Plus-X Reversal, the lack of the excellent Rem-Jet anti-halo backing on B&W made the use of the disc a disadvantage, although theoretically, it should be used. But the best results were by using the dome and then stopping down one stop, to reduce flare from the whites. –

Wade Ramsey

I remember reading those stories about Slocombe. Later I realized that he must tell his gaffer to light a scene to given number of footcandles (let's say, 150) especially being the old-time DP that he is - and his gaffer must have had a meter on him so that he knew when he was at the correct footcandle level.

So in a sense, SOMEONE on the set is metering the light - it's just not Slocombe...

David Mullen

Page 329 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've got a Minolta Auto III - had it for -- Six years? That sounds about right... Just now running into dome problems -- and that's more because I switch from dome to flat disc to reflected disc quite often.

I carry the meter in a soft nylon case -- and it's held up great. I don't own a spot meter -- but I've used them on many different occasions. I like the F very much (my favorite function is the average setting. I take a reading at "key" (iris setting) and switch into average. Then hold down the button and quickly sweep through the shot -- instantly knowing my stops over and under... Very great for precise control...).

However, I'm very much a to-the-source incident guy (which is why the flat disc comes out so often) I find that it gives me a greater deal of control over where I want to put the whole scene's ratio on the film. I absolutely HATE metering to camera with a dome as it feels very much like the lowest common dominator setting...

Jay Holben

Wonder what this guy would say working with someone like Doug Slocombe who is reputed to use no meter whatsoever... Now! How incompetent is that?

I only wish I could be so incompetent with three Oscar nominations... :) Jay Holben

Page 330 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Works fine for me. I did most of my own feature (on 'no latitude' Tri X) using it, extensive night ints and night exts with lots of pyrotechnics etc - justified its cost I'd say. I have not done green or bluescreen work with it, however.

(re Geoff's comments). But I did do a project with large areas of red & red/orange walls - a major element of the scenes. Densities were what I expected. Then again, I think the camera film is the final 'light meter' !

-Sam Wells

Addicted to spot meters, but it has problems with blue screen and TV screens ? What good is it ? :-)

But seriously, could you elaborate ? Are the bluescreen readings off by a constant value, or erratically different ? And it cannot meter TV screens either ? Sounds like a blue sensitivity problem. Were you getting overexposures of blue layer on tungsten film with the Sekonic Spot ?

Thanks for the feedback on the monster. ------On occasion, I will do the same to my incident meter when shooting 2nd unit...depending upon the DP. Some feel more comfortable like that, other's don't care how you arrive at an image as long as it matches. Great thing about meters is, they always read what you want them to read ! :-) ------Wade Ramsey wrote: >The purpose of the 3-dimensional receptor, or dome, is to make it > possible with one reading to achieve the best exposure on reversal of > 3-dimensional subjects lighted with multiple sources. The meter is held > at the subject and pointed toward the lens and the dome averages the > sources to split the difference...[snip] > >So cup your hand around the dome and point the dome at the > source to read the key, then the fill, etc., to determine ratios. You can

Page 331 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

> look at the dome to see what sources are actually reaching it by looking > for their spectral reflections on the dome surface...[snip] > >And as has been mentioned, the incident meter is the quickest way to > "light air!" > If only I could have read this back in the early 80's when I was still figuring out how to use an incident meter accurately ! :-) While it is true that a domed incident meter is meant to average or split the key/fill lights to give you a fairly accurate reading for normal lighting situations, I think that almost nobody lights this way anymore (or rarely does so). Sometimes I'm shooting a 3/4 XCU of an actor and the keylight is a 3/4 soft backlight barely wrapping to the closest eye. And there's little fill. Point the dome to the camera and take a reading to get a really overexposed negative !

Normally, I would shield the dome and aim at key, fill, key+fill, that sort of thing. The final lens stop then is still our own interpretation. But I have gotten into the habit of metering some of my Day/Ext's with my incident meter to lens...as a final check. Again, this is usually when I'm rushed, and haven't taken some spot readings. Sometimes I've taken a reading to a side fill from a 12x12 griff, and put that 2 stops down, and then the sunlight I let go hotter if it's a backlight perhaps. But once I thought I was all set, and I took a final average to lens as I walked back to the camera. Youza, my meter was almost at "E"! ASA & fps ok...so what gives ? Ah, yes, behind the camera was a grove of 60 ft. spruces chewing up all of the sky fill. That's what I get for lighting air !

Of course, if you just stand by the camera, and eye the scene, take a couple of spot readings if you have stand-ins, or off of the setting, then you can arrive at the same good f-stop.

Mark "am I the only one who lights & spots their fist ?" Doering-Powell

Page 332 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I worked with a premier Hollywood DP that prided himself in setting the stop without a meter, stopping down until the density on the ground glass looked right. The editor on a movie we were doing told me that she had never seen dailies so all over the place exposure-wise. : - )

Mako Koiwai

>Mark "am I the only one who lights & spots their fist ?" Doering-Powell No, you're not alone. Being Indian the back of my hand is almost 18% reflectance too so that's like carrying a grey card without having to pay as Steve does - the downside is you can't pass it around! I suppose the next best thing is to live in LA and pick up a nice suntan! :-)

I frequently spot the back of my hand. I take my hat off to anyone who can light with just a spot meter, though. I find the innumerable readings confusing. I use the incident (shielding as needed) and then use my Pentax spot to read the dodgy areas for reassurance.

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman

The blue readings are inconsistent in the same way that Minolta spot readings are. The only meter I've found that's consistent with these is the Pentax. Cheers

Geoff

Page 333 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Having been a gaffer in the US for years on both coasts and in all types of shoots (doc, IMAX, feature, commercial, TV, corporate industrial, etc) I had always been expected to carry and use incident and reflected light meters. I was a bit surprised on crossing the pond for a UK based, UK crewed film to discover that gaffes do not carry meters on set.

The miniatures unit that we set up was gaffed by Ron Shane, and Dave Stewart, our DP, openly and aggressively encouraged Ron to take readings and make lighting decisions. Ron did quite well in this respect. A few months after the miniature unit started up I was charged with heading up miniature Pyro and misc. elements unit for the same show. Ron asked his father, Laurie Shane, if he would be willing to come and gaff for me for a few weeks.

For those of you who do not know of Laurie, his credits as gaffer span 30 years and include The Empire Strikes Back, Reds, Mission Impossible, Under Milkwood etc etc etc. Even though we were just blowing up spaceships and such on green screen, Laurie agreed to come and work with us which was an absolute pleasure for me. He owns and uses meters, but even he was very conscious of the political difference between his carrying meters on an American set and on a Continental one. He echoed Ron's statement that it would be considered inappropriate for him to be metering a set unless he were pre-lighting or there were other extenuating circumstances preventing the DoP from getting his own readings.

I have to report that though our few weeks of greenscreen work was nothing compared to the sort of work Laurie normally does, he and his crew attacked the job with outright enthusiasm and took wonderful care of me.

By the way, when lighting the air around a 15' long exploding spaceship in front of an 80x25 green with a 40x25 return you really end up using an incident meter a lot ☺

Mark Weingartner

Page 334 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Geoff Boyle wrote: > The blue readings are inconsistent in the same way that Minolta spot > readings are. > Point of clarification: Do you find the blue readings to be inconsistent with each other or inconsistent with respect to white light readings on the same set? I have found most meters, spot and incident, to be inaccurate in the monochromatic blue world (where they were never meant to be) but consistent once the "exposure offset" has been determined. I've been using a Minolta Spotmeter M for blue, green, and red screens for years with no problems...once I knew what those offsets were for my meter.

The offsets are relatively easy to determine, so if that is the only reason not to use the Sekonic Super Meter, I could provide instructions for determining that offset. If, on the other hand, the readings at the blue end of the spectrum are inconsistent because of large sensitivity differences over small wavelength shifts , the meter would not be a good candidate for anyone who shoots blue screens. mark Weingartner

David Mullen wrote: >I remember reading those stories about Slocombe. Later I realized that >he must tell his gaffer to light a scene to given number of footcandles >(let'ssay, 150 David, I've worked a number of times and I don't recall seeing a meter anywhere. He just looked at the back of his hand in the set. Mind you, it was almost always 5.6!

Martin Shepherd

Page 335 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

There seems no question that Slocombe is good at it. But has anyone ever read his neg. densities? The eye is a fabulous comparator but auto adjusts too much to be a good objective gauge of quantity (we see normal exposure under any illumination from about 7 fc up to bright sunlight.) But we can learn to make good judgements of exposure from our memory of what worked in previous settings with similar lighting fixture setups, etc.

I wonder what would happen if someone lighted a set in such a way that when he was brought in (blindfolded) and allowed to look at the lighting without any reference to the fixtures and working distances, whether he would be able to make a very accurate objective estimate, especially if it were lighted a stop or so hotter than he normally does.

Don't suppose we'll ever have a chance to test that!

--Wade Ramsey

I work often on Commercials from and in South Korea. I still have problems working in that system.

The Gaffer doesn't use a meter, the DP doesn't use a meter. The first a/c meters the scene, sets the stop then tells the DP what he will be shooting at. When doing exteriors, I often caught the ac grabbing an incident from arms length from the lens.... after that I instructed the griptricians that there would be no courtesy flags set up next to camera....

I made the mistake of trying to reconfigure job responsibilities to a more familiar one for me. It caused a half day work stoppage, as everyone was training on "new" positions.

Page 336 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

As the only Korean speaking, American DP registered with the Korean Film Commission, I have had to learn to adjust to this different working environment. This includes taking each "new" 1st ac I work with aside and explaining to them that my use of a light meter, in no way shows that I don't trust him, but is a "cultural" thing. I also spend the first day showing them where I want them to meter from (always at the action, not at the end of the lens). After awhile, I mention to them how busy they are, and ask if they would mind me taking the meter readings while they are changing the lens. Pretty soon I have the ac trained not to worry about those pesky f-stops. On one show I even got the ac to borrow his meter to the gaffer so he could "take care of it for him".

I was called to shoot a Korean pilot, but a friend warned me away from it, because "They do things really different for TV". Call me a glutton for punishment, I'm interviewing for it next week.

Clark "but I'm huge in Korea" Jackson

I was just making a GUESS - if everyone in the UK says that no one takes a meter reading on a Slocombe set, I believe them - really! Thanks to everyone for the correction.

I guess when you shoot enough films - especially in the days when Kodak had only one color negative stock - you pretty much know what a 5K at 15 feet is going to give you...

I didn't intend to slight Douglas Slocombe, whose work I have admired for a long time. In the UK, does the DP (lighting cameraman) call out all the units to be used (as in "10K goes over there, 2K here, arm a Tweenie over the top, etc.)? My gaffers complain when I do that, so I was wondering.

David Mullen

Page 337 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Clark Jackson wrote :- >The first a/c meters the scene, sets the stop then >tells the DP what he will be shooting at.

I would like to public notice that I would be happy to perform this small service for any DP. A small charge is levied, approximately half his or her fee :)

Justin Pentecost

The Korean system can be baffling. I once shot some 2nd Unit / Car Chase & crashes for a Korean film called "Mix" (don't know whatever happened to it). The crew was almost entirely Korean, complete with 3 translators and the largest camera department I have ever seen. The DP had no interest in lining-up any action shots. He did operate "B-Camera" on some of them. A very reserved, quiet man.

The AC did most of the metering. That was all fine and good, but they were probably wondering what the hell I was doing out there metering for my camera. AC's kept drilling me about what I thought of their MovieCam Compact (it was a prized possession), and they could not understand that my camera (which they had ordered from Clairmont) was centered for Academy, and not Super-35. Oh well, I tried to explain it ad nauseum, but they did not seem to mind !

Also: the AC did not reload/thread the camera, nor move it. 2-3 other fellows did that. 1st AC simply metered and pulled focus (all eyefocus) and turned the camera on/off.

One curious thing did occur apropos metering: at sunrise I was operating B-Camera for one of their normal scenes. I occasionally took a surreptitious spot meter reading to make certain that a language barrier would not give me the wrong stop. Well, on that one shot we were about 5 stops different in opinion. I kindly asked the AC if he had calculated for the ND's and Pola's. He just kept saying: "eight" and then using his hands to hold up 8 fingers. OK, no problem...didn't even attempt to compare ASA on our meters. DP just stood by, quiet and reserved as ever.

Page 338 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

My American AC and I could barely see through our filter pack. I think that shot would have been black, or close to it. :-(

PS- At lunch, the entire Korean contingent disappeared. Gone. The few local Americans were left with a few boxes of MickyD's or some other type of fast food. Minutes later I found them all, crouched behind a series of parked vans eating Chinese food ! Kept thinking how they must've thought we liked the the slop they provided us. I would've much rather had their meal !

Mark Doering-Powell

The problem that I have with the Sekonic, and the Minolta for that matter, with blue screens is that although I know I can work out an offset for that meter I'm not confident that that offset will be consistent from shoot to shoot. Sometimes I light a Blue Screen with white light, sometimes I light it with Rosco Moonlight Blue gel, sometimes I use super blue tubes. Sometimes it's a cloth backing, sometimes paint etc etc. I just don't trust either the Sekonic or the Minolta in those circumstances.

As an example:-

Shot No. Minolta FG Pentax FG Minolta BG Pentax BG Colour 1 4.3 9 1.4 8* Kino Blue 2 4.3 9 1.02 7** Nd3 3 4.3 9 6** Nd6

Shot No. Minolta FG Pentax FG Minolta BG Pentax BG Colour 15 4.3 9 4 8* Kino Grn 16 4.3 9 2.8 7* Nd3 17 4.3 9 2 6* Nd6

Part of the series of tests that I shot recently. Cheers

Geoff

Page 339 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The big important grossly obvious missing point in all this is that measuring by itself doesn't make the lighting look any better. It's the changes you make based on your measurements that take time and make you worth your salary.

If we were to do a Gantt chart on a typical day's shoot, I doubt there'd be much time spent measuring light on the critical path.

Whether you use the broad brush of the incident meter or the narrow brush of the spot meter, it's still where you put the paint that counts. ;- )

John Sprung

I have no intention of taking away anything from those great Cinematographers who did indeed have the ability to judge relative exposure without the use of any instrumentation. In fact there was a great shooter at Wilding studios in Chicago who's eye's were going toward the end of his career. He had the ability to stick out his hand in front of a light and tell what the exposure was from the heat he felt from the lamp. His name was Jake LaFloure I believe. Jeff Kreines might be able to verify this. I was always amazed at this talent.

But there is one thing to consider in today's modern world. When working at 200 Foot Candles it takes 100FC difference to be one stop underexposed and 200 FC to be one stop over exposed. When working at 10 FC it takes 5 FC to be one stop underexposed and 10FC difference to be one stop over exposed. These differences are much more subtle with today's lenses and emulsions. Can anybody guess a 2 or 3 FC difference by eye? Of course we can. Because your eye adjusts to relative levels. But can we call exposure on those 2 or 3 FC? I doubt it.

Today, meters are important and accurate meters are incredibly important.

Steven Poster ASC

Page 340 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Steven raises an interesting point: Does a stop up or down around 10 FC seem to human perception subjectively as big as a stop up or down around 200 FC? The human visual system isn't quite exactly logarithmic, but it's much closer to log than linear. (If it were linear, the distance from 195 FC to 210 FC would look as big to us as the difference from 5 FC to 20 FC).

If you have some time on your hands, and your hands on some lights, you might try a Just Noticeable Difference (JND) experiment. Set a pair of 5k's side by side aimed straight at the same wall. Flag them out of each other's areas.

Adjust one to exactly 200 FC. Adjust the other until you can just barely see that it's brighter. Measure and record what that level is. Then adjust it to be just barely dimmer. Then try for an exact match. Swap the 5k's for inkies, and do it all again around 10 FC. You'll find it also matters a lot how big the dark band between the areas is.

A much easier thing to try is simply guessing what your meter's going to say just before you read it. Get good at that, and it may save you some grief if your meter ever gets seriously out of whack. You'll know to check against another meter.

Down in the 5-10 FC range, you also get into some other issues, as our color sensitivity drops out around there.

For more of the science of this stuff, check Charles Poynton's web site: www.inforamp.net/~poynton/pdfs/

John Sprung

It's pretty logarithmic over the middle range. The commonly accepted wisdom is that humans can just perceive a 1 per cent difference in brightness when using a comparator (i.e. a surface emitting 202FC would appear just different to one emitting 200FC, but at 20FC we could detect a change to 20.2FC. It's also commonly accepted that the human eye is a more sensitive comparator than almost any machine yet built.

Page 341 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

At low levels (my references refuse to give numbers I can make sense of, one says "moonlight"), the just-perceivable difference increases (i.e. the discrimination is less), and the response goes non-logarithmic. Either way, the large-scale, absolute calibration of the eye is a different issue.

Can we tell the difference between a T4 and a T5.6 set without a reference? I guess it's similar to musicians with "perfect pitch" who can absolutely identify a middle C or any other note. A few can, but many more can hit a note -say- a fifth higher than a given note, more so with practice. Similarly, are there a few individuals out there with the ability to recognise an absolute value of brightness? With many more of us able, with practice, to pick that one tone is -say- 3 stops down from another? Opinions? Authoritative research? References? Anecdotal evidence? Anyone?.

Dominic Case

I have met some of these individuals with perfect pitch. Mostly they have broken the strings on my musical instrument by trying to tune it without a reference. The mechanics of the ear are such that the muscles react to certain frequencies. Closing down to prevent certain frequencies from getting through, and opening up to allow others. Amazing what you can learn from shooting documentaries. I don't think that has an analog to your question. I'm not sure if someone could tell the exact decibel level of sounds, without reference, which seems to be more inline with determining footcandles. However, I do know that with practice one can determine different colors lurking within others.

Just ask graphic artists, Or motion Graphics shooters. That seems more in line picking out frequencies of sound.

Steve ( there is a lot of blue in those red traffic lights) Gladstone

Page 342 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

To put it briefly, the research I'm familiar with indicates that to use the eye as a comparator, it needs some sort of a reference, even when gauging absolute black. Also, cultural differences and personality may also influence this ability.

Jessica Gallant

I looked at the meters My Sekonic L-328 has some ND on the dome to make it match the flat disc My Spectra IV has a very light ND on the flat disc My Spectra Pro with the modern West German movement has a very slight ND on the flat disc My Spectra Pro with the Weston movement has no ND on either photosphere or flat disc My Sekonic studio meter is in Pittsburgh and won't answer the phone Most of my meter work has been done by Marty Satloff in NY but several of my meters have been re-calibrated or at least checked by Quality Light in Hollywood and all the Spectra’s were checked at Spectra while I was playing with their ft Lambert meter. Both analog pro's had Marty's low light conversions done to them. There's more info than anyone wanted to know.

Mark

Gentlemen, Marshall Macluen (of "the media is the message" fame) wrote extensively about this in The Gutenberg Galaxy. his terminology involved "hot" and "cool" technologies and I forget how he applied these, but I do remember his basic discussion on the ear and the eye.

Marshall studied how technologies effected the social environment: moveable type (the Gutenberg bible was the first mechanically printed volume) Marconi's radio waves, and the film camera and TV. one contention involved the "differentiation of the ear and eye"

Page 343 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

He maintains that the ear is capable of thousands of times more differentiation than the eye. It is a more sophisticated instrument capable of more range and more subtle detection’s within the expanded range. (I think this made the ear a hot technology and the eye a cool one- anyone?) I cant recall his case studies, but the eye was fractional compared to the ear.

The book is valuable for anyone interested in the relationship between media and society. he traces print technology as paving the road to nationalism, and the breaking down of strong top down gov't to radio- but Its been years and I can no longer do him justice. he includes fascinating studies of showing films to aboriginals in Africa and citing how they react to the image and the editing (they couldn’t "read the film" so he linked in the amount of conditioning it takes to read a visual story and that it is heavily cultural and trained- as opposed to music which is far more cross cultural) I guess it was 13 years ago I read Marshall (college) and I was just beginning to shoot 16mm. the one thing I took away from the book was that 1/2 the time an audience views a film in a theater - they are in absolute darkness. he likened it to the tribal flickering fire and believed it was one of our last tribal experiences.

No doubt. but he left out the bar room and rock & roll.

Caleb

Page 344 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Although I don't remember the terms, in physiological psychology the ear is thought of as a sensory organ that takes it's input and breaks it down into it's component parts. This is why if we concentrate we can pick out and focus on one conversation in a crowded room, for example.

They eye, on the other hand, is a sensory organ that takes it's input and constructs the complete image out of separate components. That is why we can view incomplete images, optical illusions, "inkblot tests", etc. and see complete images.

Jessica Gallant

Page 345 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 346 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Monochrome

I know you can Shoot in Color, and then in the Telecine, make it B+W. For Projection: Can the same be accomplished by printing onto B+W stock? Has anyone any info on Printing onto Optical sound Stock? I've heard of it, just don't know which films it was used in. Thanks, this is for a project coming up.

Steven

Yes, you can burn a print on B&W stock from a color negative, however because the print stock is only blue sensitive, the effect is as if you had a very deep red filter on the lens, and because of the orange mask, you have to crank the printer very slowly to get enough exposure. You can get around this by using a panchromatic interpositive film to make your print on. Optical sound stock is a very contrasty blue sensitive film. You can use it as print stock or even in-camera but the results are very.... unusual...

Scott Dorsey

Page 347 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Back in the eighties, when B+W was cheaper than color, I used to strike thousands of miles of workprint footage on B+W from color negatives. That used to be very cost effective, while very bad looking, no contrast, way too grainy. Editor didn't even know whether the talent's dress was blue or red : That was to be revealed by the answer print on the press premiere.:-) We had one recent issue at the Cannes '95 Festival with the French entry "La Haine"(Hate) by Matthieu Kassowitz. Pay channel Canal+ contracted a color print, while Matthieu wanted to shoot in B+W. No way ! No color, no money ! Then, cinematographer Pierre Haim recalled a method we had been experimenting together years ago on a short film : release print on sound stock. As Scott Dorsey pointed out, that would have been to contrasty, so the trick was to shorten the processing time by half, benefiting from a necessary contrast increase without going ortho. At the time, 100% of the sound stock in French labs was AFGA, with negative perfs. Producer Christophe Rossignon had deal with Kodak. They provided an extra batch of positive perforated optical stock, and more than 300 prints were struck that way. But beware of the cost ! Price of optical sound stock is four times the price of color positive 5386 stock !

Gus Roos

I shot a film in 1993 in super 16 on Plus negative 7231 (64/80 asa). I did some test before. It's great. You get the grain of 7296 pushed one stop and the exposure rating of 7245. So that wrote off the 7222 Double -X stuff (200/250 asa). Fortunately this film called for hard lighting (something I rarely do) and I was glad in some instances. Although it does have a really interesting B &W grain structure from the old days that you don't get with all the new T grain stuff, the speed was a drawback. Imagine night exteriors:-(. Guys who use to do large set-ups in the old days with even slower films must have been pouring on the foot candles. Exposure latitude is another factor. Talk about easy to get rich blacks. All in all, despite all those pitfalls the final film looked all right. Saw it on a large screen, it's that typical BW image from way back, that we would not have just playing around with modern color stock. Probably would not be enough market to repackage the T-max stuff for motion picture use. I wonder what the sales figure are for BW compared to color stuff.

Page 348 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Probably under 1% or something small like that. Would they really sell much more if it was T-max based??? I think not. Ever seen a producer's or distributor's face change when you speak the words "Black and White"? Of course Spielberg did it (looked magnificent) but in the real world...

Daniel Villeneuve

Yeah, you're right that B&W is a minimal amount of Kodak's business, and according to my local Kodak rep, people like the crappy image quality of the current stocks because most productions currently using B&W are looking for a "retro look." However, how expensive can it be for them to re-perforate existing stocks and pass some information out to labs about handling it? There is not a lot of product development involved here, since they have already got the material for still photography pretty well refined at this point. In the meantime, I can recommend the Ilford B&W stocks. They aren't as tight looking as the T-Max film, but they have a hell of a better grey scale than Plus-X and Double-X. Also, I want some high speed B&W stocks. Four-X reversal is gone, and let's not even talk about the image quality THAT stuff had. But there's nothing replacing it.

--Scott

Page 349 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I mean no disrespect, but as to why EK doesn't market the T-Max emulsion for motion picture stock, I don't think it's a matter of economics, at least not entirely. They're always improving color stocks, so why not B&W? They might not sell more B&W film, but they would at least show a commitment to improving the medium. The only real hindrance for the acceptance of T-Max Mo Pic stock is that it would require special development, but if Kodak really has the motivation they could successfully market it. After all, they tried to market much stranger things in the past...like still photo disc film. Just some thoughts,

Layne Uyeno

Four X Reversal was a LOT better than Four X Negative, which was truly hideous! The problems with B&W T grain stocks (and EK did one test batch apparently) for cine use is that they need extremely long fix times to clear the pink tint that the neg. has. Plus, they are better in TMax developer than in D96... so labs would have to retool, and few want those hassles. (Not that they're big ones...) Me, I am looking forward to trying Double X and HP5+ in EK's new XTOL developer....

Jeff "soup me" Kreines

Page 350 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Prewashing will reduce the pink tint problem (which is caused by residual sensitizing dyes). But honestly, who cares that the negatives are a bit pink? The print stock isn't going to change. Yes, the T-Max does look a lot better in the appropriate chemistry than it does in D-76. However, it still looks a whole lot better in D-76 than Double-X does. Retooling for the new chemistry would be good, but still not essential. XTOL is pretty nasty... it's got a heavy silver solvent, so it loses fine shadow detail in the process of reducing granularity. It honestly looks a whole lot like Microdol-X to me. I'll stick with D-23 for my still work.

--Scott

Page 351 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 352 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Moonlight

After reading an interview that touched on how to represent moonlight (can't remember who it was--hopefully someone can remind me), I adopted that cinematographer's method, which is to think of moonlight as *pale* rather than blue. Just that slight change in the way I thought about the light made a vast improvement in my own lighting for moonlit scenes. My feeling is that the best way to represent moonlight is to "suggest" it by manipulating the relative color temperatures of the units used for the scene, without making it really obvious to the audience. To that effect, I generally try to make the "moonlight" in a scene appear almost white, but slightly cooler than any artificial sources present. For example, if I have an interior with a tungsten unit for moonlight at the window and a table lamp inside the room, I'll gel the moonlight unit with 1/4 or 1/2 CTB (depending on how cold I want it--1/4 usually does it). If I have an HMI outside, but tungsten inside, I'll actually warm up that HMI to kill off some of the blue. I think the same way when setting an ambient light level for a night interior room. I sometimes like to set a warm area around a practical (say, a bedlamp), and have the light fall off into a murky, but pale, darkness. This works well for some stories, not so well for others. I think the key is moderation, unless you're lighting bad erotica.

Chris Ray

Page 353 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Personally I hate the convention of blue moonlight, though it does have its place....it certainly works in those big night exteriors in 'Michael Collins.' On a physiological level, at low light levels you are seeing with the rods of your eyes, therefore mostly in monochrome. When this issue came up on the AOL Cine board, Stan McClain mentioned a neat solution which a DP he'd assisted for used on a movie 25 years ago. The movie was 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull,' and I'm sorry to have forgotten the DP's name. The movie was about seagulls, obviously, so there was a lot of footage of them flying, including at night. Well, you can't light up the sky at night. So the DP had the ingenious idea of shooting that footage day for night, which was a good idea as there would be no missing car headlights or anything else to give it away. AND he shot on black and white, probably filtering orange or red to darken the sky, which he printed with a slight bluish tint onto the regular color print. Stan McClain thought it worked great. I haven't seen the movie but it certainly sounds good, don't you think? I haven't had to do many night exteriors which were outside an urban location. In a city I think it's not hard to motivate light from other sources than moonlight: streetlights, windows, store signs, etc. These can be many different colors: warmish as if from windows, orangey-brown for sodium-vapor, greenish-blue for mercury vapor, etc. It can look extremely natural and unlit, whereas with 'movie moonlight' I think you are counting on a movie convention to carry the idea. A counter-example: in the recent 'Swing Blade' there are some night scenes with a very obvious, very blue source, though only on the principal action--the background falls off completely. In scenes which take place on the small-town street there are even mercury vapor-streetlights reading greenish in the background. This movie looks to have been shot completely under the gun so I don't mean to slam the DP, but the lighting really stood out to me, and not in a good way. Why not have used pools of greenish light like those streetlights? As it is, you see what you're supposed to see, but it looks like it's spot-lit. Unfortunately on a low-budget movie you are often lacking in the prep time which would allow you to come up with a simple and effective solution to a problem like this. The fall-back is, I guess, to put up a big blue light and say it's the moon. What watching this scene impressed upon me was: never let yourself get cornered this way!

AT

Page 354 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

At a talk a couple of years back a gaffer asked Steven Poster for any tips in lighting night scenes. Mr. Poster said that he adds a little bit of green to his lights in addition to some blue. I have never experimented with that concept, but it does seem interesting. My vote for best lit night scene in [my] recent memory: Forrest Gump. Just an ever so slight evidence of blue if any at all. My vote for worst lit night scene (interior): The Brothers McMullen. The DP seems to interpret moonlight as a bright blue Times Square neon sign, but since the house was in Long Island I doubt that was the motivation for it. ;-) My vote for best day-for-night (color) scene: Jaws. My mouth dropped when I found out the exterior night scenes of the boat were shot day-for- night. Vey convincing. My vote for worst day-for-night (color) scene: Jesus Christ Superstar. It was a "black and blue" film. Jus' my opinion,

Layne Uyeno

We have about a 3/4 moon tonight, very bright where we are (in the country) so I spent a couple minutes out there looking at the garden. If you think about it, it's just reflected daylight (bounced off the moon) and appears to be about as blue as daylight is. Looked blue at night compared to tungsten, but not deep blue. Such a sharp hard shadow...

Jeff "Mister Moonlight" Kreines

Here's the poop on Sling Blade. I talked the with film's color timer, Dan Muscarella, for an upcoming article on Timers. He told me about his experience with Sling Blade. Billy Bob Thornton was present for every timing session and very diligent about the film's look. They shot on Kodak, CFI used Kodak intermediate stocks all the way to the Answer print. However, unbeknownst to Dan, the IN was taken to a Lab in Canada for the release prints and was printed onto Fuji stock. Fuji positive stock does not react 1 to 1 like Kodak. A Kodak-timed IN for Kodak release

Page 355 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

would have to be completely adjusted for a Fuji release. In Sling Blade's case. It wasn't. The end result of all of this is a shift to GREEN in the release prints. Thornton and Muscarella had given the film a wonderful warm "goldenish" hue that is entirely absent from the film's theatrical release. Hmmm... I wonder if that'll change for the video release. Just one more headache to think about. :-)

Chris Probst

Nestor Alemendros once said that it was easier to do day-for-night and dusk-for-night in color because you can use blue as a way of "signalling" the audience that the scene was supposed to be night. Silent movies used to tint night scenes blue, even if they were shot obviously in daylight, so the color blue in this case could be seen as symbolizing night. I feel that moonlight should feel cooler than tungsten light - but it should also be lower in saturation, which is harder to accomplish. But what color you use should be determined by the script - realism is relative anyway. Most of us can barely see by moonlight while in a city; but once I was in the middle of the desert at night under a full moon and it looked so bright and produced such crisp shadows that it felt like a bad day-for-night shot in a movie! An interesting note: in the French movie version of "Cyrano", the D.P. used blue moonlight in most of the scenes, even though Cyrano talks about the "saffron moon". There is even a matte shot with a yellow moon in the sky above streets bathed in blue moonlight. Anyway, if I feel that the scene emotionally needs cold lighting, I make the moonlight blue. But if the scene needs warmer lighting, I either make it white or I suggest that sodium streetlights are lighting the scene and use orange gels on the lights.

David Mullen

Page 356 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

This is he technique Second Unit DP David Nowell used for the night flying sequences of "Flight of the Intruder" He did use a deep red filter to darken the sky, but tried to avoid the sky and shot downwards toward the Intruder jets and placed them against the ground, the water, or clouds. The resultant B&W negative was printed onto color stock with blue coloration. Since the aircraft were gray and run without navigation (wingtip) lights when in combat, it was totally a believable effect.

Bill Bennett

I've always felt that the appropriate amount of blue in moonlight (none to massive) should be decided from project to project using the same criteria that we use to determine how much color and what type of color palette will be used for the daytime footage. I don't think that it's always necessary for moonlight to appear absolutely "realistic." For some projects, it's appropriate that it be more expressionistic. It's one of those areas of photography where the DP is more or less forced to make an aesthetic/stylistic decision that effects the tone & mood of the piece, and how the audience will feel about what they're seeing. I think that the convention of blue moonlight derives from at least two items: 1) As others have said, when we see moonlight (reflected sunlight) it is generally seen with a tungsten reference, so it appears blue. 2) The skylight we first see at dawn before the sun rises, and the skylight we see last at night after the sun has set (before total darkness) is blue. The following "moonlight" is of such low intensity that we don't see color very well, which is similar to what happens when we view colors under a heavily saturated source. (Colors complementary to the source color turn black, blue & black are hard to tell apart, etc.) Perhaps these factors cause us to subconsciously think of moonlight as a "blue wash." In an area lit solely by moonlight, our eyes adjust, so that we're "seeing into the shadows." They also (theoretically) adjust to "time-out" the blue. But we still have trouble differentiating color at such low light levels, so we still have the same (monochrome-ish?) effect of a "color wash." For these reasons, I think that a more "realistic" moonlight effect for a "realistic-type" film, would be moonlight that is not so much "less blue," as lower contrast. True, the lower contrast will desaturate the blue moonlight, but it effects other aspects as well:

Page 357 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

A low-contrast approach mimics what happens to your eyes in a an area lit totally by moonlight, where your eyes adjust to "see into the shadows." There are fewer deep shadows (especially close by), and very few "highlights." Deep shadows may occur further away from us, but perhaps they are not quite as "deep" as they would be if our eyes were adjusted to a brighter artificial source? I've seen some "low-contrast" approaches to night exteriors, and have been wanting to try such an approach for some time now, but haven't had a opportunity to try it on a project on which it would be appropriate. (Maybe a SLASHER film, eh?) :) Has anyone had success using low-cons or some other method to achieve such a "realistic" moonlight effect? How did you achieve it?

Sean Peacock

Page 358 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Movies as Music

I was talking to someone earlier today who'd just seen Armageddon and really enjoyed it, of course, he said, it'll get slammed by the critics. He then said that we had a strange way of reviewing film if you compared it to the way music is reviewed.

With music you have reviewers that specialise in classical, or rock, or pop or blues or....whereas in film we have really only the one prominent kind of reviewer and that they equate roughly with the classical music reviewer.

So of course they hate Armageddon, it's rock & roll.

I got to thinking about it, I've spent the day sitting on the cliff watching the tide come in and then go back out, and there's an interesting analogy to be drawn here.

Up until fairly recently the movie Industry has been stuck in that music period before the mid 60's where the studio's ruled and the artists were trampled.

We've just got to the stage where the artists are setting up their own record labels, sorta late 60's apple and rolling stone records, and we're also just going through the Sergeant Pepper, Itchycoo Park, Wheels on Fire, special effects era.

So soon we'll all settle down and just use the effects rather than over-use them.

Page 359 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

How about movies shot on DV and transferred to 35mm as Punk? So, where does that leave me? wanting to make the filmic equivalent of It's Only Rock & Roll that's where.

Drawing on all the source material but putting it together on a way that's fresh and timeless.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle

Aaah. I wish. Can't resist a reply though, even from frantic, wintry Sydney.

Even within the sectors of the music industry, populism tends to be frowned on by the critics. Once the 3 Tenors traded in on their success, they were condemned in the eyes of the serious opera reviewers. David Helfgott (to take a popularly filmed example) may be technically clumsy, but he brought Rachmaninov and others to packed houses who were genuinely moved by the performances. But the critics slated him. Perhaps a Helfgott concert is like a good script badly shot and edited. (to come back on to topic).

Also, the ""rock'n'roll"" movies tend to get plenty of ""reviews"" of -shall we say - the uninformed, uncritical kind that make one look to the ownership of the newspaper/TV network and of the film studio. Generally it's a different type of reviewer or critic who deals with art-house, and who probably feels obliged to slate the blockbusters just to bring a bit of balance back.

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

The primary story line may have been rock & roll, but the slick pristine commercial vision (as in tv commercial vision. . . meant as a compliment) that almost can be perceived as a movie within the movie was more like classical music . . . I even had flashes that some of the images were

Page 360 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

derivative of Robert Frank . . . in color. I am talking about the constant cutaways to the farm, or the street scenes of the cities. I don't remember seeing a second unit credit, but I would venture to say that Michael Bay and John Schwartzman had tremendous input in creating stylish, impeccably composed, well choreographed and stunningly art directed images adjunct to the core events of the movie.

Has anyone noticed that the majority of mainstream movies are running longer than the traditional 90 minutes these days? I guess it's good for Gross Global Product.

-Mark Simon

Just for argument's sake, some ""rock&roll"" can suck also and maybe ""Armageddon"" was mediocre even within the confines of the genre. I'm sure that a number of critics knew going in what kind of film it was trying to be and might have judged it on its own merits and still found it lacking. Also, is it wrong for critics to have higher standards than audiences, or wish that the audience would demand better films?

There has always been a gap between ""serious"" film critics who dabble in theory and essay writing, and those who are more consumer advocates. Do we really need more Susan Grangers and Joel Seigels who seem to like everything? Should critics, who see a lot more films than anyone else, ignore their trained reactions and just try and guess what the ""average"" viewer will enjoy (like those Variety reviews which try to guess how well the film will do at the box office?)

Is it so bad when film critics don't agree with our own reactions? Personally, if I liked a movie, I don't really need the confirmation of critics that I have good taste. I guess all I want from a critic is consistency so I can judge what the movie must really be like, taking his or her biases into consideration when reading the review.

Now that I'm done playing devil's advocate (for my brother-in-law's sake, who is a classical music critic), I do agree that critics should be more open to the broad range of possibilities in filmmaking. They tend to

Page 361 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

either equate documentary realism as the highest state of film art (something Hitchcock and Truffaut discussed) and thus ignore the films of Michael Powell, for example, or they review films mainly for their literary value.

David Mullen

Pardon my presumption. Just found your guys' site. It's now one of my favorites.

I am not a cinematographer. Got an MFA from Columbia (under Andrew Sarris) in Film History & Criticism in 1972 during the great Scorsese- Ashby-Coppola-Don Siegel/Dirty Harry decade. Naturally I just retired from a career in Federal Law enforcement. Be that as it may - regarding the analogy of music and films. Critics and audiences alike take one very basic film element for granted: You have to know where to put the camera. Ford did. So did Hawks. I'd love to see Gene Siskel's home movies. Or better yet still photos of his summer vacation(s). Every time I watch the opening chase sequence of Carpenter's remake of 'The Thing', I'm blown away by his handling of the helicopter, the dog, the guy with the rifle, and that deep snow. You know where each is in relation to the other and know exactly what's going on at all times..

When I think of what I went through for a tempo and editing exercise in film school with an 8 mm(!) camera and a tennis ball to make a coherent 5-minute film as the ball bounced anonymously from room to room...

One last analogy regarding film and criticism: I'll never forget the take on critics of one of my teacher/filmmakers in a documentary class - 'Saying that a(n American) movie is good because it is well-photographed is like saying 'Moby Dick' is a masterpiece because it has a nice type face.'

Peter Goodspeed

Page 362 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Except that the artistry with which a story is photographed has substantially more to do with the viewers' appreciation of the story than the type face has to do with the reading experience. Try to visualize a poorly photographed CITIZEN KANE, for example.

--Wade Ramsey

At first, it seems like a clever statement.

But in fact, it's quite stupid. It reduces the role of the cinematographer to less than the role of a typesetter. It says that great cinematography is essentially unimportant, to be assumed, when there are films in which the shooting is as or more important than the script or performances. Imagine, say, Citizen Kane as shot by, oh, I won't name anyone, but think 70's sitcom style. Would it lose something?

A more apt but stupid clever statement would be to say, oh, that Bob Dylan's genius comes solely from his guitar playing. It may be a component of his music, and an important one, but it's hardly the most important one. BTW, Geoff, great original post.

Jeff ""going back to a musical analogy"" Kreines

For once I have to Disagree with you Jeff. DO you think a typesetter goes home and thinks about how unimportant his job is or when he walks by a book store with his family, do you think he proudly makes a reference to that book being ""his"". I'll bet he is real proud of his work and doesn't gloat because the NY Time book review doesn't mention him. Of course the author thinks nothing of the typesetter in his thought of the book, but he is an intricate part of the entire process. Yes there is a relationship of the cinematographer to the director, but how many times is that directors work his. In other words, how many times is the director the author of the material that he is translating to celluloid. I don't think the writer of the screenplay sits there and says; ""I have a great

Page 363 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

cinematographer in mind for this story"", yet the cinematographer is no less important to the piece than the director. But so is the wardrobe person, the set designer and the like. They are no less important to the piece. Maybe in human terms considered less important (because of societies ridiculous teachings that there are winners and losers in life). It's all how you look at it. If you want to take it as an insult, then you are correct in your statement but if you want to look at it as a statement that says there is more to any film than any one element then you'll begin to see beyond the ""put down"".

As I've said before, I've seen some great movies that had lousy cinematography and I've seen some lousy movies that had great cinematography. Just shows that a film is more than any one person.

++++saying...Bob Dylan's genius comes solely from his guitar playing. It may be a component of his music, and an important one, but it's hardly the most important one.++++

I know many who think as a writer of music, Bob Dylan is a genius but as a performer he sucks. I feel that way myself. I had the (opposite of pleasure) of working with him six years ago and his attitude on life sucks. If you didn't know he is considered a great song writer you would think he was nothing more than a bitter asshole. Doesn't make him any less a genius, but I would much rather here other people perform his songs than him singing his own. In fact more people have made better cuts and been a lot more successful at his songs than him. He even bitterly admits that and history has recorded that fact.

As for your guitar statement, I would love for you to talk to some of the greats and ask them how unimportant their guitar is. I think you'd find that you soon insult them with any reference to their guitar being just part of the equation. Les Paul made his whole career not on the music he wrote or sang, but on the guitar he sold to everyone. Ask a classical musician about his instrument and tell him that his instrument is merely part of the equation and you'll not make many friends or get into the concert for free.

Whole companies; Steinway"", etc have made careers on having the best instruments and any good musician will tell you they are only as good as their instruments.

Page 364 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

++++Imagine, say, Citizen Kane as shot by, oh, I won't name anyone, but think 70's sitcom style. Would it lose something? +++++

I think it is impossible to make any reference to a film, the person, who made it, and when it was made and try to give the scenario of ""what do you think would happen if they made it now?"". Kane was a masterpiece of it's time. It still is. But it was made when it was by a person who was successful when he was and it could never be duplicated or even come close. I have yet to see anyone agree that any remake of anything from the past is even close to the original. There are too many factors in film making, when it was done, and who did it to try to make a weak comparison like ""what if???"". But you need not use a great like Kane either. No average film could be made the same way by any two different people.

WalterNY

Typesetting is an art. In many ways it is as underrated as cinematography is by the public. If you don't believe the font and it's layout can affect your mood then why are there so many? Having thrown that out, I would compare the book's binding to the theater seats and the type face to all the accoutrements that affect our viewing of the projected images. So is the statement valid? I don't think so. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Can't be done (though many try).

Great post Geoff. It really made me think. Though I would agree that there were reviewers bashing music before it could be recorded and stage plays long before films came along. I also note that reviewers are called critics. It's in their job description.

Eric Swenson Will watch any bad film if even one craft has done an excellent job.

Page 365 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

And why do people have libraries of hard cover cloth bound books and no one prides themselves in paperbacks. People who like books take pleasure in the form of a book (e.g. the typesetting, the binding, the paper quality, etc). When I started the genre of commercials for the major publishers. I was told by many that these days, the cover of a book is as important to the sales as many of the authors. In fact some say that certain authors book covers are more important that the literary quality of the author. That comes from the vice president of Bantam books so if you want to complain about that statement call her.

Where years ago the cost of a paperback cover was on the order of a few cents, some have covers that cost up to a dollar per unit. Quite expensive when your selling a book.

Film is a collaborative effort utilizing the talents and skills of many people, towards a common goal.

The director has the following three elements at his disposal: a) the story b) the actors performance c) the cinematography

Personally I believe that cinematography has been neglected in the recent years, but is making a strong comeback.

It's a shame because it's a third of the potential resources that you have at hand to tell your story.

Proponents of ""pure cinema"" will argue it counts for more than a third. Murnau may have agreed with that statement, just take a look at something like ""The Last Laugh"". Just my opinion.

Feli

Page 366 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Surely a really great film is when everyone has done their job well - and a really great director sees to it that everyone does their job well AND with the same effect. That's why CITIZEN KANE scores well in all the ""10 best movies"" lists. Not only do the cinematographers love it, so do the actors, literary critics, editors, semiologists etc. And they love it even more because every great thing about the film is in tune with every other great thing.

But there are plenty of good films worth watching that gain their strength from excellence in some areas despite being only average in others. They just aren't in the top 10 of all time.

Dominic Case Atlab Australia PS. Not sure how Casablanca and GWTW earn their places in the top 10 according to the above theory. Discuss.

Try telling that to the editors. For that matter, try watching a Hitchcock film without the Bernard Herrmann score (or with it when Hitch ran the scene sans music). Notwithstanding his visual and directorial excellence, I doubt if Hitchcock would have gained such eminence without his composer. The stories were all the same.

BTW - - Feli - you should revise your rates. One fiftieth of a cent?? ;-)

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

Page 367 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Not meaning to belabor the point, but the previous Moby Dick remark was a compliment to the typeface itself, not how the book was set, or the craft of the typesetter. It would be like complimenting the cinematographer on the shape of, say, a 1.85 frame -- it's a choice often made by others (aspect ratio, or type family), a restriction that the typesetter or cinematographer lives with and works under. I have great respect for typesetters -- my father was a printer, and I often spent long days at Ludlow and Linotype machines and watching ""strippers"" cut lith film to burn plates.

All dead technology, of course!

Let's leave Dylan as off topic -- but ""Time out of Mind"" is a great album... not up to ""Blood on the Tracks"" or ""Blonde on Blonde"", but pretty damn good. But he doesn't need defending... The only reason I mentioned Citizen Kane is that I was reading yet another Welles bio and it sprung to mind as a reference everyone would know.

Jeff ""the clarifier"" Kreines

In fact, if you look at many books, especially poetry books, you will see the selection of typeface, sizing, kerning, line spacing and line breaks, etc. have a great effect on the final appreciation by the reader for the book. In fact, paper selection and finishing materials for the case binding are often endlessly debated, too for fine books (not necessarily those produced for mass paperback consumption.) And the ""dumbing down"" of the craft of typeface design and typesetting are debated with as much fire as we reserve for DV cameras.

Page 368 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The actress who plays ""old Rose"" in Titanic has made a career of producing fine-art printed books which have been bought and displayed in many of the world's most prominent art museums. So the analogy both slights fine cinematography and fine typography.

Mark ""I'll take Gill Sans over Arial anyday"" Schlicher

<> Also is, The Wardrobe, The set decoration, Music, Sound Effects, Special effects, Sound design, Editing. I'm sure there are more. I don't think that Cinematography has been neglected in recent years. In that I believe you mean cinematographic technique. I see TOO many movies that have just Amazing Cinematography, but are lacking in Story, performance, and or Direction. Lot's of technique.

Steven Gladstone

so its rock and roll, but is it good rock and roll?

I hate to disagree, but there are a lot of very different types of movie reviewers, I’m sure if I looked at a month old newspaper with Armageddon ads, there would be some quotes from reviewers who liked it.

Page 369 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

as for DV features being punk rock, punk rock was not about a technical way of making music, it was about an attitude (after all, a lot of it still used the same blues progressions chuck berry used and the same instruments). I can't wait for punk attitude to hit films. I feel like contemporary films are in 1976 with Billy Joel playing on the radio, and some very frustrated young musicians are out there not wanting to be Pink Floyd or Elton john. I certainly hope things in film are about to explode.

---o.fenech

The cinematographer in a film is not the typesetter of a finished manuscript. He is the film equivalent of the part of the Herman Melville which is describing the surroundings, setting the atmosphere and mood and everything else that makes you picture the whale chase in your mind as you read the story.

Bruce Douglas

The thrust of my remark was to disparage neither bookmaking nor cinematography - two of my life interests. It was to disparage -within the specific context of Geoff's original great post - the quality of American film criticism. Europeans have long held American cinematography in a higher regard than over here. Admiring the photographic work within a great film is one part of understanding the totality of the work. Some critics think, though, that that is all there is. Conversely they think mediocre films or worse have no photographic merit.

Page 370 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Carpenter’s remake of 'The Thing' was pretty much panned by the critical press. But it's opening helicopter/sleddog/rifleman sequences are certainly worthy of inclusion in a course on editing, tempo, shot establishment, etc. And, like 'Armageddon' you guys would recognize even more valuable material and/or technique in them than even the most film-literate viewer.

Phg

Exactly!! Although I love beautiful and appropriate type faces and graphic design, my appreciation for Moby Dick would not change one iota whether I read it in a hand-written manuscript (so long as it was readable), typewritten pages, or the most elegantly presented layout and typeface--in my mind, where the story is taking place--the images would be exactly the same.

Film images replace the mental images as you watch a story. The contribution of all the craftspeople and artists becomes an important part of those images, naturally, and cannot be discounted. But the ""look"" of the images has a powerful effect on our appreciation of a good story, at least it does for me.

No typeface has any effect on my mental image of the story I read. –

Wade Ramsey

Page 371 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Re DV being punk, I am not so sure. It might also be something less wonderful... but Pixelvision might be closer to punk. And perhaps Betacam transferred to video is like, well, that self-produced, self- promoted CD of lounge music that even the friends of the artist don't listen to. (Got one in the mail once from someone named ""Skipper...) I suppose the Dylan and Welles examples make some sense, as both of them were considered godlike in their mid-20s, and found it hard to top (or equal) their younger work...

Jeff ""not easy being a prodigy, is it?"" Kreines

>>'Saying that a(n American) movie is good because it is well- photographed is like saying 'Moby Dick' is a masterpiece because it has a nice type face.'>>

I can see the sense in the quote but I think some of the members are seeing something that's not there.

I was trained in the theatre where I was taught the play is everything. If someone remarks how nice you lit this or that then you'd basically failed in your job. When I started to shoot promos the opposite seemed to apply and for that reason I stayed away from them for ages. Then when I did start shooting them I soon learned that if you applied the same reasoning then you were out on your backside. So I did a complete u-turn and started to throw the camera about and to light in a way that it was ""visible"".

Page 372 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It seems to me what the above quote is saying is ""most"" American films have no spine but a pretty skin. While there's nothing wrong with admiring a pretty skin don't go calling the body great or a masterpiece. Citizen Cane may be a great movie but it would've been that anyway even if it had been photographed by another DP - it just has too many things going for it to be held back by ""bad"" photography. But this is something we will never know. However, I base my statement on some beautifully shot remakes of classic films which sunk like a ton of bricks! So why didn't the good photography buoy them up? The majority of Hitchcock and Ford films are atrociously lit. But who complains about the bad lighting? Yet not a few of them are considered ""masterpieces"" of American cinema. I haven't seen the remake of Psycho but 10-1 it is beautifully lit but will sink into oblivion while Hitchcock's version will still be playing in 50 years time.

While the cinema is a visual medium primarily and an audio medium secondly it's as well to remember that it is a cerebral experience above all - unless, of course, you're on a date! :-)

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman

Page 373 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 374 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Neons

question: when shooting with neon lights in the frame, what problems can I expect. I'd like to ramp from 96 fps down to 24 fps. will there be any flicker problems. are there windows as with HMI. I've heard about electronic ballast's that square up the wave so that the discharge is incredibly fast, eliminating any flicker. any help would be greatly appreciated. thanks.

Adam Gilmore

I shoot in Las Vegas a lot...an awfully lot. The only problem I've had with neon is the brightness. I'll either put it on a neon type dimmer (they do exist) or put some net over the stuff. But mostly I just let it kind of blow- out. As far as flicker, I've never had a problem.

Chet Simmons

I am not an expert, but I think the answer is you should be safe, at any speed. I worked on a film that did a day in a neon shop. (Hot as Hell) The Neon blower (which is a fascinating process) said that Neon runs off of Milli Amps, and THOUSANDS of cycles per second. Yes it certainly does herz to get a shock from those ballast’s. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember him saying. Good luck

Steven

Page 375 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Yup, most neon lamps have RF excitation... there is still a 60 Hz flicker component, but it's not half as bad as with fluorescents. I have shot neons and occasionally seen visible flicker, but no more than you would see with the naked eye. However, the induced noise will drive your sound guy up the wall.

Scott Dorsey

Isn't that visible Flicker, caused more by the failure of the Bulb, similar to what happens, when a fluorescent light ages and dies. That funny kind of liquid running of bands. On that shoot, in the Neon Shop (Marcus Hahn was the D.P. I was an electric) I remember them shooting with a Plate shot with an Arri IIc, and having to relight the set with tungsten because it wasn't crystal. There didn't seem to be any concern about flicker, from the Neon bulb. Once again. This is all from Recollection from like three years or so ago.

Steven

I've seen very bad (as in reshoot) flicker when shooting high speed (200- 300 fps) with neon.

Mako Koiwai

Page 376 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Notes about shooting neon. It is very bright. If you are shooting neon in daylight, you can still read the tubes. If you are shooting at night, the tubes can overexpose so much that they will be indistinguishable "blobs" of light. I use dimmers to slow the tubes down, but you can only do that to a point before they tube goes out, and that point is typically still to bright. I either put net, or ND filter over them to bring them down more. Sometimes putting brown or black "Streaks and Tips" water soluble hair coloring spray on the tube will be an emergency solution. If you are using common neon step-up transformers from the neon sign shop, they tube does flicker at twice the AC line frequency, just like regular florescent lamps or HMI lamps running off magnetic ballast’s. You have to use the "HMI legal speeds" to stay out of trouble. And I mean *reshoot* trouble. Also in-shot camera frame rate changes are big trouble too. I have heard that there are high frequency power supplies for neon tubes, but I have never seen one. Another problem to watch out for if you are having neon signs made for a shoot: If the tubes are mounted on a sign that has a solid background, make sure the neon sign maker paints the back side of the tube, that faces the background of the sign, opaque black. This is necessary because the neon, that close to the sign backing that it is mounted on will overlight that area, even if the tubes are dimmed, rendering a blob of light rather than a defined tube shape. I got burnt by this when we were in a rush for a sign, the neon maker wanted to paint the back of the tubes as usual, and my buddy the Art Director said "Naw, don't bother with that, we don't need it" .....One reshoot day later, I discovered how wrong he was.

Bill Bennett

Page 377 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 378 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Night Interiors

I'm about to start a project that has a significant element of Night-Interior with no motivated sources. Meaning, curtains drawn, no candles and no power. Isolated location. The cast do use some candles and a flashlight now and then but NOT ALWAYS. I have a pretty good idea of what I want to do but I'd like to gather as much reference material as possible. "Death and the Maiden" comes to mind but I really didn't like the way that looked: way too lit. There must be some better references out there... Thanks,

D.P.

Well, it's OK to be near pitch black for short sequences if a flashlight is going to be turned on (I'm thinking of the opening of "Radio Days") - but for extended scenes in the dark, you have to make up SOME source, even if it's indirect ambient night skylight. You assume that the characters' eyes have adjusted to some sort of dim light, and you expose or print it down to what feels dark but still hold enough detail.

On home video, however, dim photography does not play well because of the ambient room light that most people view their TV sets in. I didn't see "Death and the Maiden" in the theater, but I'm sure that the transfer was brighter looking than the print for easier viewing on TV (unfortunately). The Criterion laserdisc of "Seven" (transfer supervised by the director) was dark enough for many reviewers to suggest that it should be viewed only in a darkened room.

"Seven" and "Silence of the Lambs" have many good, dark scenes. Philippe Rousselot is a real master of the dim, soft ambient night look which is great when printed or transferred dark enough, but looks too flat

Page 379 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

and lit if shown too bright. Look at "Interview with a Vampire" (the last scene where Louis finds Lestat in the abandoned mansion) or parts of "Mary Reilly". "Lost Highway" takes underexposure to extremes but some of the milkiness is effectively creepy - "Blue Velvet" has a similar vibe in spots. "The Game" has some good scenes where it's pretty dark.

Gordon Willis and Bruce Surtees both did a lot of really dark stuff in various scenes in their movies. I remember Willis even complaining about Surtees' work in "Escape from Alcatraz" saying that the film might as well have run black leader in some scenes.

I personally like the stylized night work of old b&w movies, like in "The Innocents', "Night of the Hunter", "Jane Eyre", or the castle scenes in the original "Dracula"...

David Mullen

Good God... Be careful here. Talk to your production designer. I just trapped myself into this situation a little while back and I cringe at the results. Make sure that your walls are not white!!! If you're having to work with "no-light" white walls will KILL you. It's best to create some sort of edge light as separation on your actors -- but if you have dark walls 90% of your work is done and you can get away with murder. Keep your front fill soft and at least two or three stops down. Don't be afraid to let your actors drop into pools of nothingness (as long as the narrative permits it) for a moment or two to help sell the idea - but be careful of the difference between your lit areas and your dark areas. I can highly recommend Kino's as backlights - an idea that I thought was crazy until my gaffer sold me on it - and as was mentioned earlier they're easy to hide. If you keep your walls dark and fill with very soft, underexposed, white light and then edge just a bit at key or less you can easily sell the idea of "no light."

Jay Holben

Page 380 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

"Jackie Brown" had some of the most amazing night-for-night photography I've seen in a long time. When it was "dark" it was really dark, but they devised clever ways that you could still see what was going on. Samuel Jackson in a car on a street at night, his face looking almost completely without detail, but you could still see his eyes! And then of course that scene where he and Pam Grier keep turning that light on and off in her living room. Wow. Both interiors and exteriors. Beautiful stuff. Check it out in a theatre, if you can, if you haven't seen it yet.

Phil

Maybe Tarkovsky's "The Sacrifice" (Sven Nykvist).

Thoughts: I have found that I don't feel nearly as much need for literal motivation in Black and White as I do in color. I've thought about this but haven't been able to articulate exactly why this should be the case. I'll note FWIW that in "The Sacrifice" the night scenes are very close to monochromatic, (and in fact Tarkovsky often mixed B&W and Color in in his films.)

My latest film was about 90% night scenes, half of them dark interiors. A major reference for me was a nativity by Geertgen tot sant jins - 15th C. It's in the National Gallery, London. (Hope the sp. is correct). Unfortunately I only know it from reproductions. It is one of the first "night for night" paintings in the Northern Renaissance. It depicts the Christ-child in the straw bed, in the manger, with a view out an open window in the rear with shepherds or Magi visible outside. The directional motivation for the interior is in fact the Christ-child i.e. that is the source.

Page 381 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

For the dark landscape and shepherds (or Magi I forget) the apparent source is a very small angel, that looks almost like translucent glass in the reproductions. So this angel is the source of the exterior light. Now I'm not getting religious on you but I'll point out that this is a wonderful example of motivated lighting that is not 'realistic' in any physical terms (though it may have been to Geertgen) but is nonetheless wholly organic in terms of the subject. (Actually I'd call it Neoplatonic but I'll stop here..)

I'd also look at LaTour and Rembrandt.

-Sam Wells

If you're looking for low-light situations or single source situations - also take a good look at Caravaggio's works like The Denial of Saint Peter - in which the soldier's face is completely in shadow, but his silhouette is separated by the light on the woman's face. Both Caravaggio and Rembrandt usually utilized the appearance of a single source, although Rembrandt's was usually softer then Caravaggio's. Like the Nativity that Sam mentioned, Rembrandt had The Adoration of the Shepherds in which the Christ-child is the source (although there is a gas lantern it pales in comparison to the luminance from the hay). But in both artist's work you never find a principal subject that is without detail. The dark areas of Caravaggio and Rembrandt's work are often the background players. Andrew Wyeth is another great one to look at for naturalistic low-lighting situations like his Cider and Pork or The Stanchions or Toll Rope - interestingly enough all of the three examples have no people in them - just mass "underexposure" just to the point that detail is still possible. I find "lighting for darkness" the best solution in most cases, but if you have an inexperienced director it can be a hassle. In this situation, you'd pay most attention to your ratios of light and dark, but keep the levels up a bit - then print down. This helps assure that the dark areas are not milky - but good solid blacks - because there is information on the negative in those areas, it's just printed down to the point of loss of detail.

Page 382 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It sometimes seems that with today's stocks - especially the Vision stocks - that good solid blacks are becoming more and more of a challenge. With keylight exposure possible from 8fc (ISO500 @ f1.9) and most of the vision stocks being able to read five stops easily down - you're looking at detail information at 1/4fc! The detail in the low shadows at this level tends to milk things up -- especially if you don't have a hot source in shot to increase the apparent level of blacks. So if you jump up a bit to a key level of say 40fc (f4 @ 500ISO) you've got a little more room at the base level to print things down into black. Of course in low-budget situations this kind of control is only possible in tighter shots. Best of luck.

Jay Holben

This is just a note to be classified under interesting, but useless trivia. Rembrandt would have no idea what all the ruckus is about "Rembrandt lighting".

Most art historians hold that Rembrandt never intended his art to look at all dark. It is the oxidation of the paints he used that created this "Rembrandt look".

Rembrandt would be *horrified* at the destruction of his art caused by the dramatic darkening of the pigments he used.

Cliff Hancuff

Page 383 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've got to question you here - as far as I've read - the differences in oxidized or aged oils and refurbished paintings is not so much the light/dark aspect as the wide color pallet that he used. Most people have associated reds/oranges/yellow with Rembrandt, but it would seem that he used many more vivid colors that had aged to yellows. I'd have to say, again only from my reading, that he worked intentionally dark - especially in works like The Rich Man from the Parable and The Rising of Lazarus - there are obviously areas of deep dark and only highlights. This idea may be true for more of his portraiture work - as in self portraits and portraits of Sasha - but not in his "narrative" works.

Jay Holben

Those light pigments must have been REALLY bright.

Art Adams

I realize that my post was more inspired from an vague memory of a Discovery Channel program or two and not the result of my study of art. I defer to your accounting as a more thorough an understanding than my own.

Cliff Hancuff

Page 384 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Boy, it's amazing how differently we can see things. I thought 'Jackie Brown' looked pretty lousy. There's a night scene early on where Sam Jackson goes to pick up his doomed minion at a courtyard-type motel. It becomes a long steadicam shot ending with Jackson and the other guy in a 50/50 in the 'proscenium' at the end of a passageway. In the background, presumably a street, it is solid black, actually a little milky. Jackson has no light on him and I don't think the other guy does either. So you have the arch, which is light in color AND has light on it, and a black area under it where you can barely make out either actor. Maybe they missed their marks. Maybe it was the last setup of the night and Tarantino insisted on rolling before the DP was ready. Who knows? But I don't think it does the story or the performances any good.

And that scene with the lamp going on and off seemed very very gimmicky to me.

I will be the first to admit that 'Jackie' is a much bigger movie than anything I am getting asked to shoot. And doubtless Tarantino is happy with the look, to whatever extent he cares.

Maybe the thing is that Tarantino is DP-proof and *no one* is going to do their best work with him.

Alan 'Nothing if not critical'* Thatcher

I think Cliff was referring to the famous case of "The Night Watch", which after cleaning, turned out not to be a night scene at all. The varnishes used by Rembrandt both caused overall darkening & yellowing over time, although Rembrandt was not a colorist in the manner of, let's say, the Venetian school in Italy. He DID use dark backgrounds - and black was a popular clothing color of the day. His narrative paintings tended to be about biblical stories, which were not popular in his day; the middle-class Dutch population preferred landscapes & still life’s and the wealthy preferred portraits of themselves. Although Rembrandt is associated with soft, natural lighting, if you study his narrative paintings, you'll find that the lighting is also quite theatrical with a dramatic spotlight effect on Christ (motivated sometimes) with the rest of the frame falling into darkness.

Page 385 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I think the difference between Rembrandt and Caravaggio was more than the fact that Caravaggio used harder "key" lights and higher contrast (necessary because his works hung in dark churches usually high above the alter) but also that Rembrandt used more glazing to add depth to his dark areas, allowing them to recede into darkness gradually. Of course, there are many more differences between the two men and their work...

David Mullen

Page 386 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Night Shooting

Being a graduate film student, I have enjoyed this list to no end. With so much to learn in this field, every outlet of information I can find is a major plus. I've been waiting for an opportunity to post a question and take advantage of an awful lot of expertise. So, here goes...

I am about to shoot a graduate thesis film here at FSU and I'm confronted with a standard situation but one that I have never shot in. We will be shooting some extensive night exteriors in a large setting- an old-style carnival wintercamp with about 12 to 15 motor homes placed in the middle of a cow field. At my disposal I have 4-6 1.2k HMI's and a bevy of tungsten lights. We'll be shooting Kodak's Vision 500T on 16mm. I know this is as somewhat nebulous question, but is there anyone who might be able to offer advice on what steps I could take or guidelines to follow to light this scene? I know there are a million answers to this, I'm just looking for a little sage advice.

Andrew Millians

Most common mistake with inexperienced "night lighters" (excuse my half-assed pun) is overlighting the scene. Think about your motivation at night and what night looks like to you. If it is a motor home park in an open field you probably don't want to light it up like a football field. Allow things to fall of 1stop, 2 stops, 3 stops, blackness, etc. To me, a night scene needs good blacks as much as it needs highlight (practical) areas. My 2 cents

JDBelinski

Page 387 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Assuming the field is quite large and the shot is somewhat enormous given you have so many motor homes, you could try ...

1) dusk shots (to supplement your lights) or some sort of Day for Night to do the cover shots then use your lighting arsenal to supplement the MS's and CU's.

2) Build a big fire in the middle of the compound and let the tungsten’s support the fire (similar color) and allow the HMI's to give you the overall bluish effect of a moonlight night.

3) Push the V500 one stop to give you some additional latitude. This will of course increase the grain significantly - but given the piece could be beneficial.

About 3 years ago one of FSU's graduates did a night shot in a wide open space using the same equipment you are now faced with. I saw the impressive film which was called, Demetrious the WerClown, I think. Why don't you contact him to get a pointer or two.

Jim.R.Allen.III

Without knowing what the camera angles are and if there are any dolly moves (in other words, what's the biggest area you have to light at one time), it IS a nebulous question. Plus, how many areas will you have to light during one night? Do you have a generator? How big is your electrical crew? How many pages & set-ups are you trying to accomplish? And the most important thing is - what do YOU want it to look like?

My suggestion: go to town on the practicals - just as Cameron added twice as many practicals to the deck of the Titanic, you should have as many porchlights and light coming from windows as possible (unless everyone is supposed to be asleep.) The practicals will do a lot of the lighting of the trailers, leaving you to concentrate on lighting the actors.

Page 388 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

As a film student, I used to light night exteriors with 1200 watt HMI pars on high roller stands (tied down for safety) or on top of big trucks or on rooftops. If you don't want blue light, you might consider using PAR 64 tungsten’s - the ones with narrow spot bulbs throw out a lot of light at a good distance. And they're only a 1K. Besides high roller stands, you might consider getting some parallels. Also, Kinoflos are great for hiding a soft source behind something - plus they use very little power.

In general (I'm REALLY oversimplifying) you'll want to work in backlight or crosslight with a minimal amount of fill when needed to maintain a sense of darkness and a night atmosphere. Don't try to light everything up - try to balance areas of darkness with lit areas. When you are really stuck, remember Nestor Almendros' advice - when a scene is very underexposed, one hot area of overexposure (like a bright lantern) will seem to balance the lighting to your eye, making the dark areas seem less murky. In the '70's, William Fraker used to put a Tweenie in the distance during a night scene just pointing at the camera - the little hot spot helped hide the underexposure.

David Mullen

"setting- an old-style carnival wintercamp with about 12 to 15 motor homes placed in the middle of a cow field."

Since it is a winter camp can snow be on the ground? If you can have snow then you may have too many HMI's for the scene. Snow will act like a huge bounce card and could adequately light your scene for you. I'll bet your local ice house could help you find someone who could blow in snow - maybe expensive - but maybe worth looking into.

Jim.R.Allen.III

Page 389 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I think all the responses were really great suggestions although I'm not sure I'd push one stop. Too much grain.

But I believe that creating some depth at night when possible is very helpful. Light up some trees far in the background. Lots of practicals. I'd be more inclined to use your HMI for background lighting and keep the tungsten for the trailers and foreground elements. Kind of the opposite of Jim's idea. - Sorry Jim :>) - But everyone's idea was great and all just as valid as the others. Best of luck with it.

Regards,

Jim S.

It's not clear how large an area you plan on shooting, but one of the ways to cover a relatively large area is to scatter the area with practicals and small sources throughout the scene to give it dimension. Don't be afraid to let parts of the scene go black, use shadows and silhouettes.

I'm not a big proponent of drowning an area with heavy blue backlight, it rarely looks good. A fire, or multiple small fires scattered throughout can help, as well as lanterns, maybe some strings of small lights to help guide the audience's eyes where you want it to. If you can use small units (1ks and 2ks) to light some bushes, trees, fence whatever in the far distance to give the scene some depth, by all means do so, and keep 'em at least 1 stop under so it doesn't call attention and overwhelms whatever you're covering.

You could consider shooting day for night, but I feel that when there are a lot of practicals involved (buildings, streetlights, etc...) it usually is hard to pull off well. If you do decide to go day for night, check the position of the sun at the times you'll be shooting. Day for night works best when the sun is used as a backlight and/or side light.

Talk to the production designer/art director if there is one and your gaffer to discuss other ideas for practicals and light sources. Above all, be creative, prepared and enjoy yourself. Good luck.

Page 390 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Kino's are great...but expensive. It is AMAZING what you can do with off- the shelf "light-sticks" those under the kitchen counter fluorescent fixtures, as well as the two bulb electronic ballast shop light fixtures. You can buy Optima 32 (tungsten balance) bulbs or Chroma 50 or Vita light (daylight balance) or you can use cool-white or any of a range of better CRI (color rendering index) bulbs now on the market. You can have fun putting little glows under or behind things if, and only if they add to the shot (which is trying to help tell a story) or in trailer windows.

I've lit lots of things from hardware store shopping runs We once lit an entire 747 (all three cabins) with rock & roll PARS through paper on the windows and shop lights taped and wired to the center console overhead baggage compartments. Millions saw the shots every year for about 5 years...it was an IMAX film on flight for the Smithsonian...Total lighting package cost was a fraction of a typical commercial. Good luck!

Mark

Remember, too, that effective "day-for-night" illusion also means replicating the "night" shooting conditions, so have your ND 9 and ND 1.2 filters ready, so you can shoot at or near wide open on the stop. Hate those deep-focus "night" shots! (which is why MY preference is to put the HMI units inside the trailers... so the windows can still blow out with an ND 9 on the lens!)

Jim Furrer

Page 391 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 392 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Making a Rainbow

How would I create a rainbow in my shot? In my bright daytime scene under a veranda during a downpour I would love to make a natural rainbow.

My trusty Dictionary says a rainbow is "an arc of all seven spectral colors appearing in the sky opposite the sun as a result of the refractive dispersion of sunlight in drops of rain or mist." Does that mean if I blast a beam of light from over the camera can I place a rainbow where I want it? Controlling the size, intensity and location of the light on the rain and mist should make it possible to control the rainbow, right? I could have sworn I saw it done on the X-Files...

Kevin M. Andersen

Finally, a question on cinematography, I was getting tired of this my video is better than you video 'pissing contest'. It seemed out of place on a cinematography site.

To answer your question. I had the opportunity or should I say the job, of recreating a rainbow for a shot in the early morning. I used the sun to do this on an early morning in Colorado. August is summer in Colorado, and I noticed that my sprinkler would give a rainbow if you stood just right as the sun came up over the east. I tried to recreate this effect and it was very, very difficult.

Page 393 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We were in college, so we were willing to try anything, unlike our professional work, which must be now what we 'know' to work. I tried lights, I tried all sorts of hoses and sprinklers but we ended up going to the source. The sun was the light source coming over the east, the sprinkler head is a simple type, metal cap with a slit on top of it, and the time is as soon as the Sun comes up. The sun was moving, so we had to re-adjust the sprinker often.

Which begs the question. What time do you intend to shoot this? What is your light source?, how long do you intend to shoot for?

As for the photography, don't worry too much about it. If you can see it, you can film it. Hope this helps.

Jesus M. Medina

How about a glass shot? I remember a shoot I worked on a few years ago when the main unit did just that. It was of an aeroplane flying into the rainbow. I seem to remember it worked quite well. Which these days opens up the whole idea of doing it in post.

Brian Rose

Page 394 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

How about this for a Bizarre idea. FILTERS.

I think Cokin makes a Really Cheesey ( my apologies to Cokin for Cheesifying them) Rainbow filter, that You could Maybe Play with. Or I think Tiffen made a Rainbow Filter that would Colorize Strong flares. Mine came out of the Dollar box and has the weirdest separation that snakes through the filter. Or perhaps you can call up Edmund Scientific and see about some Diffraction Grating.

Steven ( stop me now before I suggest a light coating of Oil and water on a Clear filter) Gladstone

I was going to make this suggestion as well (and I fully agree on the cheese factor). It was my understanding that you needed the rainbow to "appear" in shot. A simple approach would be a wide lockoff with and without filter and dissolve the two in post. I wonder if something more believable couldn't be done with a 50% percent mirror and some type of illuminated "rainbow" reflection (perhaps projected or a transparency). You could then make it "appear" by turning on your light source or removing a solid that was blocking the reflection. Sacha Vierny uses a similar gag in the Kodak Series "Shooting for Fantasy" to make a magical beam of light appear in shot. If staunch realism is your desired goal I'd sooner reach for the plaid filter than a rainbow! Regards,

Jonathan Belinski

Page 395 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I remember in an old A.C. article about the Lightflex, inventor Gerry Turpin suggested using a rainbow pattern created with gels in the Lightflex filter holder, which would then reflect it over the image somewhat out-of-focus.

Wouldn't work with the new VariCon but could be done with a simple 45 degree piece of glass in front of the lens...

David Mullen

Yes, thanks to all who suggested ways to cheat rather than recreate. The narrative of my story would be enhanced by the subtle insertion of a small rainbow pattern which is revealed when a character moves in a two shot. I'm talking subtle, not 'fantasy' or anything that will jump off the screen. It is an additional visual element I want to add at this moment and must be done in camera without any post tricks. It has to be seen in depth, in the background rain and mist so filters or projection of some kind would not be useful.

In order to recreate a rainbow one must understand what conditions are necessary to create one. I have heard many people tell me they see them by accident. Are the physics of this just so precise, the requirements so tight, or the conditions so extreme that this is not possible?

Lets try to refract some light in an artful manner!

Kevin "there will be gold at the end of the rainbow if I can do this" Andersen

Page 396 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

<>

From an airplane looking down to the ground I'm told a rainbow will be a circle and not an ARC. I think the idea presented about using a piece of glass at a 45 degree angle would work best. The further away from the Glass the rainbow painting ( On a Black background) is the deeper it will seem in the background.

Steven Gladstone

You know I carried that Cokin rainbow filter with me for years :-) Never used it. After at least ten years I took it out of my filter kit. The next job I needed it. Cheers

Geoff Boyle

<>

OK we know you need a light source and water vapour for refraction. Jesus (Medina) said he had trouble recreating this with anything but the sun; but even if you can find a light source strong enough, will it give you a full colour spectrum? i.e.: if using Tungsten/HMI/Arc etc - will you get the same spectrum?(refraction of white light and all that...)

Page 397 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Sorry Kevin, I know this isn't helping you much - I'd try it out with the abundant sunlight you have in LA and a hose or sprinkler and suggest talking to a SFX house about using rainpoles to make the mist since this will be easier to switch on and off than the sun! You'll have a relatively short window of sunlight position but think yourself lucky that you're not trying this in London!

Whilst I agree that you can photograph what you can see, we all know that the eye does not see the same as filmstocks - I have always had great difficulty making rainbows appear as strongly on film as they do to the naked eye. Even when they are strong enough to make a clearly visible double rainbow, the second one hardly registers on film against a dark cloud background - perhaps a lighter background is better but I don't believe so. Anyone know?

What are your reasons for not wanting to do it in post? It seems that you would have the control you need far more easily this way... I've sometimes found that a contrived reality is more realistic. ;-)

From an airplane looking down to the ground I'm told a rainbow will be a >circle and not an ARC.

Also available on mountain peaks above the cloud layer, this is known as the 'Brocken Spectre' - when you are between the sun and the clouds you get a shadow surrounded by a full circle rainbow, not much use in this case since clouds are hard to form at will. :-D

Dan Blanchard

Page 398 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

>I have always had great difficulty making rainbows appear as >strongly on film as they do to the naked eye.

Just speculating - but I wonder if the fact that rainbow light is monochromatic - a single wavelength at any part of the 'bow - (compared with most other objects which reflect a broadish spectrum of wavelengths) makes it less successful at recording on colour film to match the way that we see it.

>perhaps a lighter background is better but I don't >believe so. Anyone know?

Speculating again, but I think a lighter background would desaturate the image and make the rainbow _less_ visible. What I have noticed in photos of rainbows, is that the sky appears much darker outside the 'bow than inside ( I think it's that way round). This is never so obvious to the naked eye, but it looks very convincing - possibly a necessary feature if you did the shot artificially.

Dominic Case

With all the minute details of water droplet size, and so on...might be better to go with the recommendations to do it in post. I think one only sees rainbows with the sun behind you. In other words: rainbows are frontally lit for the viewer. (At least really strong, long- arced rainbows).

In other words, don't even bother side/back lighting a man-made water- mist.

I don't think you'd get much of a rainbow that way. Hope that suggestion wasn't too obvious.

They also occur "easier" further away from the viewer. When we see rainbow diffraction close to us, we only see part of the arc. Seeing the full 180 degree arching rainbow occurs further away (less parallax error between the viewer and the sun).

Page 399 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Someone recently told me of a location scout, whereupon the director saw a rainbow and ordered the driver to head to the end of it. Problem was that the director was serious. The shoot could only go downhill from there. :-)

Mark "hey, front-lighting isn't always bad" Doering-Powell

A rainbow painted in the proper perspective against black, mounted in a blacked out "tent" with it's own light source would work fine with a partially silvered mirror. Make sure the BG that would be behind the effect is predominately dark so it reads well. Watch out if you want to fade it up using a variac though, the color temperature change of the brightening bulb would make the spectrum fade up from mud. There are other ways of brighten the image, but I might suggest a clever black card art wipe.

Eric Swenson Somewhere over the H20 droplet light diffraction

Page 400 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Shooting 3 perf 35mm

I realise that this has been discussed at length elsewhere and that I'm probably opening up a can of worms but...... With TV production going 16:9 and most movies shot 1.85, why are we not shooting 3 perf? Cheers

Geoff Boyle

Viacom has been shooting a TV series called "Diagnosis Murder" (and others I think) for years with Panavision cameras modified with 3 perf pull downs. They are doing it for the stock & lab savings. One of the problems is that they are relegated to single (older) Rank because of the odd patch size.

Don Hayashi

I've been wondering why Super35 features don't shoot in 3-perf. The extra cost of the optical blow-up step would probably be paid for by the 25% savings in raw stock - plus you still have a negative/IP for home video transfer that is easier to pan & scan (if necessary) than anamorphic 2.35.

David Mullen

I shot some of the first American TV shows to try three-perf for Lorimar Television (now Warner Bros.) in the late 80's and early 90's. They tried it for a couple of seasons, but abandoned it finally because it caused post-

Page 401 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

production problems when they went to make PAL versions for Europe. Didn't seem to us like a big hurdle to overcome, but we were glad because the cameras were VERY noisy.

Lowell Peterson

For television, it should be pointed out that nearly all multicamera film sitcoms that are on 35mm are being shot in 3 perf. That's quite a bit of television production. As mentioned before, Diagnosis Murder is also on the format, as is Nash Bridges (at least it was, don't know if it still is -- they keep changing cameramen and post facilities). Part of the resistance is probably the lack of complete support on the film finish end -- the TLC still doesn't support 3 perf keys (although it is about to), and Avid still doesn't support them. Without those two devices directly supporting 3 perf key counting, negative cutting is more complicated than it needs to be. But what really gets me is that television producers, many of whom have only been around since the fairly recent advent of electronic post production, are being told that their shooting format is not "just" 35mm, but SUPER 35mm -- and, of course, as they will tell you, since it's SUPER 35, it is, by definition, bigger and better than "plain old" 35. They wouldn't think of shooting on that "tiny" 3 perf "garbage", since it will sacrifice the quality! So if you want to know why 3 perf isn't being used, that's a significant reason. Stupid, but significant. For my own purposes, I kind of like being on this nonsensical "shoot and protect" stuff, simply because it gives me quite a bit of added flexibility in building visual effects shots (resizing, repositioning, etc.), as well as in production, where I can often "use" this extra image area to my advantage.

Mike Most, Encore Video, LA PS - I am, of course, assuming that most everyone here understands that the image area in a 1:77:1 (16:9) extraction from a 4 perf frame is almost identical to that of a 3 perf frame shot with an optical center.

Page 402 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Well, Super-35 usually doesn't pan and scan -- it extracts a flat image from the Super 35 neg. or IP. In the case of James Cameron or Apollo 13, it's all common topline, so you get extra image at the bottom of the frame -- probably the least objectionable way to go. Three-perf would get back to panning and scanning (slightly). We could also go back to Techniscope! ;-) (Actually, I have a friend who is doing just that -- he's shooting 2-perf for straight to letterbox films. He's converted an XR35 and an Arri IIc in the rare Panavision Handheld Blimp (David, remember these?). He's a little crazy, but enjoying it...

Jeff "how many perf's d'ya want?" Kreines

All our new generation cameras have been designed to be able to accept a 3 perf movement if so desired. Unfortunately, for various reasons already discussed here, we have not gotten any orders for 3 perf movements. All our cameras run 4 perf right now. The only people I know of that use 3 perf is episodic television shows in LA shooting with 3 perf Panavision cameras. A very specialized market. Cheers, Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative Arriflex Corporation; 1646 N. Oakley Ave, Suite #2, Chicago, IL 60647- 5319, USA

Having asked how much to convert my 435 to 3 perf I'm now a major advocate of 4 perf. I don't know why I ever thought about 3 perf, daft idea really :-) Cheers

Geoff Boyle

Page 403 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I agree with Geoff, at least as far as film commercial production for TV is concerned. For the past two years I have been shooting with my cameras set up with the lens centered on Super-35, and have groundglasses made with the standard sized SMPTE "TV Scanned" area (that is usually centered on the Academy aperture) moved over to be centered on the Super-35 centering. I frame and compose within that area, and try to protect as much of the silent aperture as I can. Now, I have a tremendous area around the image that can be utilized in post production for resizing, re-centering , reducing, post production zooming, rotating, squeezing, etc. If we were to shoot 3 perf. All these things would not be possible. With so much of my image crafting being done in post production, I want to have as much flexibility as I can get in the original negative.

Bill Bennett

Sorry for the "me too" posting but I totally agree with you, when I suggested a while ago to some French DPs to shoot in S35 to gain in quality, most of them said they would prefer to have the extra image.

Regards JC.

Both Evertz and Aaton telecine Keycode readers support 3Perf. Since they both generate 3Perf-correct FLeX lists, TLC (telecine controller) or not, where is the problem Mike? Lightworks v.6 supports 3Perf and Avid FilmComposer version 7 will by March 98. We like 3Perf since it makes the Aaton35 a much quieter cat on the shoulder, it gives handheld 400 foot mags a longer life, and reduces the number of short ends force dragged to the emporium...

--jp

Page 404 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Further to the comments on 3 perf and Super 35, whether we like it or not, there is now almost an inevitability that the future both in TV and Film will be 16:9 in shape. Indeed at the recent International Standards meeting for Cinematography, a project group was established to study a Code of Practice which would consider only two origination formats for the future: 16:9 and 'scope. This came about from a suggestion by Walter Lassally BSC, and was endorsed by Imago at their Madrid meeting last month. The ASC web site also carries a report from their President Bob Primes ASC, who was present at Imago. It is well worth reading for a perspective of Europe as seen from the USA. See www.cinematographer.com The first question which comes to everyone's mind is "What about the exhibitors? They are wedded to 1.85 masking." Are they? That's the general idea, but it is interpreted in such a vast number of ways, that one is lucky if the picture on the screen is not cropped in some way or other, since projectionists are presented with a perplexing array of images on release prints. At least if everything was either 1.78 or 2.39:1 the results would be consistent. Major exhibitors in London who were approached by Lassally, indicated that the small change in masking from 1.85 to 1.78 would not really be a big issue in most cases. If a common top line policy were also standardised, then presentation in the cinema could be much improved. As Walter said "The important thing to remember is that even if no alterations are made in the theatres at all, producers switching to 16x9 will be no worse off in respect to theatre presentation than they are at present." As others on CML have pointed out, most US TV productions are now shot Super 35 using 16:9, much of European TV is already 16:9. If distribution of motion pictures to theatres were ever to be carried out digitally then you can bet your bottom dollar that those projectors will be 16:9. If you have any input on this issue which CML want to bring to the attention of the ISO Project Group, then I shall be happy to pass it along.

John Croft

Page 405 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

As others on CML have pointed out, most US TV productions are now shot Super 35 using 16:9...<

Some comments on the above: Gate changes are not needed for 3 perf on the Quadra or the Spirit. The standard gate is used, and 3 perf operation is built into the software (single button toggle). Since there is no scan patch to be concerned with, they are both ideal machines for use with multiple formats. For those not working in Los Angeles, here are some current Hollywood television production "facts of life:" 1. Although both Evertz and Aaton support 3 perf in terms of reading, interpreting, and displaying in windows, few LA facilities (I'm not saying none, just few) use either program to generate daily transfer logs. The TLC is the primary piece of equipment used for this purpose. 2. Although Lightworks now supports 3 perf, Avid is by far the dominant editing system for television, and until 3 perf support is implemented directly in Film Composer, my previous comments stand. 3. Although US TV productions are "shot in 16:9," this is only a technicality. They are all framed for 1.33, with lots of air on the sides. Everyone, from cameramen to directors, would prefer to have one frame, and I would venture to say that most would prefer that be the 1.77 frame, but American networks are ****very**** hesitant to broadcast letterbox. The early adopters of 16:9 in the US will likely see a lot of bad widescreen framing, with all the action in the center of the screen and lots of air filling the rest, particularly in multicamera productions. It might interest those here to know that Fox and Columbia (Sony) are actually post producing much of their programming in 16:9, then extracting 1.33 for current broadcast, both domestic and foreign (of course, they're not **paying** any more for any of this!). All of the 16:9 post production is "hidden" from the producers, as both the dailies and the final product are presented to them using the 1.33 extraction.

Page 406 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

This has caused much consternation on the part of associate producers and post supervisors this season, both of whom now have to deal with creating 2 different products for the studio, only one of which means anything to their producers.

Mike Most, Encore Video, LA

I remember about 10 years ago when 3 perf was catching on as the next big thing. From what I heard at the time, it died out for a variety of reasons. --Editing of the film was difficult because the lines between frames were VERY thin or non-existent --3 perf requires completely different camera movements, editing equipment, projectors, etc., most of which were expensive and bothersome to implement. And then every rental house, lab, and post facility would have equipment with two different standards to deal with or have to switch formats back-and-forth --As mentioned here elsewhere, some people liked having extra room around the image for a margin of error --And the rumor was that when directors knew they were using 25% less film, they (consciously or subconsciously) figured they could shoot 25% more -- extra takes, extra inserts, extra angles, etc. -- so they ended up shooting just as much film

-- Joel Rome Otto Nemenz International

Page 407 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 408 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Snot Tape (fixing nets to the back of lenses)

What could be better then snot tape (3M transfer tape) ... I've been using it for 13 years and have never had a problem. It works in virtually every circumstance, it won't damage anything (the rental houses appreciate that), it's quick and easy to remove. (There are times where I need to remove the net for say a close up product shot. I can quickly pull off the net and then replace it in moments without having to work very carefully with glues.) I like the fact that it has some give to it. There are lenses where the rear element moves during focusing. With the snot tape everything is free to move along. Of course there are lenses that accept net holders and I have pre made up holders for those lenses. Also 40.5mm and 48mm rings with nets for any lens that accepts those rings.

Mako Koiwai

Another good way to do a quick net mounting job on the back of a video lens is to cut the outer edge off of a 35mm still, can top with a razor blade. This works with both the B3 Ikegami and B4 Sony mounts. Use that outer can top ring and push it over the lens flange. When pushing the lid ring over the lens it will stretch the net a little making a nice neat job. Just pop it off when finished and save it for the next time.

Paul M. Zenk

Page 409 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I learned about netting rear elements of video cameras with I-Rings from this list about two years ago. I-Rings will fit over the rear element of many video lenses in seconds. They come off as easily, and the same net can be reused if you're careful storing them. When I do a multi-camera video shoot, I can use pre-rigged I-Rings and net 5 lenses in about 10 minutes. Try that with snot tape. Contact Jim Iacona at the I-Ring Company at: (415) 647-4845

Tim Glass

OK, Pardun my ignorance on this but what is an I-ring? I know of O- rings, are they similar? I presume that this doesn't work on motion picture camera lenses but would love to hear different. Thanks.

Jim Sofranko

I-Rings are two plastic interlocking rings that when "snapped together, will lock a net in place. The assembled ring can then be slid onto the rear element of most 2/3" chip Sony and Ikegami lenses with B4 mounts. I asked the manufacturer if they made them for cine lenses, but they don't. They only make I-Rings in one diameter, so they won't work on most motion picture camera lenses since the rear element diameter varies so much. Problems with shutter/mirror clearance on some lenses, too. When I bought mine, they were about $20.00 each. Hope that helps,

Tim Glass

Page 410 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Safe Speeds for Ramps

Anyone out there done any hi speed ramping with flicker free HMIs? I have a big night exterior to shoot which kinda needs HMIs, however I also have to ramp the camera up to 150fps on the 435ES. I hope I have a chance to shoot tests but maybe not. Everyone says it should be OK. I’m scared...... Cheers, Will Gibson

Will, Yes, I've tried HMI & Kino ramps. No, you cannot do it! They will/do flicker. I tried 24fps ramped to 60fps [both HMI safe speeds] using a Moviecam Compact set at 180 degree shutter. We shot the ramp both as a fast ramp [2 second total speed shift] and a slow ramp [8 second speed shift I believe] and yes, there was a very bad flicker. We used square-wave ballast’s on the HMIs and standard 4' Kino bulbs. I even aimed the camera directly into the HMI fresnel and also shot another fixture into a bounce card [where flicker always seems to be more noticeable] and really saw the flicker more in the 'fall-off' of the bounce card. When the camera ramped through the 40fps mark [a safe HMI speed] I noticed a slight drop in the flicker but once it went past 40fps there certainly was an increase in the flicker. Seeing this flicker at these lower frame rates leads me to believe that at the higher speeds you require will lead to vast amounts of flicker.

Page 411 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It's great that these cameras can now ramp their speeds, it's just too bad the technology is not there yet with the lighting units. But, you would be safe [of course] if you shot with daylight or tungsten. Shot your own tests, I would love for somebody to prove me wrong. But my 2,500' of 5279 really gave me a warning. Cheers, Jeff Barklage

I've ramped on the 435ES with 4K flicker free pars with no problem at all. Double check with Arri if you're concerned. Regards, Jim

If you're scared of flicker, and you're outside, try shooting with arc lights instead of HMI's.

Phil

If this involved the Moviecam's 'Moviespeed' or a similar iris control like the Preston Speed Aperture Computer I don't think it was a valid test. With the shutter locked at 180, you would go from a shutter speed of 1/48 sec. (safe) to 1/120 sec (also safe) but pass through a whole range of in-between frame rates *and exposure times* which are not safe....just like if you spun the speed control at random. Naturally you get flicker.

Page 412 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The Arri RCU or LCC in conjunction with the internal shutter control on the 535A and the 435ES (but not the 'B' --have I got that right Marc?) would give you 24fps at a 45 degree shutter angle ramping/changing to 60fps with a 180 shutter, *maintaining 1/48 shutter speed the whole time*. The only question is whether the accuracy of the unit is sufficient to keep flicker out...it would have to be in the hundredths of a degree I think. A little slippage might only result in a minor exposure change, but a horrendous flicker. Whether the strobing effect of the 45 degree shutter at 24fps is acceptable is a whole other question. Best wishes, Alan 'close that window!' Thatcher

That is correct. The 535A and 435ES have an electronic mirror shutter that can change its open angle on the fly, while the camera is running. This is useful for a variety of occasions, but mostly for speed/exposure ramps, where the exposure compensation is performed by the mirror shutter. Remember, the exposure time for each frame is a value derived from the fps AND the shutter angle. The 535A and 435ES can keep the exposure time for each frame constant, by having the shutter counter the exposure change resulting from the speed change. If you start at 24 fps and 180 degree shutter, your exposure time per frame is 1/48th. While ramping to 12 fps, the mirror shutter would close down, and you end up at 12 fps and 90 degrees. Note that the exposure time per frame is still 1/48th, and in fact has remained 1/48th for every single frame throughout the whole ramp. The LCC has a calculator built in that can show you not only the exposure time for each frame for a given ramp, but also tell you what your fps range is that can still be compensated for by the 11.2 to 180 degree range of the shutter (4 stops). On the 435ES, for instance, the extremes are about this:10 fps to 150 fps, or 1 fps to 16 fps, and of course anything in between. Take a look at this when you have a chance, it is useful even if you don't use the LCC for anything else.

Page 413 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

More information on this topic can be found on the CSC web site, go to the "technical info" page http://www.cameraservice.com. Now on the topic of HMIs, consensus here at Arri is that THEORETICALLY you should be able to use the 535A or 435ES with a speed/shutter ramp and be OK if you use flicker free HMIs. BUT since there are so many variables that we have no control over, I must URGE you to shoot tests to confirm this for any given shooting situation. Please also note that this does not apply to ramps where you use the ICU to compensate for the exposure change (possible with all Arri cameras). When using the ICU, the exposure time for each frame does change, but the ICU will change the iris accordingly to keep the amount of light per frame constant. Since exposure time changes, HMIs are going to be unhappy.

Cheers, Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative Arriflex Corporation; 1646 N. Oakley Ave, Suite #2, Chicago, IL 60647- 5319, USA

True, but you should note that 1/48 is not actually safe with 60 Hz line frequency (or 50 Hz, for that matter). It only works at 24 fps because (in theory) any shutter angle is safe at 24 fps. To do a ramp under HMIs you should use a shutter time of 1/60; i.e. start at 144 degrees. If you were ramping up from 24 fps you would probably need a shutter time of 1/120 to get a feasible shutter angle at the fast end, so you would start with an angle of 72 degrees.

Simon

Page 414 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

No problems whatsoever. Always with flicker free HMI's, I don't use anything else, speed changes at various rates but every speed from 3 fps to 150 fps. I guess 25 to 75 is the most common major change, although I have done 25 to 150 without problems. Most common ramp is 25 to 30/32 just to take the edge off something or 25 to 18/20 to speed up a part of a shot. Cheers Geoff Boyle.

Alan 'little slow in math' Thatcher wrote: >would give you 24fps at a 45 degree shutter angle ramping/changing to 60fps with a 180 shutter, *maintaining 1/48 shutter speed the whole time*.< Obviously this isn't right at all...the principle is correct but where did I get those figures???. Maybe I shouldn't post late at night. The shutter speed at 60fps would be 1/120 sec. with the 180 shutter, and the shutter angle to give the same shutter speed at 24fps would be 72 degrees. 24 = 72 120 360 When I'm working things like this out on the set I always write it down. It's amazing how much clearer things look in front of my eyes than behind them.

AT

Page 415 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 416 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Sunsets

I have another "hands-on" question: a while back I was hit with the prospect of getting a sunset shot while on location ... the director decided to throw it at me while we were shooting a sillouette (it was starting to look beautiful, so I could see where he was coming from). He wanted the sun setting over the water, with our sillouetted character in foreground. Broken cloud ... looked like the sun was going to pop just above the water and then slip below the horizon ... so having got the original shot already we thought we'd wait for it. Didn't happen as we thought (sun failed to pop at the horizon), but I shot some 'clean' of the sun higher up just in case. OK, I shot that as a test really, because I didn't think it was going to work, and in TK it didn't, so I guess I was lucky we were covered! I had an SR with a 150-600 OpTex ... 85 in the rear tray, Pola, ND9 to get the stop down ...7293 ... can't remember my stop (it was last year) but bracketed somewhere between 8 and 16 I think. Anyway, as expected the problem was not exposure (though the sun itself was pretty much out the top), but all the stray reflections, including a major double image, off all the filters. No sharp, beautiful pic of the sun, with dark clouds passing through. My question is, in this position what could have I done to achieve the desired result? What if we'd had time to plan it? Overcrank? Close the shutter angle? All the above? Just how do they get those awesome long-lens stock-shots of sunsets?

Phil Burchell DP Auckland, New Zealand.

Page 417 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Go to a much slower stock and ditch every spare bit of glass? I'm not sure shutter angle would be a good idea, depends on foreground content, sunset over sea will be disturbing with narrow shutter.

Geoff

Phil, I may be mistaken but I believe if you can slant the filters so that they aren't parallel with the front of the lens you will greatly reduce the reflections. Similar to slanting a wall picture to keep the camera from seeing the reflection of a light. Panavision probably offers something that will do the trick or you can contrive your own arrangement to keep the filters at an angle other than parallel to the lens. I'm also left wondering if putting the polarizer last might help reduce the reflections.

Allen, Jim R. III

I remember one of the first shots I did of the sun on a picture. It was of the sun sinking behind some trees in Tuscany, on a film called 'Much Ado About Nothing'. It was the end of the shooting day and the cameraman asked me to knock off a few close shots of the sun(I was the first assistant, or focus puller). I duly loaded up with pola, ND etc and shot away. Next day Ken Branagh remarked acidly at rushes, "I see, so this film is set on the planet of three suns, is it?" I cringed in shame. But I think using any filter forward of the lens may result in this problem. There is a trick that can work, to swing the matte box slightly away from the lens so that the filters are at a slight angle to the film plane. This means any double reflection is out of the field of view. Obviously you must watch for and eliminate any light leak round the rear of the matte box. This trick is useful with candles or any hotspot in the frame when using filters.

Page 418 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

In fact Panavision do offer a matte box with an inclining stage specifically for this problem. Using gels or filters behind the lens should also improve things, and or using shutter or camera speed to reduce exposure instead of NDs or pola filters.

Chris Plevin

I've shot a few of these, the ingredients include: (1) the right time, day, place, and atmospheric conditions (a.k.a. luck), (2) a long lens with a focal length of 200mm or greater, preferably a prime so you have less flair and stray reflections, (4) No filters, or at most a single filter in a tilting filter stage set at the proper angle to avoid reflections, that sun is one big specular, my experience has been it's better to stop way down that to use multiple NDs, forget about image degradation at smaller f/stops in this case, and (5) reversal films often leads to better sunsets due to the increased color saturation with underexposure, then make a internegative from the reversal film, though I've caught a beautiful sunset on the old Agfa XT 320 negative film, but then again, it fit the desaturated look of the film.

Dave Tames

Best sunset I've ever shot consisted of 5298 with only a sunset filter in front of a long lens stopped way down. The foreground objects were white buildings, which turned very blue, but were barely on the toe. When properly timed, it looked very good with the orange sunset and not too orange surroundings contrasted by the barely blue buildings. I believe that one of the other things that helped this shot out in terms of flares, was the fact that the sun was in the middle of the frame (in the crosshairs), so any flares from the reflections in the glass would be contained inside the already bright areas of the sun.

Conrad Hunziker, III

Page 419 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Thanks Dave for your detailed answer. Any clues as to how you set your stop? I remember metering the sun (through a suitable stack of ND to protect my eye) at a little above f45 (ISO100), but just outside the rim of the sun itself the reading dropped off rapidly to around 11 or 16 ... 3 stops roughly. I guessed at around a 22 (to put the sun in zone 7-8) but it was still out the top in telecine (no detail) so I guessed wrong. On reversal you must be hitting a much less arbitrary stop (i.e. being more precise), so I'm curious.

Phil Burchell DP Auckland, New Zealand.

Thanks for the replies about shooting the sun. That's what I love about this forum: I can ask a question like that and get a straightforward answer, even if it's one that I should slap my forehead and go "Duh ... why didn't I think of that"!! Yet another little gem to go into my shooting notes file. I remember thinking about that at the time: should I use a polarizer at all (I had an N6 available), and then does it's position in the stack have any effect. From memory, it didn't show any difference through the viewfinder. I also thought that a pola in the rear holder (i.e.: last before the gate) might be best to cut out the indirect stuff (I didn't have one).

Phil Burchell DP Auckland, New Zealand.

FYI, we can thank William Fraker, ASC for suggesting this simple feature to Panavision for solving such a common problem.

Layne Uyeno

Page 420 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Here is another mystery to solve. I put a filter in front of a zoom (12.5 to 75mm) lens on my Bolex ( Glass, not the behind the lens gelatin type). I shot the sunset over the course of about twenty degrees above horizon, to actually disappearing, at different focal lengths. NO REFLECTIONS. Maybe it was because I was in Hawaii?

Steven Gladstone

I used a still camera once ( well I was on vacation with my Bolex, and didn't have my spot meter with me) used the internal meter to read the whole scene ( including the water, sun, and sky), converted the exposure for the Bolex. it was Perfect.

Steven Gladstone

Caleb Deschanel discusses this in the book "Film Lighting" - he says that the exposure depends on the focal length and how large the sun appears in the frame. With an extremely long lens, with the disc of the sun filling the frame, obviously you have to expose for the sun itself (he suggested making it little hot by overexposing it after taking a spot-meter reading). If the sun only fills a small part of the frame, then you'll expose more for the sky around the sun. Here in LA, when I've shot the sun setting with a long lens (like a 600mm), I've usually used 5245 with one 85N9 filter, usually at a f/16. I like the double orange effect from the 85; but I've never used more than one filter out of fear of reflections. I find that if the sun is huge enough in frame, it's pretty hard to underexpose it, unless you are shooting on a very hazy day (in which case it becomes easier to spot meter it...)

Page 421 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I once got to shoot a sun setting behind a mountaintop in Oregon with a 1200mm lens - it was strange because I could see a focus difference between a tree on the mountaintop, and the sun ball behind it - and that tree was miles away. The biggest problem became keeping the camera steady enough. I had to lock off the eyepiece and just let it run so that I would not add any vibrations.

David Mullen

On that large fireball we call the sun. Using a 600mm or longer will get you that large ball. And as far as exposure is concerned I'll have to agree with Geoff, using a slow film stock is the best route. A little trick I learned a few years back when making an exposure reading for a sunset shot: Don't aim your spot meter at the sun....go for the sky surrounding the sun. Now grant it the gods that be will not give you a spectacular sunset you would like to have everyday. In LA we don't always have those wonderful smog screened orange sunsets...there are days oddly enough where the marine layer turns it into a "white sunset"...white sun, white sky. Graduated filters will make you look like a hero! Just don't compensate your exposure for the grads...I've seen a few who have made that mistake. Hope this helped!

Luc G. Nicknair

Page 422 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Well maybe. I'd like to think it was a localised effect so I could argue the case for shooting next production there. You don't always see the reflections; according to Murphy's Law, they only appear when you get a really good sunset and you're in the right place to shoot it, and everything else is working, i.e. foreground action etc. They don't appear when you're struggling to change stocks or with a camera jam, or the actor trips up or fluffs his lines on that clifftop sunset shot.

Sometimes you can get away with a single filter; I would imagine if the front element of the lens has a marked curvature and the sun is sufficiently off centre frame then any reflection will be outside field of view. The problem seems to occur mostly when you have multiple layers of flat glass in front of the lens. I suppose if they were absolutely parallel to each other and the sun was dead centre, then the internal reflections caused would cover themselves.

Chris Plevin

Page 423 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 424 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Tilt & Shift Lenses

Hi guys, any thoughts on "shift n' tilt" lenses usage ? I've never worked with and would appreciate some words of advice. (I'm particularly concerned on depth of field and exposure corrections)

Rui Pocas

Let me strongly recommend an introductory text on view cameras (maybe Adams' _Camera and Lens_ and an afternoon spent with a 4X5 camera. This will give you a good idea of what can be accomplished with swings and tilts, and the effect of shifting the plane of focus is very visible on the ground glass. When you go to perspective control lenses with that dinky little 35mm negative, you won't have half the control that you can get with a view camera, but you'll know what to do with it.

--Scott

Page 425 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It really depends what you want to use them for, if you want to use them "correctly" i.e. to correct perspective or increase depth of field in a given plane then your best bet is to get a book like the one Sinar ( makers of 5 * 4 & 10 * 8 view cameras ) publish on the subject. If you want to use it for effects type shots i.e. most of the picture soft as you can and only a very narrow strip sharp, like the commercial I've just finished shooting, then it's probably best that you still read the book but then you just play until you get the focus effect you want. The exposure is pretty constant across the shiftable image with the Arri T&S lenses but drops off at the more extreme shifts with the Clairmont/CP lenses. However, the Clairmont/CP lenses are capable of more extreme effects than the Arri ones. I use these lenses a lot and don't really have a preference for either, they are both good in different areas, e.g. it's a lot easier to follow focus with the Arri lenses. As a taster and an intro to the idea you may want to try the CP swing lenses that are based on the Canon still lenses. You only have one plane to work with and therefore can get results much more quickly.

Geoff Boyle

Depth of field is best judged by eye. There really isn't any other way. Exposure correction only applies for extreme close up subjects, the best method I've found is to measure the image size in the plane of focus with the lens set flat, then apply the amount of swing and tilt desired, and apply the appropriate correction for the magnification factor, using formulae or tables. However I've only used the swing&shifts for normally composed shots on people rather than for extreme close-ups on packs etc, and I suspect the previous advice is good - do some research on view cameras and how to use them. I've used the Clairmont kit and the Arri kit. The Arri kit seems easier to use - has better locks and a little scale for each adjustment and better build quality - but the Clairmont kit has a wider range of lenses.

Page 426 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

They're both good though. Pulling focus is very difficult though. But you can do things like set up a plane of focus where an object will be sharp at 18" from the lens on the left of frame and sharp at 50' on the right. You can then track without pulling focus at all if you place your subject in the plane of focus. Allow plenty of time to set up your shot! They have become a little over-used here in the UK on commercials but they're very effective. I'd love to carry a set on a picture one day with the express idea of integrating them into the aesthetic. They're useful in a more mundane way, too - remember those in car profile two-shots at night where one actor is sharp and the other is a blob? Bring on the swing-shifts! Got a raking two-shot in a dark interior and can't quite make the focus split? And so on.

Chris Plevin

Kodak has a good book called "Photography with Large Format Camera's", which although a tad brief in the lens theory area, explains it all pretty well. I've shot 4 TVC's with shift-tilts now ... all of them to make less interesting subjects a little more 'fruity'. Here in NZ, we only have access to a system manufactured by Sammy's in Australia. It's a PL-mount with a solid bracket attached, which holds the lens 'board' (actually a threaded plate) ... the lens-board is connected to the PL with a cloth bellows and can be racked in and out for focus, has lens rise and fall, shift left and right from optical centre, and of course 'swings' both X and Y axis as well. I presume most systems would be similar, though Clairmonts looks much more precise. The Sammy's one is not the best ... made for 35, it only mounts to 16mm cameras with some difficulty and compromise (the bracket off the PL mount hits the viewfinder optics on both Arri and Aatons unless it's oriented straight up from the lens port ... no T-Bar split). Lens selection is limited to 25, 35 and 90mm, and practically none of the adjustments can be done on the fly. Even pulling focus moves the lens (and therefore the image) too much that it's distracting. For those not familiar with shift-tilts, here's how I get my head around them. For a start, the lenses are not standard cine lenses. To work they have much wider coverage at the film plane ... I imagine a circle maybe 4 inches in diameter surrounding the camera's aperture at the film plane. The depth-of-field indicated by the lens can be seen as the 'thickness' of that circle. Moving the lens up or down, left or right effectively moves

Page 427 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

that circle in relation to the gate. The gate gets to look at any part of that circle of you like. Naturally there is vignetting around the edges, and the lens sharpness drops off out there too. In normal, optically centred position, the gate is at the centre of the circle. Shifting the lens down shifts that whole circle down (or the image- area the film is seeing up), and so on. Hence the perspective capability ... e.g., looking at a tall building with the camera horizontal, you can raise the lens up (do a 'rise'), to see the top of the building. You're not tilting the camera, you're tilting the optical light path! The film plane is still parallel to the building (it's still straight up and down as the camera is horizontal), so there's no convergence of the vertical lines! Swinging the lens takes the plane of focus away from being parallel to the film ... that same circle of light no longer strikes the film plane evenly, but cuts through it at an angle. That's how the interesting focus effects happen ... the plane of focus is not the way we're used to, and performs strangely! It's a good effect, but it's also practical as in extending focus for the car shot mentioned earlier. The thing is, if the driver in that car shot moved too far forward or backward, they could move out of the depth of field making for a very odd focus effect in an otherwise very 'normal' shot! OK, couple other points ... exposure correction is not necessary until you get into macro-territory, where your standard macro theory applies ... same as any bellows macro attachment. In our case (with the Sammy's unit), compensation wasn't necessary when focusing above 15" for the wider lenses, and I think 3' for the 90mm. That's pretty close. Can't use a Matte box ... it'd get in the way of the optics. So all filtration has to be on the lens ... i.e. Series 9 or similar. For the same reason, you have to really take care of flare with lensers thoughtfully positioned by the grips. Steadicam would be a nightmare I imagine. Lenses are fairly slow, even though they're primes ... T2.8 to T4. That's about all I can think of right now ... sorry about raving on a bit, but I guess someone asked!

Phil Burchell

Page 428 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Shift/Tilt lenses (or bellows systems) allow you to play with some of the optical properties that are usually fixed in prime or zoom lenses. You can change the plane of focus (usually its parallel to the film plane) and/or change the geometrical appearance of any subject in the shot (shoot into mirrors without seeing the camera, correct for distortion when shooting up a high skyscraper). You can see a changed plane of focus effect in a bunch of commercials on TV these days, it has become somewhat fashionable to put part of the image out of focus. Another useful application is shooting two actors talking to each other, who are at different distances to the camera. If the depth of field normally does not hold both, you can angle the depth of field with a Shift/Tilt system, and get both in focus. Re: Exposure correction with Shift/Tilt Systems Both the Arri and the Clairmont systems have a ruler printed in the manual (make sure you get a manual from the rental house!). When you do a close up, place the ruler in the shot, aligning one end with the left frame edge. On the right frame edge you can read now the magnification ratio as well as your exposure compensation. It does not get any easier. > but the Clairmont kit has a wider range of lenses. Not true anymore. The standard Arri Shift/Tilt system comes with four lenses: 24 mm T4.0 45 mm T2.8 90 mm T2.8 110 mm T2.0 Arri just released two more:18 mm T2.8 20 mm T2.8 Later this year we will have the following focal lengths available: 28 mm T2.8 35 mm T2.8 60 mm T2.8 80 mm T2.8 150 mm T2.8 In addition we have a Retro Adapter for the shift/tilt system, that allows you to mount Arri primes to the shift/tilt system "up-side down", that is the lens front looks to the camera, and the PL mount side becomes the lens front. This is great for macro cinematography. In addition we have a PL mount adapter, that allows you to mount Arri Macro lenses on the shift/tilt system. Use this for extreme close-up cinematography. The Arri Shift/Tilt system can be viewed at our Burbank location (818 841 7070) or at CSC in NY (212 757 0906). If you come to Showbiz West in LA, you can see the Arri Shift/Tilt System in all its glory at the Arri booth. I will be there, too, so come by and say hello!

Marc Shipman-Mueller

Page 429 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 430 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Time-lapse

I have a time lapse shot coming up and I'm thinking of trying a longer shutter speed than I've usually used. I need about a hundred frames and I'll take them over a four hour period. Thanks for any thoughts,

D.P.

What exposures are you thinking of using? Are you shooting day or night? From the header, I assume your are shooting a city, but Skyline or street and building details? Are you trying to compress 4 hours into 100 frames, or are you looking for a time of day thing?

Well... the Norris starts off at 1/16th and goes longer from there. I have quite a bit of experience with the 1/16th and 1/8th settings and I wonder if I'm *missing out* by not having tried longer times on this well worn subject. The frame is a cityscape skyline (wide) with the sun going down about a third from the edge. Camera position is building top; 1200 feet. I'm formatted super-35 and need a sunset and sunrise, both. The cut will take the best five seconds going both ways; meaning night to day, then day to night. I'm quite happy with the 1/16th look but the director is encouraging me to tend towards the abstract...

Page 431 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I'm planning on shooting four hours around each *event* using a thirty- second interval. Thanks,

D.P.

I was very happy with the New York Sunrises that I shot last year with 1/3 second exposures, I also used this for shadows moving across Broadway, shadows down one side of the street across the road and back up the other side. The longer exposure seemed to smooth things out a lot. Too much Tuborg Gold, the speel chucker is going to earn it's money tonight :-) Cheers

Geoff Boyle.

My experience is that a 30 second interval is on the long side, clouds can move so quick across the frame that they are only in the frame for a couple of frames (depending on lens choice and clouds-passing-speed of course) I used to go for a 15 second interval, nowadays even more towards 10 seconds. Or you might try a 15 second interval and speed it up in post. Good luck

Mick van Rossum

Page 432 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

what kind of lenses are you shooting on? You can try putting on 10:1 zoom and shoot 2sec./exp. frames with a slow zoom out from the sun. Clouds tend to look more 'milky' and the movement does not look quite real. Of course you're going to be using tons of ND (seven stop difference). Are you thinking of panning the camera through this sequence? Maybe you can recompose into the setting sun? Good luck, sounds like fun,

Duraid Munajim

Longer shutterspeeds will tend to take the "edge" the frenetic activity of things like cars, clouds, and trees. They will become more blurred; longer car light trails at night, whispier clouds, more transparent moving cars in daylight, blurred trees (depending on wind conditions). At around 1 sec exposures, night cityscapes begin to take on a surreal lighting effect. You begin to get the impression that massive amounts of lighting was employed, because the buildings that would be impossible to light _are_ lit by ambient light. The longer the exposure, the brighter the normally dark buildings become. Faster stock also helps. Also, you get moving clouds in the night sky. If you want to see and example of this, look at the backgrounds for the opening to ABC's Monday Night Football. It's about a minute long opening that starts at 9pm SHARP eastern time (if you wait till after the commercials, you've missed it). These backgrounds are at about 2 second exposures with wide apertures on Vision 320T, some on Vision 250T. However, one of the biggest challenges you have is taking the light change into consideration. Lots of ND and/or deep stop on the lens in the daylight, gradually changing to a clean wide open lens. Moving the camera is possible by hand, but tends to be a bit jerky. Better to use a motion control head to get smoothest motion. Good luck,

Don Canfield

Page 433 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I recently shot some pixilation of a Mardi Gras parade that came out well, I did a lot of moves (zoom, pan, tilt) @ about a 2 SEC interval. No intervalometer, just playing around- but now I want to do it right and found your post very helpful. Question tho, any idea what to rent for shutter control on an Aaton? I like the thought of leaving a 2 sec dwell. also, if using an ND it would seem to be abrupt to remove it, but I'm guessing you timed it out? thanks again, Caleb

For instances such as that which started this discussion, a cityscape, changing ND on the lens and compensating with the iris works. You've got to be in a situation where the interval is long enough so you can swap the filters, and the focal length and distance to subject combination sufficient to allow for the slight shift in depth of field that will occur. For example, if you swap a ND9 to an ND6, you would have to stop down the iris one stop to equalize the exposure. I think the last time I did this I worked in a 2 stop range on the lens, then changed filters. I was working with 3 cameras, longest lens was about a 35. Cameras were on top of a building in midtown Manhattan, looking north. Closest building in frame was a couple of blocks away. We worked with a bunch of ND (don't remember how much), at about a T16 in full daylight. As the light began to move in the afternoon, I opened stop gradually (following the light drop). When the lens got to T8, I swapped out 2 stops of ND, and stopped lens down 2 stops, and continued to follow light down. This continued till after sunset, by which time I had lens wide open, and no ND. Exposure pops, if any, were buried in the light change, clouds, and time-lapse action. In time lapse, there are pronounced areas of right and wrong at the exposure extremes, but a very wide gray area in between with lots of forgiveness where lots of things work quite well, even if they don't seem like they should.

Don Canfield

Page 434 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

These is a rather neat British invention made by Camera Dynamics (I think). It consists of a micro processor controlled stepper motor and works with a clockwork Bolex (possibly with other cameras but this is the only one I know of). It's far more versatile than most other systems as it allows for time exposures, variable intervals between exposures and even ramping of time intervals between exposures. If you're still looking, give me a call at OpTex on +44 (0) 181 441 2199 and I'll see if I can help. Apologies for the delay, but I've only just reconnected to the list.

Brian Rose

Thank-you to those who contributed to this thread. Your input was welcome advice that helped me choose the following scenario.... Cityscape Night - to - Cityscape Day 1/4 second exposures, Single frame burst, 15 second intervals, Arri III / Norris Intervalometer/ Zeiss 18mm T1.3, Wide open Night... to ... 1.2ND T11 Day, Kodak 5246, Very light, fast moving, high altitude (cirrus?) cloud at night, Clearing to pristine blue sky at sunrise plus thirty minutes. Unfortunately, we had problems with the Norris that I can only attribute to EMI (electro-magnetic interference). This combination of hardware WILL NOT WORK in the presence of strong EMI. We were set up on a building top with some FM/Cellular/Microwave transmitters and things did not go at all well. Strangely, the shots did work when the sun was not in shot. All the pre- sunrise and post-sunset footage worked but capping shutter/run-away- motor problems ruined the scripted rise and fall of the sun. We tested and tried EVERYTHING including units from two different suppliers and more work-arounds, foil, cable-substitution and voodoo incantations than I care to list. I stand by my suppliers AND my assistants; both performed exhaustive pre and post shoot tests I need to *repair* this situation and what I would like to do is repeat the exact shot with a manual single frame camera that can do 1/4 second frames ( MECHANICALLY, Manually) ) for me. What should I be using? I'm guessing the answer is some kind of animation camera. Inching the 435

Page 435 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

has an immediate appeal but I can't conscionably ask the producer to bring me another camera that is so dependant on electronics. What's in the big cupboard that can give me what I need? Maybe those lead aprons they use for X-Ray techs would work. (un?)Fortunately, I have an understanding producer who needs results not research!!! BFN, D.P. BTW, I must take this one on the chin for not spotting the problem in advance. I have apologised to the producer but still feel a little put out. I DID make clear to several different suppliers what I was planning to do and NO ONE mentioned it might be problematic. Post meltdown dialogue has included some references to this problem and THAT REALLY STEAMS ME.

The best type of camera for doing Animation and Time lapse, is a camera with a focal plane shutter (IMHO). In the animation house that's what we used (Mitchells, Rackovers, and Fries Conversions). With reflex conversions you do have to compensate for the light lost through the Pellicle. Many Conversions use Nikon mounts, however I am sure that there are other mounts available ( I know of one fellow that has both Leica and Panavision Mounts for his Fries Conversion). The advantage to the Focal Plane shutter camera is that you don't need a capping shutter, as NO light leaks through to the film. The advantage to the Mitchell is that it has Great Registration, and not generally being considered a Sound camera, and also since it is not in such great demand, it can be cheaper to rent. NOTE, NOT all Models of Mitchell cameras use a Focal Plane Shutter, so Make sure of your order. The other disadvantage to Mitchells with a Pellicle beam splitter, is that Not all lenses will fit on them, I believe Certain German Lenses with exceptionally deep Mechanical protuberances, just won't do it. This does limit your use of Zeiss Glass, which is a pity. I'm not sure which lenses do work and which don't. As to the Norris, it is a fine machine, however in my experience I found that it had a few quirks. The mechanical counters tended to Add a frame every so often, ( if I remember it was every 50 t0 70 frames). This was solved with the electronic frame counter. I found that when powering up, the Norris would take a frame, which meant that you couldn't break a

Page 436 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

shot in the middle to take a rest, unless you left the intervalometer powered up. They also were very sensitive to voltage shifts. This was probably only a problem where I was working as the Power supplies were not always heavy duty, and would drift. Get a Really good Power supply, or LOTS of Battery Power. Also, remember in Time Lapse, and Animation. Sync has a whole different meaning, sounds like that wasn't your problem, but never hurts to be TO SURE about that. Good luck with the next one. I believe Cinevision in New York has and rents a Mitchell/Fries Conversion with a Focal Plane shutter, and Probably a Norris to go along with it. (Possible a video tap as well) Steven Gladstone

I'm no stop-motion guru so maybe I am a good person to make a suggestion here. Fifteen years ago when I was working at Victor Duncan in Chicago, the 'state of the art' stop motion rig we had was a Mitchell S35R Mk II (usually called just the 'Mark II') with a Mitchell animation motor and a clockwork controller which had a big dial on it like a darkroom timer. I went out with this setup a few times as an AC and it worked just fine: no ups, no extras, no problems. You need a screwdriver to set the Mitchell's variable shutter (on top of the camera) and the motor and controller work off AC, which it sounds like you would be able to come up with. The only tricky thing about this rig is making sure that both motor and camera movement are in the correct 'parked' position before putting the motor on. As I recall it is possible to get it 90 or 180 degrees off. But that's basic AC'ing--this is about as 'meat and potatoes' as you can get. There are now Fries motors for the Mk II which do the same thing as the old setup, probably much better; however they may also be electronically vulnerable as well. Heck, maybe you should take a (tested) electronic and clockwork controller both with you, so you've got a backup either way! The weak link for the stock Mk IIs was the BNCR lens mount, for which we had only ancient Super Baltar lenses, so we nearly always recommended the cameras with a Panavision hard front which would allow you to use the Pvision lenses. Probably a supplier like Clairmont has adapted them to PL mounts as well. There are still lots of these cameras around, though

Page 437 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

probably not on the front shelf of your local rental shop. Ask around and you'll find one. This is an old-fashioned, low-tech, mechanical method. As such it is not at all fancy or sexy and may be looked at askance by younger producers. (The same kind who recently asked 'what is this???' when I had an Arri IIc brought out for a hand-held shot.) But it does work. Best wishes,

Alan

If I recall that camera has a spinning Reflex mirror shutter. Not A Focal plane shutter. I've used it for animation, with exactly the motor set you described, however, for extended intervals between exposures A capping shutter is a great thing to have. With the Focal Plane Shutter, no capping shutter is necessary.

Steven ( I love Mitchell Cameras) Gladstone

The Mitchell S35R/R35/Mk II et all all have a spinning mirror, with a real (and variable) shutter mounted behind them. So you get the best of both worlds -- except for the fact that the flange focal distance is so great as to limit you to Panavision (when the camera is modded) and BNCR and S35R lenses. But it's a pretty cool camera. I have a Mitchell GC I probably am going to Fries-ize. Still trying to decide between the cheaper pellicle version (uses cheap Nikon mount lenses, or other still lenses) or the spinning mirror version. Anyone?

Jeff "cap this shutter" Kreines

Page 438 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Have you called Dan Norris and asked him? Perhaps a lead box around the intervalometer control box? The old Mitchell motor would be better. Think I finally sold mine... you can easily make a Mitchell animation motor using a SloSyn 72 RPM sync motor, cam, microswitch, capacitor, and a panel cut to fit the side of the Mitchell. Oops, you are using an Arri III. Sorry, no ideas for you.

Jeff Kreines

The focal plane shutter of the ACL (non variable)makes this camera a _very_ good choice for 16mm time lapse. There is a Norris motor for the ACL too . --jp

Yes, though I always wondered why Dan attaches it to the inching knob instead of coupling it directly. Yes, I know, it's easier!... but still....

Jeff "Bolex’s are also good for time lapse, Mitchell 16s and Maurers too, but I have an intervalometer for my Aaton" Kreines

Gee, I've heard of some flaky things with Norris motors, usually having to do with power problems. This is a new one though. Maybe Dan Norris has a suggestion. Other than that, alternate camera/motor combos that might work follow. I've indicated limitations that I've found with each. Mitchell with Lynx C-50 motor and time-lapse sync box. Source: MCRS in LA; Stone Engineering in LA; possibly Cinevision in NY. Limitations: Lens selections. Fries with Arri shutter can use PL, Panavision, Nikon, but require capping shutter, though at a 15 second interval you may get away without one. TEST THIS FIRST! Fries with pellicle beamsplitter and focal plane shutter can use Nikon, BNCR. Does not require capping shutter. Unconverted by Fries uses Mitchell mount, BNCR, or possibly Panavision.

Page 439 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Panavision camera with Time-lapse synchronizer. I've used these a few times, and the best ones came from Victor Duncan in Atlanta. VD Atlanta has modified magazines that have very low torque take-up motors. These mags provide just enough take-up torque to pull single frame out of camera body. If normal torque is applied, mag motor can pull film after the motor has stopped. Mitchell with Jackson/Woodburn motor. This is an English motor, and I've only ever seen them twice in the US -- once on a motion control shot in NY last spring. Equipment came from Samuelson's in London. The other time was at ShowBiz Expo in LA in June. I don't know of any US suppliers. Limitations are the same as listed above for Fries. Mitchell with old AC powered animation motor. Limitation would be listed by the supplier, if you could find one of these antiques. Try Cinevision in NY. Mitchell with steppermotor and motion control computer. This is really an overkill solution to the problem, but is would work. See above for camera limitations. Wish I could offer more help. I really hate weird flaky problems like this!

Don Canfield

As a real world production tool, the mirror conversion probably is more versatile. Lens mounts include PL, Panavision, Nikon (probably others), viewing system is FAR brighter than the pellicle. However, the focal-plane variable shutter is completely removed and replaced with an Arri-like spinning mirror shutter. This means fixed 180 degree shutter, and the shutter is not light-tight enough for long time-lapse or stopmotion animation. Pellicle version is limited to BNCR, Nikon (and other still lenses), some Panavision (check with Fries). Variable focal-plane shutter is preserved, intact, and usable. It's possible to install an internal capping shutter if desired. It's a great animation/optical/motion control camera. Because the image must pass through 2 beamsplitters if you use video (pellicle and tap splitter), viewfinder image is quite dark. There is a movable mirror option which will allow you to direct all light to video OR viewfinder. Maybe this could be modified similar to the Fries door for the Mitchell S35R/R35/Mk II which provides an orientable finder with a selection to send all info to the finder, all to the video, or split it 50/50. Oh, and finally the pellicle drinks up 1/3 stop light (which is sends to

Page 440 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

video/viewfinder). No shutter flicker, though. (But this makes syncing to a monitor a nightmare.) In my opinion, the mirror version is much more cameraman friendly, where the pellicle is more technician friendly. In regards to wide lenses, I know there are issues with different lenses on either version. Check with Doug Fries. Also, in my opinion, there are other motors that you should checkout besides the Fries. Lynx Robotics C-50 and the English-made Jackson/Woodburn are worth considering. You can find both of these advertised in American Cinematographer.

Don Canfield

Here is a belated response to the request for info regarding time lapse of cityscapes at sunset. I recently shot a commercial project that required just such a scene. We set up an Arri 35-3 overlooking downtown Cincinnati, facing towards the west. The location was chosen for a great raked view of the major buildings as well as a foreground freeway which would be important once day became night. My stock was 5245 and I used a Zeiss 25mm Super Speed lens. I stopped down to T-11 and with the Norris intervalometer set at 1/16th second exposure shot three frames a minute (one every 20-seconds) and continued this interval for an hour. By the end of this hour the sun had set and day had become night. I then opened the lens up to T 1.3 and switched the Norris unit to 1/2 second exposure at the interval of 1 frame every second and proceeded to run 5 seconds of screen time. This longer exposure time (coupled with the brief interval between frames) yielded great headlight and taillight streaking from cars on the foreground freeway. The shot was steadi-gated during transfer and in post a long registered dissolve smoothly blended the gradual fade from day to night with the night city scape for a truly beautiful scene. The 50 ASA rating doesn't sound like much but wide open at 1/2 second yielded tremendous detail in the buildings.

Page 441 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 442 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Tropicalisation

When I was a gaffer I did several jobs in the Caribbean and the problem you describe is very common and overwhelming. We found that spraying and wiping down all the equipment with silicon helped prevent the corrosion. However, it was an ongoing tedious chore as anything that wasn't repeatedly cleaned with fresh water and re-siliconed was likely to oxidize in short time. Even equipment that wasn't out much was subject to this condition. Keeping delicate equipment in cases and wrapped in plastic bags as much as possible helps cut down on the exposure to the elements. But the salt water and air is pervasive. It would be interesting to hear of others solutions to this problem. Regards, Jim Sofranko

I was; for my sins the Camera Mechanic on Papillon in Jamaica back in 1972 and I had 14 weeks of sun sand and sea together with humidity that was mind blowing. I found that a wipe down every night with a soaked WD40 cloth did the job. An oily rag for all the screws that showed also assisted greatly. Look in the bottom of any RONFORD leg casting and you will find holes drilled. This follows my solution to legs filling with seawater and NOT draining; They all have been drilled ever since. . TC.

I've heard some people say that WD40 isn't as good as silicon and might even have water in it's ingredients. Although I'm sure using it every night works fine. Does anyone know what's in WD40? Jim S.

Page 443 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

As I understand it, WD40 is essentially kerosene, some other oils(petroleum distillates), and perfume. LPS-1 is the same stuff with different perfumes. It is a water displacer (WD) NOT a lubricant. I prefer it to silicone for most metal surfaces partially because I have been conditioned to the smell but also because silicone is, at a microscopic level, particulate, and can, in fact cause wear on bearings.(or so I've been told.) WD is thin enough that it doesn't collect quite as much grit as some of the other sprays, and won't hurt electrical contacts. Be careful not to spray too much around LCD displays, as they have of two pieces of glass that are generally touching and the WD can wick between them through capillary action. It won't destroy leather, but it will eventually dry it out by drawing the heavier oils to the surface, so try not to soak leather things, though it won't hurt to get WD on leather.

Mark Weingartner

I live and work 3 blocks from the beach and have tried everything. A light (very light) wiping of a lite lubricant does work but I do several things before the lubricant. 1) Using a paint brush and a soft cloth (old cloth baby diapers or old T- shirts work great for this) dry wipe everything. You have to remove all the sand, dust and moisture. Compressed air is a great help as well, although you'll use a lot of it to do the job. 2) I open all the equipment and put it under a 500 watt lamp for a day to dry everything out. The lamp is usually 5 to 8 feet away so the equipment doesn't get hot - I just want it to get warm to speed up the evaporation process. Rotate your equipment every couple of hours to get to all the moisture.

Page 444 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

3) Wipe it down again to get the salts left by the evaporated water. Most of the time this is all that is needed to stop the rust and corrosion. If you prefer then you can do a light coat of a silicon based product. I haven't tried it yet, but gun enthusiast purchase silicon impregnated cloths to wipe down their guns. This might work well for the exterior parts of your equipment. Another thing that helps is to use some sort of raincover while in the elements. When you are close to the beach, sand is literally in the air. If the wind is blowing then sand and moisture collects on your equipment. A well fitted rain cover helps to keep the sand and moist air off your equipment. The key is to remember that the sand and moisture is literally in the air. If you protect your equipment by protecting it from the wind you've solved many of your problems. An interesting story - I was shooting at a dolphin tank one day and noticed that the dolphins always fell in one or two spots. I carefully positioned my camera where the splash wouldn't get me and asked the trainer to motion for the dolphins to jump. I witnessed a great shot just before the tidal wave created by the falling dolphin engulfed me and my video camera. The camera instantly shorted out. I quickly carried the camera to my engineer who opened it up, and put it under a 500 watt tungsten light for 5 or 6 hours - constantly rotating it. Afterwards, he wiped it down to remove the "salts" and turned it on. The camera worked flawlessly for several years until it was replaced.

JR Allen

Another product to try is Silikroil from Kano Laboratories, 1000 S. Thompson Lane, Nashville, TN, 37211. They only sell by mail order. It's far better than WD-40 for loosening things that are stuck or corroded, and for protecting surfaces temporarily from moisture. Its downside is that it gets gummy if left in place too long, say a year or more. Also smells more like an aftershave.

-- J.S.

Page 445 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Aluminum and aluminium are both wonderful substances. One of the things that is wonderful about aluminum is that when it oxidises a skin of aluminum oxide forms over the surface of the aluminum which seals it from further oxidation, and this aluminum oxide coating is actually harder than bare aluminum. That is one reason why one finds aluminum in use in a lot of water-intensive exterior applications. The white discolorations and slight powdery deposits are an unfortunate manifestation of this effect, which can be exacerbated by pollutants in the air much more than by humidity. You can polish the aluminum, thereby exposing bare metal again, but since the bare metal is softer it will reoccur. If you are building new cases, you can have the parts anodized first, a process which hardens the surface electrochemically and colors it as well, if you wish. This cannot be done with assembled cases, however. As the owner of thousands of pounds of aluminum and steel lighting and grip equipt, as well as a garage of motorcycles with un- coated aluminum motors and wheels, I have too much experience with this oxidation. (By the way, gaffers who might want to be involved in a New York based lighting company may email me privately, as can west- coasters who might be looking for a BMW motorcycle) There is a product called either Ever-Brite or Nevr-Dull, I can never remember which, that is sold in many hardware and auto stores and all truck stops and consists of cotton batting impregnated with metal polish. It is great for chrome and aluminum because it does not leave too much liquid on the aluminum. For sprucing up the case edges, I would just use some 4/0 (that is 0000) steel wool to rub it till it shines. Many people will recommend the 3m plastic scrubbing pads, but even and therefore a bit coarser. You can actually put car wax or carnuba wax or Butcher's wax on the case edges after they are buffed and that will help keep the corrosion away a bit longer, but there is enough material there that a little steel wool now and again won't risk your weakening the cases and will give you a chance to check for loose corner hardware or rivets before they hang up on some conveyor belt in Nepal, spilling you precious cargo to the winds. Good luck Mark Weingarter

Page 446 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I’m catching up on mail so excuse my late entry here- but I’ve heard comments on this thread about desilica packs ( I squirrel them away too) but check it out- RICE WORKS JUST AS WELL No kidding. that’s why they put it in salt shakers- absorb the moisture. For interior camera placement just put some in a tea bag or coffee filter with a rubber band. whatever the case, its cheap, all natural and camera friendly.

Caleb "jasmine" Crosby,

Page 447 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 448 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

TV Screens

Do spot meters have a problem metering TV screens? Is there an exposure compensation I should perform. I've been told that because a screen is scanned that it will read different that a continuous source. Any words of wisdom?

Michael Tien

In my experience the spotmeter reads 1/2 to 1 stop lower than the film actually responds. Don't know of a formula, but I bet someone here does.

HEDJr

Spot meters ruined more film than any other photographic investment that I've ever made. They give very precise readings of the tiny dot they measure. I produced (read: ruined) lots of film with a precision exposed tiny portion of the scene this way. I know only use my spot for measuring the contrast of a given scene from brightest to darkest and not for any "overall" exposure information. You may be experiencing the same with your spot reading of a particular portion of the tv screen you measure. The "technique" I use for still photography is to take an "ambient" reading with the ball right up touching the screen on the spot with a middle tone.. With my Minolta Flashmeter III this seems to work fine depending on the content displayed on the screen at the time of the reading and the content on the screen when I shoot.

Page 449 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Most spot meters (as well as other meters) have a weakness for excessive blue(or lack or red), such as a tv screen. "Silicon blue cells" were supposed to cure this problem, but haven't in my experience.

Cliff Hancuff

Theo Van de Sande, ASC taught me this: Use an old spring-loaded (analog) Spectra Pro with the reflective light disc on the meter..place it right on the monitor, hopefully a close-up with skin tones..be sure and use the little dots and not the arrows for your calculations. It works.....it really does! You still must adjust the color for tungsten film, an 81A viewing glass helps.

Wayne Kennan, ASC

Many cameramen use the Minolta digital spot meter for most things, but have learned that it has a weakness when reading TV screens because of the nature of the moving bright spot target of the TV screen's scanning, combined with the Minolta's instantaneous measurement. It leads to misleading readings. Most cameramen on the forum agreed that the Pentax digital meter seems to "integrate" over a longer period of time and therefore averages the exposure better of TV screens. My recommendation is to use a manual exposure camera to shoot B&W Polaroid 667 film of the overall scene with the subject TV included in the test still picture. Use a shutter speed of 1/60th or slower to be sure to photograph the entire scanned image on the TV screen. You will be surprised how *dim* you need to set the TV so it won’t look washed out on the film later. For filming, it turns out being set dimmer than most people would set it up to view it in a TV viewing situation in you home or office. You can't trust your eye, trust the Polaroid’s, they do not lie, your eye can be fooled.

Page 450 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Also another pitfall is you need to light your scene with daylight colored light (HMI) and put an 85 filter on the camera if you are using tungsten balanced film. Or light with tungsten and filter the TV screen with a piece of 85 plastic in front. Many larger TV's have a piece of clear glass in the front of the cabinet, you replace that. Or a third alternative is to have the video taped image itself shifted in the orange direction before you shoot film. This works if the video images are incidental, but I wouldn't use this technique if the video images are important, like a commercial for TV's! On a similar subject, it appears the Pentax does a better job of properly reading greenscreens and bluescreens than the Minolta does. I keep a Pentax around and only bring it out when I am doing TV screens or green/blue matting.

Bill Bennett

I've found wildly differing readings from spot meters on TV screens, I've tried the Minolta, the Pentax Digital & the Sekonic L778, they are all out to some degree, the Pentax seems to be the most reliable in this situation. I always try to use a Polaroid to check this. If you're stuck then when I was a kid I found that 1/15 at f4 with 100 ISO was right for stills, I've used it as a basis for the last 30 odd years and it seems to work!

Geoff Boyle

Page 451 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I simply find the area that is closest to 18% grey (may be an actual playback of a grey card), then I take a reading with my spot meter and I underexpose it by an amount between a third and 0ne stop. If you're really in a hurry, just find the brightest spot of the actual image you're filming and expose for 18% with your spot meter; it works fine! Do a test before shooting and you can't go wrong. If you don't have time for a test, roll a 5 feet test (in stop increments) off the reel you're using, so you will have a reference next time.

Norayr Kasper

In my experience, yes and yes to all the responses. A lot of spot meters will be confused by the scanning process of the TV screen, and don't "integrate" well. Remember (here we go again) the vertical blanking interval actually turns off the display for the next retrace, much like an electronic version of the shutter in a projector blocking the light during pull-down. Result? The video screen is blank, or "black" some of the time. Faster than your eye can interpret. These dark periods confuse the meter, it tells you to open up to compensate. End result is overexposure... usually something like 2/3 of a stop.

Jim Furrer

If you are running your own source material through the tv monitor and you have the luxury of setting up to bars, I usually read the green band (this correlates pretty well with 18%) with the Pentax and open 2/3-1 stop. Alternate method, read white and expose the picture Zoned between VI & VII. Several years ago Ken Zunder told me his old Model M Minolta Spot read TV’s and computer screens OK, but his newer Model F always seemed to fail him . . . there must be an integration differential between the two models . . . he was the monitor king while shooting the first season of Seaquest.

Page 452 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I've always been able to meter TV screens fairly accurately with a spotmeter (Pentax Spot V; haven't tried my Spotmeter F on a TV screen yet.) I also measure color temperature by reading random static off the screen with a color meter. It works quite well.

Art Adams

I just photographed some insert shots of a tv. screen playing back some videotape footage on 16mm at 29.97 using 320 tungsten stock with an 85. I simply grabbed a 35mm still camera, set the shutter speed to 1/60th, the film speed to 200, meter to center-weighted average mode and measured the on-screen image. I then worked the brightness of the on-screen image until I achieved the desired stop. All is well.

Michael Siegel

I shot a commercial including lots of TV screens two years ago using 500 ASA Fuji stock. Before shooting I adjusted the TV's "picture" pots to obtain low contrast on the screen. I used my digital Pentax spotmeter and slightly (2/3 f-stop) underexposed the screens than the reading. The result was OK. This method was also mentioned in the manual of the Pentax spotmeter so I didn't make an invention.

Dogan Sariguzel

Page 453 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I always wondered why the monitors looked 'hot' first few times I tried to meter them. I gravitated to a system where I intuitively turned _down_ the brightness control to a point where I thought they would look right; that seemed to work. Later I ran into a situation where I had to balance an odd group of monitors and came up with my current system. First I choose a specific video image (whole screen) that I will meter on. I try to pick something that is mostly Zone 5. At the very least I try to find a shot with an _average_ brightness over the entire frame. Obviously, a c/u of a grey card properly transferred would be the best. Next is the most important part: I back up far enough that the set fits _entirely_ into the target circle of the meter. Now, I realise that this may not be possible. But, if it is, and you try metering from close and far you'll see what I'm talking about. The difference is usually about 1/2 or 2/3 of a stop, or even more. I always find the tricky part is choosing the frame to meter on in absence of a full field grey chart. If I have time, I usually get a grey card, lit to key, close to the set as seen from the camera so I can make last minute adjustments based on that. Usually, I feel that I should turn down the brightness on the monitor. I have never had a producer say, "Gee, that TV looks dark." They seem to command a screen presence that doesn’t always require a full textbook (as I f) exposure. Also, Art Adams mentioned using video noise for a Kelvin reading and I think that works well; you can use the same noise as a Zone 6 (maybe 6.5) reading.

David Perrault

Page 454 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

We seem to be reaching a consensus here. Had a chance to absorb all these postings, and tried to put them into effect on my 35mm shoot yesterday (3/18/97). In this case, a 26" commercial grade "TV set" was being fed an electronic blue signal, so that in post-production footage could be inserted via an Ultimatte-type key on a Henry. Attended the transfer this morning (3/19) and the colorist said the TV screen seen in the footage was "as good as he could hope for" in terms of exposure and saturation. No Power Windows required! So I guess it all worked. Details: Arriflex 535A camera, shooting Kodak '79. I rated it at a 400 speed (personal preference), process normal. No filtration. Frame rate was 29.97 to sync to TV screen. Rest of the set lit to an F4 incident, as metered with both a Spectra (my gaffer's) and a CineMeter II (mine). Metered the TV screen with my Minolta Spotmeter F, ASA 400, set at 1/60th second, still rate (1/2 the frame rate, 180 degree shutter). Adjusted contrast & brightness on screen until spot meter reading off the blue from the TV was 2.8 1/3. Based on previous posts, I assumed the red and green cells in the meter were getting little or nothing, and therefore the meter was under-reporting. Allowed additional 1/3 stop for "no red" and another 1/3 stop for "no green" and we were at F4.0, the desired stop. THEN, had the video tech switch the signal feeding the set from blue to white (presence of all colors). Spot meter reported the exposure as F4.0... but remember, that's to achieve an 18% grey card value, and if we were reading skin tone, we'd be opening up 1/2 to 1 full stop, right? But, on the other hand, I remembered the suggestion posted here, to take the electronic blanking interval into effect (seems to confuse the Minolta meters, which don't "integrate" the chopped source from a TV set well) I decided the two factors would cancel each other out, and I accepted the F4.0 reading as desirable and shot the scene. No complaints, the colorist said it was fine, the Henry artist said the blue-screen matted out like a charm. Client was pleased, booked another job with me. Thanks to all here for their input, that's what's great about this forum!

Jim Furrer

Page 455 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 456 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Ultra High Speeds

Hi, Any one have any idea about at what frame rates you start to notice the 60 hertz of tungsten lights, or if it happens. I spoke to a friend who told me when shooting at 10,000 F.P.S. he saw the lights dim and brighten during the shot, he was using tungsten. I've only done one test so far, at 3,000 F.P.S. with lights, and I didn't see the effect he described. However it is possible that on my test the lights were on different legs, so they would be complementing each other. Strobes are not an option, I wish shooting outside were. Does any one know about this phenomena, or at 3,000 F.P.S. do I not have to worry. Thanks

Steven Gladstone

While this is just a guess, I would think that 10k and 20k lamps are very unlikely to show any output variation over such short intervals of time...but you could do the 'easy' thing to prevent any fluctuation due to ac by renting a DC generator and running your tungsten lights on DC...no fluctuation from power and quieter to boot...though the camera will be anything but quiet. You might also consider using Xenon lights as they are DC continuous arc sources.

Mark Weingartner

Page 457 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I do not think it is possible to notice the flicker of tungsten lights at any frame rate, since the variation in flicker is so slight. It would not be a function of frame rate, but of the viewer's sensitivity to such a slight variation. Perhaps that variation might increase if the lights were dimmed down ? ...but I doubt that.

Perhaps it was the result of uneven development in the Lab ? ...but that tends to look a bit splotchy. (Are we certain that these were tungsten units and not electronic ballast HMI's ?)

Mark

I have seen the described fluctuations at slower (relatively) frame rates around 3 to 500 fps. After talking to those in the know (not those who won't admit it) we determined it was the camera that was wavering in exposure. While I prefer not to dis their equipment as I like it and use it all the time, the manufacturer's name rhymes with an extinct bird and an old hair treatment.

Eric (too wimpy to just say it) Swenson

Mark, I don't know about your experience, but I can point a Cine Check at a 60-watt house bulb and read the mains frequency. It would not surprise me that this pulsing could be caught on film, assuming the frame rate was high enough.

Jim Furrer

Page 458 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Yes, Steven you will be able to see 60Hz fluctuations over 2500-5000 fps if my memory serves me right. But the most determining factor is the size of the tungsten source. Tungsten pars or small wattage lamps will be seen but 5k's or 10K's won't due to the nature of the filament size. They simply take longer to respond to the fluctuations. Think of a 10K quickly doused on a dimmer compared to an inky. There's always DC! Hope this helps. Regards,

Jim Sofranko

Definitely can be seen with small filament lamps at high fps over 2500. Regards,

Jim Sofranko

Hmmm, I've never heard of smaller filament lamps exhibiting a higher amplitude difference than larger ones...not enough of a difference to matter anyways. But I'll take your word for it.

I must say that I worked on many Photosonics shoots (I was a Photosonics Camera Assistant in New York) and never witnessed this. Then again, at 2,500 to 3,000 fps we usually required 5 & 10K's to expose our shots. The only flicker that I witnessed were one of three heads on some brand new flicker-free HMI's. Bad ballast. Needed a reshoot.

Mark

The 60 hz frequency fluctuation is definitely there, but the amplitude difference is quite small. If it were large (as with a magnetic ballast HMI), you'd notice it even if you shot non-crystal at lower frame-rates. For the sake of clarity, lets say that the (rather long) sustain and decay of a "flickering" & glowing tungsten filament were to approach a 5 % difference in amplitude, then this would be barely noticeable on film. We Page 459 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

can notice extremely small exposure shifts when they happen very quickly, but not when you have, say, less than 1/10th of a stop shift that is spread-out in slow-mo over a couple of seconds. I have never witnessed such a problem (we got our cameras up to 3,000 fps with a special Electronic Speed Control)...but Jim Sofranko says that he has definitely seen this exposure fluctuation on smaller tungsten fixtures. I suppose it's better to run your lights on DC or 3 different phases...or it's time to shoot high-fps shots in the sun only ! :-)

Mark "watch out for sunspots" DP

I remember that time in NY and yes, 5K and 10K's were the lights of preference. But a few of the directors at the tabletop houses in the mid to late eighties started to use VNS tungsten pars for high speed Photosonics and macro work where depth of field was important. Much more bang for the amps. The tabletop gaffers during that time (myself included) picked up on this and introduced the idea to many director cameramen. That was when I noticed the sine wave problem with the very responsive par lamps compared to the slower, large filament 5K and 10K's.

BTW-On a imilar note a friend who is a tabletop gaffer in NY recently had a flicker problem shooting Photosonics with flicker free HMI's. The problem was attributed to the lamp/age amplitude dilemma that the B&S meter can detect. Now that Photosonics recognizes the problem perhaps they should just include the meter with the camera as Bill Bennett indicated they did for his shoot. It's an expensive item that gaffers always have a hard time in getting a rental. I know that Unilux sends out a Minolta Flashmeter 111 with their system. Regards,

Jim Sofranko

Page 460 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I had an experience at 300fps, where a practical globe in the frame flickered. It was run off a generator, and don't it wasn't on a dimmer (but now that I think about it I can't remember for certain!) It was puzzling because nothing the gaffer or I could think of really made it even seem possible. The globe was in the shot, none of the other lights illuminating the set showed any irregularity. But, the flicker was an odd one and so slight that I even have the shot on my reel and nobody even notices. My recommendation would be to test or keep sources out of the shot, or run DC on that light.

Harry Dawson

This seems pretty reasonable: that the flicker would be fairly subtle. Now I'm starting to wonder whether some of our Photosonics tabletops were done 3-phase with 3 lights into a piece of diffusion. I know they weren't DC.

I do recall a DP at Ampersand (not Elbert Budin, but the other, younger guy with the dark hair...why do names escape me when I call upon them?) who liked lighting with tight-lensed tungsten Pars (such as the 64's). He liked the hot, messy beam of the older one's with a dead spot near the middle. But I never remember any flicker problems there either...200 to 2,500 fps.

But I suppose the newer, smaller filaments can really be that responsive, eh ? Good to have that warning.

Mark

Big filaments Vs small filaments as regards high speed output variation Think of the filament as a flywheel (ok, ok, have a mind-relaxing beverage of your choice, and THEN think of the filament as a flywheel.) The larger filaments take so long to heat and cool relative to 60Hz power (which produces, of course, 120 voltage peaks per second) that they will not exhibit visible variation over the course of a cycle. Smaller filaments may heat up and cool down fast enough to be seen on high speed film.

Page 461 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Household bulbs would be amongst the most likely to show this variation . This is the "evil twin" of the characteristic of smaller wattage globes that leads us to use them on flicker boxes for fire effects or lightning, or wherever we need fast modulation. DC solves the problem,(it never shuts off) as does using multiple fixtures into a common piece of diffusion such that roughly a third of them are powered by each leg of three phase power. Three phase power gives you three sine-waves of AC power offset by 120 degrees from each other so that at any instant in time, at least two of the legs are not at 0 volts. Single phase power, even if it has two hot legs, has two legs of power out of phase with each other by 180 degrees so that they are both at zero volts twice per cycle.

Forgive me if I am clarifying things that many people know; as a career gaffer/VFX nerd, I have discovered that even many of my brethren in the electrical world do not really dig the three-phase thing, and power generation is not something that is covered in depth in all cinematography courses...I mean, that's what your gaffer is for, anyway.

Mark (climbing back down from the soap-box)

However since they are 180 degrees out of phase, wouldn't their fluctuations cancel out? If I used half of my lights on opposite legs. Perhaps I'd have to compensate the exposure some, figuring that the average of the On ( full intensity) and the off ( a little bit less than full intensity) would yield less than what my meter ( at this amount of light and heat now a shrivelled bit of melted plastic) says.

Argggghh, this theoretical stuff. Shooting at such high frame rates it's almost as if time stops, like that old Star trek Episode. I like the D.C. Idea, that seems simplest. Just because I started this thread I'd like to say thanks to everyone who has waded in with thoughts, or experiences.

Steven Gladstone

Page 462 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

With an oscilloscope (which is basically a device to let you see a picture of voltage over time) you can see in a single cycle of AC that the voltage first goes positive to 120v. and then goes to negative 120v., passing through zero on the way. You can tell the difference between +120v and -120v., but all a filament can tell is that a bunch of electrons are playing through...not which way they are going. Since the "zero points" of the cycle are the same for both legs, the lights will all flicker together. This overall common fluctuation is the worst case for having the exposure variation show up on film. With three phase power, on the other hand, since the three legs are offset by 120 degrees instead of 180 degrees, the overall difference between "brightest" and "dimmest" is much less, and therefore less likely to be perceptible on film. Remember that the challenge here is not to create a certain intensity but rather to create a situation where that intensity does not change too much from frame to frame.

You ain't kidding about the melted plastic bit.

On a certain blockbuster about aliens attacking the earth a couple of years ago, I was charged with lighting an area of air extending approx. 15 feet above a nine foot long trough from which we were generating steam and debris clouds using, among other things, prima-cord and fullers earth. I used 3 Dino lights (24x1kPAR64) on each side with 5 nine-light Maxi's on a high truss as back-light and 4 maxi's around the front for "soft low-level fill."

Bad day to wear a dark blue shirt.

I got into the killing zone to focus and get readings, and by the time my welding glass was getting warm to the touch, the front of my shirt was getting distinctly hot to the touch. as was my hair. If I had taken one of my old Spectra Pro's out there without a 100x slide in it, the needle would have wrapped around the high stop. Oh, the things we do for ART!

Mark Weingartner (a long way from focusing par cans in Central Park with a Texas license plate)

Page 463 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The two legs of a single phase supply are never 'out of phase with each other' . Rather the polarity of the supply alternates between them at the the supply frequency 60Hz for you, 50 for me, and at the mid-point of this alternation there is no potential difference(PD) between the two legs. This is commonly called the 'Zero Crossing Point' The PD rolls serenely up and down either side of this point and peaks once 'negatively' and once 'positively' for each cycle, passing the zero crossing point twice as it goes. If you draw a representative sine wave with a straight line throughout its central axis you will see how this works. The nominal voltage of the supply is the RMS of this sine, 240v in the UK, but the peak to peak voltage is almost 280v!

Interestingly, the maximum voltage that you can actually come into contact with at any given moment is the half cycle value; that is 120v for me, and 55v for you. Which is why US supplies are inherently much safer than UK one and all your fittings are of a lighter construction than ours. Ask your friendly gaffer to explain how the single phase is extracted from your three phase supply! :-)

So the upshot is that single phase supplies are at no volts twice per cycle and its quite possible for lightweight filaments to cool visibly if you are shooting fast enough.

Andy Bowman.

Page 464 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Varicon

I'm using a VariCon filter that I got from Clairmont for the first time. I was wondering if any of you have used this filter and have any suggestions or comments about it.

I'm looking to use it to desaturate several scenes I'm about to shoot.

–Marc

Call Arri in NY at 914 353 1400, and ask for them to send you the Varicon kit. We have some sample images and other info on the Varicon.

Cheers, Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative Arriflex Corporation; 1646 N. Oakley Ave, Suite #2, Chicago, IL 60647- 5319, USA

I used the Varicon for a couple of commercials last year and really liked the results we got.

We adjusted them by eye to match, we were using 2 cameras, although we also had the device that should match them.

Page 465 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I found that I could successfully use a lot more than I at first thought I could.

We reduced the contrast hugely with the Varicon and then wound it back in in TK, this gave us more "cartoon" colours.

The biggest problem was that they get very hot and have to regularly turned off to cool down.

Really liked them, it was weird to look at the camera from the subject and see this glowing front!

Geoff

I'm planning to use either the Panaflasher or a VariCon for a feature in June so I have been reading up a little (I also plan to shoot some tests).

The best article was on the original "Colorflex" device invented by Gerry Turpin for "Young Winston" - unfortunately, I've misplaced the issue of "American Cinematographer" that covered it.

A.C., March '73 has a good article on Vilmos Zsigmond's use of flashing for "the Long Goodbye", complete with photos.

A.C., March '74 mentions flashing briefly in conjunction with "Nickel Ride", shot by Jordon Cronenweth.

A.C., Nov. '78 covers the use of the Lightflex for "The Wiz", including discussion on color flashing combined with diffusion filters.

A.C., Feb. '86 has an excellent article by Woody Omens about using the Lightflex to obtain a painterly period look for a TV movie, "Evergreen". Definitely read that one...

A.C., July '90 has an article by Isadore Mankofsky comparing the Panaflasher to the VariCon (first design).

And finally, "International Photographer", Nov. '97, has a technical article by Mark Woods about the Panaflasher and VariCon.

Page 466 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The old A.C. article about "Dune" is not really worth reading, although the film itself has some excellent use of the Lightflex - there is finally a new widescreen transfer on laserdisc that looks pretty good.

I'm sure Arriflex can send so some pretty good material. I few weeks ago I asked Isadore Mankovsky about the differences between the Panaflasher and the VariCon - he said that he preferred the VariCon slightly but said that because it uses an UltraCon filter for its glass, it does slightly soften the image compared to a Panaflasher.

David Mullen

David Mullen is clearly the best researcher here on the CML! I am always impressed with what he digs up!

So the glass in a Varicon is an UltraCon? What grade? Interesting!

Jeff "flash me" Kreines

Having never used the Varicon system, can someone explain how it works? Thanks,

Jim S.

• The biggest problem was that they get very hot and have to regularlyturned off to cool down.

Indeed! The best solution for the overheating (learnt from a DP friend John Berrie csc) is to put it on when they call "roll camera" and off when the director says "cut". It usually takes some 3 or 4 days for the AC to get used to this.

Page 467 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

• Very simple to use: The Varicon (filter+lamp housing) is inserted into a matte-box like the MD14. It is attached with a power cable to the ballast which you'll have to place near the camera (usually not so convenient for the operator). The ballast has two settings, high mode and low mode. If the setting is wrong, it will look too hot or too faint. Then you power it through an external battery (usually same as the one powering the camera). The on/off switch runs between the ballast and the Varicon which we velcro it next to the on/off switch of the camera so the AC will run/stop them together to avoid overheating. Next comes the intensity dial. When you turn the dial, a set of rectangular shutters open or close inside the lamp housing. There are numbers on the dial for reference, but I wouldn't trust them much because the mechanics between the shutters and the dial is not quite accurate. Finally, there is a little rectangular slot for color correction gels situated between the lamp housing and the optical glass. The clear optical glass has tiny particles inside to ensure uniformity of brightness throughout.

The best way of knowing what it does to your image is obviously to test for desired effect. After a while, you'll just do it by eye, and almost always will look fine. It is important to know that one setting of the dial doesn't work for all shots (here lies the difference between fogging the film and using Varicon). You should reset that dial every time you have a different lighting setup. Basically, the Varicon acts on the blacks in the image while the bright areas remain mostly unaffected. You can also experiment with adding color gels in the slot. One trick that helps me a lot is to judge the desired intensity by looking into the viewfinder at a very black object in the dark areas of the image. That is all I can remember now. Hope this helps.

Norayr

Page 468 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

...One trick that helps me a lot is to judge the desired intensity by looking into the viewfinder at a very black object in the dark areas of the image...

Very helpful explanation. Never used it but have heard about this system or one like it for years. A few questions though. Do you change the intensity based on lens length as well as on lighting? I know that I would tend to go with a lighter diffusion on a longer lens and vice versa. Is the same true with the Varicon? Also does the effect seem very apparent and milk out the blacks too much? Or can it be subtle? The color idea seems interesting. And is there anything similar is post for this effect?

Regards,

Jim S.

> Do you change the intensity based on lens length as well as on lighting? I >know that I would tend to go with a lighter diffusion on a longer lens and >vice versa. >Is the same true with the Varicon?

In general, yes, the focal length and contrast ratio are big factors. It doesn't make much sense to use it where you have little or no contrast. It can also cause softening or flaring with very wide lenses where it may collect uncontrolled light coming from brightly lit scenes, skylight, windows, etc. It's mostly useful in low lighting situations like night shoots, or to fill in the shadows when the sun is overhead, or to bring up the foliage of dark trees, etc. It basically acts like a fill light. It gives definition to blacks where you could swear your meter read "E". On the other hand, I've seen an impressive shot John Berrie did where he recreated an Arctic snow blizzard during a sunny winter day here in the townships. He used wind machine, some snow powder, and of course the Varicon to flatten the contrast drastically. He loved it so much that he bought one. BTW, it is a bit overpriced.

As I mentioned above, the Varicon acts like any additional frontal element. Beside softening the image a tiny bit and collecting light from the environment, it also creates double shadows when you shoot against practicals, bright windows, etc. So if you're shooting in a situation where

Page 469 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

there is not much contrast, ask yourself if the Varicon is really needed?

> Also does the effect seem very apparent and milk out the blacks too much? > Or can it be subtle?

Varicon can be very subtle; if you find it is not subtle enough for your desired look, just add an ND .6 or .9 inside the gel slot. Then you'll have more control on intensity. Yes, you can easily get milky blacks if you exaggerate.

> The color idea seems interesting. And is there > anything similar is post for this effect?

Anything you add to the gel-slot will show up in the blacks. Any color gel will more or less act like a filter except that it mostly effects the blacks. In post you can do almost anything, but it is not the same as correcting your image in camera.

Norayr

Page 470 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

White Backgrounds

"Hello All, A shoot coming up calls for talent in front of a completely white back drop. The frame will start from below the talent's feet to above their head. The director wants the white to be completely blown out while properly exposed on the talent. Not a problem as there will be enough separation from the back drop... EXCEPT, the talent's feet.

The director also does NOT want to blue or green screen the shoot and matte the talent against the white. Sigh...

Because the frame will be wider than full frame, the actor will be standing on the white drop. The question is:

How do I get the white below, and immediately around the talent's feet to blow out while not over-exposing the talent? I'm thinking FLAT BLACK SHOES for the talent and lots'a flags.

Any and all pointers will be GREATLY appreciated.

Rick Gibbs

Page 471 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

It seems to me that a lot of the success of this shot depends on how white/reflective your background is. There are 12' width of both white and ""bright white"" paper drops. Caution in shooting with the ""bright white"" as it has ""whiteners"" in them (phosphorus, I think) and they can iridesce a very light pale blue, but they really are brighter.

I think the key to making this shot a lot easier is to keep the talents clothes somewhat darker than neutral-grey toned. Creating the differential between the reflectivity of the background and the talent would be easiest. If you are able to do that, your flagging solution, which carries it's own set of troubles, will be unnecessary.

Cliff Hancuff

My first thought would be to start with a glass topped riser to support the actor's weight, then hang a translucent white backing material -- perhaps some kind of cloth, and drape it over the riser, to produce a seamless white region around him. You could then light the white from behind and underneath, and use light from the front only to model the talent as you want.

-- J.S.

I assume that your intention isn't really to ""blow out"" the white but rather to create featureless white limbo with no detail or horizon. Check out Lucas' movie THX-1138. There are several long scenes with characters lost in white limbo (wearing white clothes too!). The trick is more in keeping the white set clean physically. I say build a seamless white space, fill it with light, expose for the actor's face and let white be white. –

Terry

Page 472 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

The easy solution to your director's requirements is to shoot using the 3M product used for front projection (sorry I forget the actual name of the product) as a backdrop, running from behind the actor forward and under his/her feet. Bounce any small source from a half silvered mirror placed in front of the camera lens (as in front projection) and you will immediately have a blown out white background. I have used this method most successfully shooting 'space people' whose costume is made out of the same material. It doesn't matter what angle the camera looks at the material as it will always reflect directly back to the centred light source.

David Wakeley ACS

The 3M material (I forget the name as well) works very well, I've even used it for green screen. However, it may not be the most practical if the shoot is for Telecine. A white cyc, evenly lit, can be pumped up in the TK by raising the white levels without too much problem and cause them to blow out. Just watch for shadows and unevenness. Wardrobe with dark shoes and pants helps tremendously for the floor problem allowing you to light the floor brightly. BTW- Recently I've seen many people light white cycs with overhead spacelights and get very even results. I've always used the old method of skypans and silks but this other method looks very appealing and much easier. What methods do you all like to use for this tedious task?

Jim Sofranko

It's Scotchlite (light).

Eric Swenson

Page 473 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I would recommend some rules to follow: OVERLIGHT the white cyc. Put your first space light on the 'edge' of the cyc. Put your last light on the opposite edge of the cyc. This may seem like you are wasting 'horse power', but this will eliminate most of the 'center hot spot' you will get if you don't overlight. For a 40' wide stage I use about 18 6K space lights.

USE PRIME LENSES. Zooms will give your vignetted edges (subtle as they are.... they will creep up in telecine). If will be difficult to match the whites from one mm to the next mm unless you use primes.

USE REFLECTIVE METER My whites work best when they are 31/2 stops over lens exposure.

NEGATIVE YOUR FOREGROUND ACTOR Use plenty of black to remove light wrap from the actor. Use overheads to pull the intensity down.

USE FLAT DISC- For your exposure, use a flat disk on your incident meter and set a stop. Then use your reflective meter to read your whites.

USE OLD WHITE SEAMLESS to cover the floors while you are working. Roll it up to shoot.

Will this on film or tape??? For telecine to be viewed on TV for theatrical??? On film for TV. I did this once for a music video. 20 x 20 silk with 10 or 12 2k soft light overhead and some bounce in front and as back light and then whiten the the few slightly darker spots on the floor in transfer. On video if using a 600 or 700 use the ""knee"" feature (which is usually for un-clipping really hot areas) in reverse. I others words everything above a certain level will wash out with no detail. Did this on clip too. There are probably many other ways but those are two I have used before. Good luck

Daniel Villeneuve, csc

Page 474 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Women (close-ups & lighting)

Here are a few of my prime considerations (aside from "how much time do I have to light this and still make the day?") in these cases:

1. How far up the food chain is she? a. The exec. producer? b. A "name" that the producer cast to get investors?

2. How well (excuse me here) "connected" is she to the producer?

3. How pleasant to work with is she? (I have "monster" lit a few "Monsters" on occasion.

Jerry (limited snideness day, are you celebrating?) Wolfe

This brings up a whole new topic - how far should one go in "glamourizing" a woman's close-up? I shoot a lot of thrillers and dramas and often use a certain amount of shadows & contrast on a close-up. Some actresses see that their key light is coming from the side and wonder how they are going to look on film.

The sad truth is that most (not all) women look good with a flat, frontal key light - sometimes soft, sometimes hard. Look at most head shots that actresses carry around - they all look like they have no nose, only two eyes and a smile. But frontal lighting can be so dramatically boring!

Page 475 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Whenever I have to light a woman that way (when she really needs my help) I try to break up the key a little by shadowing her neck or forehead - or by using a very hot backlight and an underexposed frontal key light.

Twice I've worked with an actress whose features were so delicate (and her face was so round - not fat - just round) that side-lighting actually helped her look good by giving her face some structure. If you lit her face flatly, she looked like a lightbulb.

Most actresses that I have worked with have not been a problem, understanding that the lighting should support the drama of the scene - but occasionally, I have had a make-up person question my lighting because I wasn't using flat lighting to wash out some wrinkles or something.

There is usually a happy medium where the lighting can look good and dramatically correct and the actress looks good as well - but sometimes I get asked to "cross the line" and glamourize a close-up beyond what is correct for the scene. I actually like old-fashioned glamour lighting (like Von Sternberg's work with Marlene Deitrich) but I rarely find it appropriate to the project that I'm on.

Anyone else had this issue come up on a shoot?

David Mullen

Page 476 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Yeah. Certainly have had how a woman will look on screen come up on a shoot. Working with a rather well known television actress in her late forties on an independent feature I ran into a puzzling problem. A large majority of the film was to take place in long, unbroken steadi-cam shots (five to ten minute chunks). I was stuck with practical and overhead lighting -- plus, the director wanted a very noir, high contrast look. The actress came to me the first day and sat down with me and asked, with a very worried look on her face - "How are you going to light me?" I made the solution to walk an electrician with a 2x4 Kino with 250 and ND.6 across the doors near the camera lens to help "flatten-out" her shots, but it was a hell of a dilemma.

I think, when dealing with women and hard-light Sante D'Orazio is the current champion -- Take a look at any Victoria Secret catalogue, or he shoots for Vogue, Cosmo and others. His use of hard light on women is very reminiscent of 40's kind of style, with a more delicate modern color touch. Nice stuff.

I had a similar conversation recently in reference to screenplays where women are often described as "beautiful." I tend to agree with the trend - - audiences don't normally go to see average or unsightly people on the screen (speaking of the protagonists). Audiences want to be swept away with the story and be able to fantasize themselves into the main roles, it's much easier to do that with a Tom Cruise and Jennifer Anniston then with someone an audience might find unattractive. (OF COURSE, I AM GENERALIZING TO A GREAT DEGREE HERE...) The same applies to lighting. Within the context of the narrative, women and men should look "good." my 2 fc worth.

Jay Holben

Page 477 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Premise: Hollywood Studio, wanted to make picture where one of the main character is a witty British young lady in late twenties.

Cast: 40+years old EXPERIENCED actress with with non-British accent at all! Her screen lower: a very well known good looking actor in his 30+.

Act 1: I told to director and producer that because I do not have plastic surgeon licence I withdraw from case. "Please, let's try"- they asked. "I will be fired in disgrace after the first day, because the "big cheese" is personally selected her, he even called me reminding how such and such big DP, shot her beautifully, say 15-20 years ago, and offered me in a fact to accept a baton, forgetting to look at the calendar" "Please, let's try"- they asked again

Act 2: I build Light Boxes from 2x2 to 6x6 ft and my filter package was totally bullet-proof (2,5 in of glass variety). Everybody was happy except director, actor, producer and me .

Act 3: Unfortunately studio liked this glowing image and we start to roll. Lighting of her was simple, but to cut everybody else from spill was THE task for a grip. Needless to say it was dark, moody script .

Tragic End: After 2 weeks of shooting an actor got nervous breakdown ( any conspiracy theory are welcomed!) because actress couldn’t pronounce rather sophisticated script lines and coach was hired and therefore actor's screen feelings couldn't get up. We had to be able to make maybe no more than 10 setups in the 10 hours. Production Manager got fired.

Happy End : We have to stop shooting with pay for a week. An actress who suppose to be at first place (a great British actress, living in Paris) was casted, location in Paris was approved, the film was finished on time and budget.

Page 478 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Finalé: An actress No. 1 got nervous breakdown, moved out of Los Angeles into New York desert. The Producer was fired for casting mistakes and over expenditure.

Picture of the light box with all camera crew inside is available at request

And how is your week?

Yuri Neyman,

Uh, so how would you (glamorously) light a woman who's been trapped in a car by a high-tech alarm system? At 12,000 feet?

She can't always be keylit by the dome lite or the mirror vanity lights...

Jeff "ducking and running" Kreines

Aurasoft on a goalpost over camera.

Hey! I make commercials, women ALWAYS look good :-)

Cheers

Geoff Boyle

Page 479 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Okay, what Jay was alluding to was a conversation we had about my current of Hollywood casting. I think the casting of a film is so critical, obviously it can effect the entire result of the project -- both in terms of acting as well as believing the type casted is appropriate. Case in point, The Peacemaker.... I just saw a screening of it last night. Nicole Kidman as a Nuclear Physicist? With wardrobe smartly provided by Calvin Klien. Sure, all nuclear physicist look like Nicole and all covert special ops military men look like George Clooney.

Now I'm not discrediting the concept of "suspension of disbelief" but c'mon. I wonder why the films I've been liking these days have been foreign or independents that have unique casting and original storylines. The last film I enjoyed in the theater was The Full Monty. Made for about 2 million, that film puts Speed 2, Jurassic Park 2, Batman 4, Air Force One, I could go on... to shame! With the budgets of Speed 2 and Batman and Robin, we could have had 100 different original projects like The Full Monty. Let's try and focus our energies on original works with strong scripts, rather than anything that may make a buck, regardless of the fact that the script is horrendous. I look at the career choices of Roger Deakins, Darius Khondji, Conrad Hall... I think they are the examples to follow... with that said, I'm currently out of work waiting for my Searching for Bobby Fischer or Shawshank Redemption....

Oh woe is me...

Chris Probst

Page 480 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Today I came across this old interview with Gordon Willis regarding actor's needing "special" lighting:

Willis: "I don’t pay attention to actors' egos - no, that's an oversimplification. The picture comes first in my mind, which doesn't mean I don't deal with what's best for them. I won't put a picture under because someone feels that they look better this way than they look that way. I'm not going to turn out an 8x10 glossy in the middle of two unrelated things in a movie."

This probably explains why Willis is not known for romanticizing women's close ups, although he had done it when the story needs it (the dream sequences in "Pennies From Heaven", for example.) Storaro is one of my all-time favorite DP's, but I must admit that some women have suffered visually under his lighting (I'm thinking of Vanessa Redgrave in "Agatha".)

I also remember that Stanley Cortez was replaced on "Chinatown" for not wanting to shoot Faye Dunaway with wide-angle lenses - or without any diffusion.

In some ways, my favorite DP for his lighting of women is Sven Nykvist - Debra Winger in "Cannery Row", the women in Bergman's movies (how can anyone go wrong there...), Marissa Tomei in "Only You", the various women in "Chaplin"...

David Mullen

Page 481 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

Page 482 CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List the first 5 years

I’d like to thank the people who have helped to run CML and whose contributions are always uder-rated.

Shangara Singh Jessica Skippon Steven Gladstone Mart Weiss David Walpole Justin Pentecost Emmanuelle Suys

I’d especially like to thank David Walpole whose efforts at extracting web pages from the discussions, and making sense of them, will be the basis of future CML books.

This first CML book can only be blamed on me ☺

Dawlish Devon January 2005

Page 483