Introduction - Cinematography Mailing List

CINEMATOGRAPHY Mailing List 

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. 

The purpose of the CML is to promote the free 

exchange of ideas among fellow professionals - 

camera crews, manufacturers, rental houses and 

other related businesses. 

Some of the related professionals on the CML are 

people from Kodak, Arri, Aaton, Otto Nemenz, 

Clairmont, Ilford, Panavision, OpTex, Tiffen, 

Schneider, Fuji & other companies. 

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 600 to over a thousand each. 

Page 1


Introduction.................................................................1 

Shooting at 25FPS in a 60Hz Environment...............6 

Shooting at 30 FPS....................................................23 

3D Moving Stills ........................................................50 

4*3 or 16*9................................................................64 

85 or 85B...................................................................76 

Time Code on Film....................................................94 

Arri Variable Primes................................................128 

Aerial Filming...........................................................133 

Baggage....................................................................149 

Bleach Bypass and related processes ...................164 

Blue V Green Screens..............................................181 

Borescopes, Probes & Frazier ................................208 

Bounce Lighting.......................................................221 

Colour Blindness .....................................................243 

Chinese Lanterns.....................................................255 

Cold Conditions.......................................................266 

Page 2


CP16.........................................................................284 

Complex Crane Moves............................................295 

Cross Processing.....................................................311 

Deep Focus..............................................................322 

Deserts & Backlight.................................................334 

Director & DP’s relationship..................................341 

Enhancing Filters.....................................................376 

Eyelights ...................................................................383 

Explosion Proof Shooting.......................................393 

Fluorescent Lights...................................................426 

Focusing...................................................................439 

Filming Smoke.........................................................466 

Green Screen (16mm).............................................472 

Gun Flashes .............................................................479 

Infra Red...................................................................487 

Interaction with Directors......................................500 

Invoices ....................................................................508 

Page 3


Jokes .........................................................................521 

Krasnagorsk.............................................................535 

Latensification .........................................................539 

Mattes.......................................................................554 

Meters.......................................................................563 

Monochrome............................................................615 

Moonlight.................................................................623 

Movies as Music ......................................................634 

Neons........................................................................661 

Night Interiors .........................................................666 

Night Shooting........................................................680 

Making a Rainbow...................................................690 

Scanning film negs for stills ..................................704 

Shooting 3 perf 35mm ...........................................714 

Safe Speeds for Ramps...........................................732 

Sunsets.....................................................................740 

Tilt & Shift Lenses ...................................................752 

Page 4


Time-lapse...............................................................762 

Tropicalisation.........................................................784 

TV Screens...............................................................792 

Ultra High Speeds....................................................805 

Varicon.....................................................................820 

White Backgrounds .................................................831 

Women (close-ups & lighting)...............................838 

X-Rays......................................................................850 

Page 5


Shooting at 25FPS in a 60Hz 

Environment 

Hello, 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? 

Page 6


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. 

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 

Page 7


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 

1/60 th sec, 75 degree is 1/120 th sec At 50 fps, 150 

degree is 1/120 th 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. 

Page 8


Harry; 

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...? 

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 

Page 9


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 

Page 10


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 

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! 

Page 11


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 

In terms of phasing, of course, you can’t see what 

you will get, but in terms of speed, you should be 

Page 12


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 rephotographing 

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. 


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 

Page 13


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?) 


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 

Page 14


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 

Page 15


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 

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...? 

Page 16


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 

Page 17


said yes you will see this band but it won’t 

photograph... 

Apparently there will be a thin scan line every 7 tth 

(8 th ?) 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. 

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 

Page 18


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. 

Page 19


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. 

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. 

Page 20


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 

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 

Page 21


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 22


Shooting at 30 FPS 

Those of my friends fr om 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 

Page 23


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 not, are 

Page 24


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 

Page 25


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 

Page 26


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 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 

Page 27


(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. 

Page 28


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. 

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 

Page 29


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 

Page 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 O K 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 

Page 31


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. 

Page 32


OvrExpose1@aol.com 

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. 

Page 33


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. 

Page 34



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. 

Page 35


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"". 


)) 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. 

Page 36


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. 

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, 

Page 37


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: 

Page 38


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). 

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. 

Page 39


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. 

Page 40


Scott Dorsey 

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. 

Page 41


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 

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). 

Page 42


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 

Page 43


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. 

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!


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?? 


One needs to keep in mind that film shot and 

transferred to NTSC at 30fps cannot be transferred 

Page 45


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. 

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. 

Page 46


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 

Page 47


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 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. 

Page 48


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 49


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 

Page 50


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. 

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 

Page 51


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 

Page 52


article. If I can find it in the next few days I'll post 

the issue number. 

Mark Schlicher 

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. 

Page 53


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. 

Page 54


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 

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 

Page 55


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 56


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" 

Page 57


Charles "have nothing against dolly or zooms" 

Newman 

The inventor of the system is Dayton Taylor and 

can be reached at HOLOCAM@aol.com. 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! 

Page 58


Steven Poster ASC 

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 

Page 59


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?) 

Doesn't use of the 'Camera Invention' say: here is 

another way to deal out the deck of frames, it's 

Page 60


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 

Page 61


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 

hitpaws@aol.com, 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 62


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 

PWefx@aol.com. 

Peter Weiss 

Page 63


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 

Page 64


newsgroups without nary a mention of this mailing 

list so we don't get too many more uniformed 

subscribers like myself. 

Charles Tomaras 

(I hope this question passes the God....err...uh... I 

mean ...Geoff test! ) 

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 

Are these UK dramas being broadcast letterboxed, 

pan/scan, or side cropped? 

Charles Tomaras 

Page 65


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 

Page 66


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. 

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. 

Page 67


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, 

Page 68


Regards 


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). 

Super 35 is itself simply a designation for full 

aperture set-up, in which the Academy track area 

is ignored and used for picture. 

Page 69


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. 


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 

Page 70


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 

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. 


Page 71


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 


Page 72


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 

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 

requir ed 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 

Page 73


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 reframing 

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. 


I was speaking of the broadcast quality. The 

episode I worked on had a lot of contrast. Not very 

Page 74


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 75


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. 

Page 76



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. 

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 

Page 77


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 

Page 78


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... 


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 

Page 79


#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 

Page 80


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!? 

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. 

Page 81


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 82


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. 

Page 83


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 

Page 84


made in a lifeboat somewhere up North (the name 

escapes me). 

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), 

Page 85


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 

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 

Page 86


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. 


Page 87


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. 


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. 

Page 88


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!" 

Page 89


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 

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 

Page 90


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 

Page 91


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 

Page 92


late afternoon, when a full 85 conversion would be 

too warm. 

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 93


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 

Page 94


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 

Page 95


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. 

* 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. 

Page 96


* 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. 

Page 97


* 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 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 

Page 98


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 


>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 99


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 

Page 100


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 

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 c ameraperson 

had to wear two cans of DUST OFF on their belt, 

and have a little hose to the camera. While 

Page 101


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 

Page 102


have caught on very well, not to mention that 

Aaton has been at the TC thing a bit longer. 

Mark 

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. 

Page 103


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 

Page 104


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 A rri 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 you have a shoot 

involving Arri TC, and the post house of choice 

does not have an Arri TC r eader 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. 

Page 105


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 

(msmueller@arri.com). 

>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 

Page 106


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 


>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 rent), 

and all our new cameras are TC capable. The 

Page 107


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. 

Page 108


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 

Page 109


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. 

>* 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 

Page 110


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: 

Page 111


- Timecode at camer a 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 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 

Page 112


> 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, 

Page 113


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 

> 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 

Page 114


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 

Page 115


> 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, 

n'est pas? 

Page 116


>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). 

Page 117


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 

Page 118


Mark points out, is that the transport of the film 

here is intermittent, with associated acceleration 

and deceleration of 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 

Page 119


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. 

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 # 

Page 120


* 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 

Page 121


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+ 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 

Page 122


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 

Fram es 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. 

Page 123


* 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 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 

Page 124


hours. Perhaps m orning 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! 

Page 125


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 126


* 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 127


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 shortrange 

zooms, they do hold focus though out their 

zoom range. 

The 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) 

Page 128


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. 

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 

Page 129


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 

Page 130


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 

>" Can you tell us what the close focus is (are), and 

whether or not they breathe very much when you 

rack?"< 

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 

Page 131


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. 


Page 132


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. 

Page 133


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. 

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 

Page 134


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 - excuse, 

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 

Page 135


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. 

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: 

aquilon@login.net. 

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. 

Page 136


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. 

Page 137


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. 

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. 

Page 138


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 139


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). 

Page 140


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 

Sincerely 

David (wish I was young again) Samuelson 

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 

Page 141


David Samuelson 

. 

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. 

Page 142


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 143


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. 

Page 144


Any idea's or helpful hints on hand-holding on the 

side of a cliff? 

Thanks again, 

Jim Sofranko 

The first time some of us met, about a year ago, 

the subject of pre-aerial food come 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 :-) 

Cheers 

Geoff 

Dear Aerial Upchuckers, 

Page 145


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 

David wrote 

"PS I forgot to add ... 

Page 146


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." 

"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!!!!" 

Page 147


And then some people call me difficult :-) 

M.C. 

Page 148


Baggage 

I know we have had a lot written about film going 

through the airport system but there have been 

some recent changes (in the LA area) that affect 

how things are carried on board an airplane. When 

I fly a major airline I always pack the most critical 

job related equipment with me. I ask, what do I 

absolutely need to do the job I'm travelling to? 

Number one is usually my meter case which 

contains a 

selection of hand tools for emergency situations. 

Only once did I have my meters refused because of 

the tool kit inside (on a puddle jumper in 

Australia), but now LAX will no longer allow tools 

on planes. 

There also has been a severe clamping down on 

the 2 bag limit carryon. Moreover, today I found 

they had recently installed a precisely cut door to 

pass carry on luggage through when putting it on 

the X-ray belt. 

All these changes mean modifying the way things 

get distributed. One must be comfortable that gear 

Page 149


is not going to be stolen, let alone be sent to the 

wrong hemisphere. 

So what goes on the plane in the overhead? OK, 

there's the importance of the the gear for the job, 

then I guess there is the value of all the ancillary 

toys (most of which take batteries and I seem to 

own more and more of) and then there's always a 

couple of items that just make sitting for hours in a 

dry tin can more tolerable. It feels like the old "ten 

pounds of feathers in a five pound bag" routine! 

Whew, 

I'm sorry, but I think I just need to vent out some 

frustrations. But I would like to know what other 

folks are bringing on board when they don't 

actually have to bring the camera kit with them. 

Eric Swenson 

I take... 

meters (4) 

still gear (Nikon and 2 lenses) 

leatherman (stuck against bottom of still 

camera so to x-ray it looks 

Page 150


like camera) 

polaroid 

swatch books 

Misc. junk box (laser pointer, directors finder) 

Books and manuals I usually just throw in my 

briefcase. I've been able to the above in a medium 

Pelican. It’s a tight squeeze. If I need something 

bigger than a leatherman toolwise, I tell the Gaffer 

or Key to bring it. 

Does anyone use the newer Pelican case, the 

one that rolls? 

I look forward to seeing you cats at Showbiz 

Expo, 

Kurt Rauf/DP 

Hi guys, 

>I always take the leatherman off, and throw it in 

my shoulder bag. 

I have to confess I would never do this. I guess 

this is because Heathrow and Gatwick are probably 

among the highest security airports in the world. 

Also given that it's impossible here to enter the city 

Page 151


of London in a camera car with blacked out 

windows without a search. I guess people of my 

generation (I was born in 1970) just take the 

security as normal and that anything in our hand 

baggage that could be considered as dangerous 

will just be a pain in the neck for both ourselves 

and the security personnel. 

When I travel I take the camera body (SRII without 

eye piece or mag) and 

the 11-110 Zeiss zoom in a pelican 1500 box (the 

only pelican I have). This travels on the aeroplane 

with me. Next time I travel I will take a little 

battery with me. 

The reason for this is that when I went to the States 

the security people in Chicago asked me all sorts 

of questions about the camera and asked me to 

"flash" it as if it were a mobile telephone. I was 

unable to do so due to the lack of power. I took 

all the caps off and showed them how it worked 

and they were kinda happy. This always goes 

hand baggage. I also carry the stock as hand 

baggage. I usually ask the cameraman to carry my 

laptop on. 

Page 152


As far as hold baggage goes. The empty camera 

box gets filled with all sorts of stuff T-bar in a 

special plastic box, spare mag, batteries, 

underpants, teddy bear all the important stuff 

really. 

ALLWAYS take my Bolex regardless of how tight the 

excess is. Everything else just travels as is. As 

far as security goes I put a piece of camera tape 

over the lid of each box and then put a cross 

across the tape and spilling a little onto the box. 

This is almost impossible to tamper with. 

Also VITALLY important are labels... with at least 

the following information. 

Name of production ... 

Name of production company ... 

Telephone number of London production office 

Out of hours number for the production office 

(anyone !!!) 

Instructions to call the above numbers should this 

box be delayed for any reason. 

USELESS IF DELAYED in big letters. 

Page 153


The only reason I do this is because it should help 

if for any reason the gear should end up in the 

wrong place at the wrong time. In some ways it is 

looking for special treatment for your equipment. 

I kind of hope that it is taken by airport staff that 

way without appearing too arrogant. What you 

have to keep in your mind is that these people also 

handle other goods that make our kit look 

extremely unimportant. By labelling the boxes 

properly with instructions as to what to do in the 

event of a delay if nothing else covers you bottom 

with the production if anything goes wrong. 

Justin Pentecost 

At OpTex, when we sent equipment overseas we 

put on security tags to all the cases. These are a 

little like cable ties but have a numbered tag 

attached. 

You _can't_ remove them without destroying them. 

We also give the crew a handful for transshipment. 

Page 154


OK, much of the time, the equipment goes freight 

in any case, so that security is just that little bit 

tighter. However, it's important to understand that 

the word FRAGILE on the side of a case, actually 

means, PLEASE DROP THIS CASE FROM A MINIMUM 

HEIGHT OF 20 FEET (3M). 

Having said that, we've experience very little 

shipping damage, perhaps 2 or 3 incidents in the 

last 4 years. 

Now, like most UK companies, we spend a fortune 

of flight cases. This are big, aluminium cases fitted 

with hard foam. They are very expensive, but they 

do protect the equipment. The worst damage we've 

experienced was when a case was destroyed in a 

controlled explosion' when it was left unattended 

at Heathrow Airport. 

It seems we are divided into two camps. There are 

those who, at any cost, do not wish to reveal they 

are carrying film gear, and there are those who 

insist on letting everyone know that they are. In the 

UK at least, I suspect that the latter comes from the 

historical BBC. The British Broadcasting 

Corporation was, in the past, treated somewhat 

like Royalty, or at the very least had Presidential 

Page 155


status. Customs officers would give you a polite 

bow as you presented your credentials and would 

even insist on carrying the cases for you. That was 

in olden times! 

In the democratic USA, things, it seems are 

somewhat different. Little has 

changed in New York it seems, apart from the fact 

that the muggers now say 'pardon me!' before 

ripping off your gear. :-) 

Brian (It now seems compulsory to add a middlename 

comment) Rose 

When in town, I carry my meters in a pelican case - 

helps to keep them from getting squashed in the 

truck.... 

However, when I travel, I use one of those still 

photographers bags - holds my meters, still 

cameras, magazines (the kind you read) and 

anything else I feel I couldn't do without if 

everything else were to get lost. The soft (yet 

Page 156


padded) bag helps to fit into all the different 

shaped overheads - works well as a pillow too for 

those long van rides to and from location. 

Ted Hayash 

I ALWAYS put the dates, flight numbers and 

destinations of all flights on a tag on each checked 

bag...even the connecting flight numbers. I have 

had cases come through with the scanner tags 

ripped off... 

I have to believe that someone read my cameratape 

tags and sent them through. That's probably 

not what actually happened, but it couldn't hurt. 

Regarding hard case/softer cases... 

While I concur that it makes sense to use cases that 

will show abuse, I also know that big heavy cases 

get worse handling than smaller lighter cases...and 

the extra mass is not always beneficial. When we 

shipped our IMAX package, rigging gear, and misc. 

production equipt. to China, we also brought a IIC 

Page 157


with a couple of mags ...wrapped in bits of foam 

and stuffed in a lightweight fiber case. It survived 

not only the airlines but all the trucking and 

boating that we did...and it was so light that no 

one ever dropped it on 

the ground...unlike the IMAX body shipping case 

that was beat half to death by the journeys. A 

slightly more resilient case will transmit less shock 

to the delicate toys inside it than a totally rigid 

anvil case...as long as it doesn't get TOO deformed. 

It's all a game of odds anyway...no case will help 

you if they are determined to run over it with a big 

enough airport vehicle. 

BTW, I carried my leatherman through Heathrow 4 

times with no 

hassle....but they insisted on X-raying my Polaroid 

film. 

Oh, well 


Page 158


On my last trip to Chicago I packed my 2C, lenses, 

motors etc in one of the new Pelican cases with the 

wheels. Packed my fluid head and Dutch head in a 

smaller pelican, although still large, and my sticks, 

standard and baby and high hat in one of those 

hard cases designed to carry golf clubs. 

Thankfully everything arrived safe and sound. I 

had Kodak ship to the film to the client's office and 

got around the problem of X-rayed stock by 

processing and transferring locally. 

I did notice the large Pelican case had a few dings 

in it after this one trip, 

but the camera arrived safe and sound...I did 

padlock the case and the case weighed in at over 

70 lbs. so that hopefully flinging it with any 

abandon was stopped. 

All my best 

Chet Simmons 

I worked with a still photographer years ago when I 

was starting out who travelled world-wide on a 

Page 159


regular basis. He packed all his gear in lightweight 

FiberBuilt cases, and packed several of them very 

heavy. I asked him how long he had been flying 

with these new cases. I was shocked to find out 

that these cases were not new, they were 3 years 

old! 

He said that he had seen how his equipment had 

been treated when he packed it in Anvil cases and 

switched to these. He had seen 

these Anvil cases thrown like an Olympic sport by 

baggage handlers. These FiberBuilt cases looked a 

couple weeks old, at most. He said that when 

handlers pick up such flimsy cases they actually 

treat them with kid gloves for fear that they will 

break the handles off of them. 

Go figure. 

Cliff Hancuff 

The D.P. on our IMAX shoot was Burleigh Wartes, 

my mentor. As anyone who remembers him will 

attest, his strongest phobia in equipment packing 

Page 160


was "metal-to-metal contact...his strongest mania 

was for light equipment and light cases. 

He was constantly drilling holes in lights and 

changing them from three conductor to two 

conductor cable to save weight...and as someone 

who carried them for miles, I can attest to the 

difference. 

We had ancient fiber expando cases and hinged 

cases full of lighting and camera equipment . I 

have been shipping my CECO lock-off head 

(suitable for any format :-)) in a fiber case that was 

ancient when I bought it much used when Francis 

Thompson Inc. closed their big office. The case 

was old in 1984 when it held two 30v. block batts. 

It still hasn't been punched through. 

Those lightweight fiber cases do look a bit cheap 

and tawdry...but mine have survived more plane 

flights than I can count. Occasionally I have to 

rivet on a new latch, but I have been pretty lucky 

with only one or two penetrations. 


Page 161


Have cases, will travel...where do you want to go 

today? 

I suspect my Pelican cases kinda say to the 

handlers in the airports...Bonk 

me, throw me, abuse me. Perhaps I could switch to 

ice-chests and put Organ Donor stickers on the 

outside. Or just paint the Pelican cases with 

spray- paint so they look junky. I noticed B&H had 

some nylon covers for Halburton cases so they'd be 

stealthier. I just like the Pelican cases as I've seen 

my gear sitting on a baggage cart in the rain, along 

with other less fortunate luggage. 

Chet Simmons 

I have been travelling lighter and lighter, due to 

the fact that more and more manuals and assorted 

other paperwork is available in digital form. I know 

that right now we have the 435 manual and Quick 

Page 162


Guides for the 435, 535B and SR 3 available in 

Adobe Acrobat form, as well as some Technical 

Notes (check out our website), and that Aaton has 

some of their manuals also in Acrobat form. If you 

take a Laptop anyway, this does not add ANY 

weight, and you can leave those manuals at home. 

Cheers, 

Marc Shipman-Mueller , Technical Representative 

Arriflex Corporation 

Page 163


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 

Page 164


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 

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 

Page 165


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... 

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 

Page 166


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 

Page 167


nets in the lens flares of some shots; a perfect 

example. 

Steve. 

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 

Page 168


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 

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 

Page 169


 

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 

Page 170


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 blown out video. Color saturation 

was lowest when done to the release print, highest 

when done to the negative. 

Page 171


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 

Page 172


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 pullprocessing, 

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 173


> SE7EN looked really good. It had saturation was 

really inter esting 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 pushdeveloping, 

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 

Page 174


print run for the major theaters, an I.P. was bleachbypassed 

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 175


> 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 doubleexposing 

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). 

Page 176


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 


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 

Page 177


combined with their black and white equivalents - 

this does not really happen with bleach bypass. 


Hi, 

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 178


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 

Page 179


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 180


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. 

Page 181


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. 

Why do so many people use green. What are the 

advantages? Are there any advantages besides the 

Page 182


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? 

Regards, 

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. 

Page 183


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 geoff@cinematography.net 

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 

Page 184


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 

Page 185


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 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? 

Page 186


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. 

Page 187


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 188


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 :-) 


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 

Page 189


(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..... 

All the time they put in there will be lost elsewhere 

in the post work. They often have to work on tight 

Page 190


schedules and the better the source material I can 

deliver them the better the final result will be I 

think. 

Kind Regards, 

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, 

Page 191


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 

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 

Page 192


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 

Page 193


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. 

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 

Page 194


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 195


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. 

Page 196


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 197


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 

Page 198


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.< 

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 

Page 199


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) 

Page 200


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 

>What are the limits? And at what exposure or 

under exposure of the 

screen? 

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. 

Page 201


Anyone else w/experience on shadows you WANT 

to use doing this kind of work? 

Thom Harp 

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? < 

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 

Page 202


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 :-) 


Page 203


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 

>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.ph 

p3 

(A unique method of calculating key values, 

Clean and precise blue-spill removal functions, 

etc.) 

Page 204


--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 

Page 205


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. 

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 206


Page 207


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. 

Page 208


Which is a pity as it's much easier for me to get 

the OpTex :-( 

Geoff 

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 

Page 209


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 210


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 

Page 211


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 

Page 212


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 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. 

Page 213


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 

I wonder about the supposedly magical depth of 

field on the Frazier lens system. I've worked with it 

Page 214


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 

Page 215


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. 

So while you've got your lens hidden in some neat 

spot right up close IN the scene, better allow room 

Page 216


for your grip brothers to cut the light off that lens 

front or you may be living with a flare or a milkedout 

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 217


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. 

Page 218


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 closeup 

object magnification with any other of the 

lenses in the kit, you will achieve exactly the same 

sharp focus 

from close-up to infinity. 

Page 219


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. 

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. 

Page 220 

Jim Frazier 

Sydney, Australia


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. 

Page 221


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 

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. 

Page 222


Lowell Peterson 

Cellotex. 1" rigid insulating construction boar d, 

"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. 

Page 223


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 

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 

Page 224


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 lowbudget 

days was the need for a large soft ambient 

glow for night exteriors... 

Page 225


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 

I heard that Conrad Hall likes to bounce 4k pars off 

a door handle! 

Page 226


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 ;


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 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 

Page 228


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. 

Page 229


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 230


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!!!! 

Page 231 

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. 


Sunporch Entertainment 

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 

Page 232


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. 

Page 233


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. 

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 

Page 234


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 goldenbrown 

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 235


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 

Page 236


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. 

Page 237


Caleb 

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. 

Page 238


Not to speak of not a bit of filter factor. 


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 

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 

Page 239


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 selfdestructing. 

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 

Page 240


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. 

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. 

Page 241


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 242


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 

Page 243


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 


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 

Page 244


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. 


Page 245


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. 

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 colorles s 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 

Page 246


father was color-blind, there is a 50 percent 

chance you or your brothers will also be colorblind. 

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 

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 

Page 247


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. 


Page 248


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 colourblind 

people see. 

Now imagine shorting the red and green wires 

together. Reds and greens will look the same greyish 

brown. This is a closer approximation to 

colour-blindness. Colour blindness is not a 

Page 249


missing colour - it's a missing colour-difference. I 

wonder if dydimium spectacles would help :-) 

Dominic Case 


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 

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 

Page 250


ability to differentiate between different similar 

shades of color. 


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 

Page 251


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 

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. 

Page 252


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 fr om 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 

Page 253


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 254


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 

Page 255


(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. 

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 

Page 256


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. 

Page 257


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. 

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 

Page 258


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. 

Page 259


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 "Croneycones", 

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 around the talent’s face. They're light enough 

to hang, tape, or clip about anywhere. You can clip 

Page 260


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 diam eter to cover the 

opening in the top of a lantern. They usually have a 

Page 261


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 262


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 

Page 263


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 

Page 264


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..........! 

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 265


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 

Page 266


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? 


Page 267


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 

Page 268


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 ziplock 

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 269


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. 

Page 270


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. 


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 271


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). 

Page 272


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. 


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! :-) 

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 

Page 273


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 

Page 274


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 

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. 

Page 275


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


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 

Page 276


had that problem and haven't heard it described as 

a possibility. 

--Wade Ramsey 

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. 

Page 277


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 278


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 

Page 279


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 

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 

Page 280


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 

Page 281


company makes a full line of cold weather gear 

too, parkas, overalls, gloves, etc. 


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 282


Page 283


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 halfmoon. 

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. 

Page 284


I would be interested in any other points of view on 

these items. 

(Jeff K.??) 



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 

Page 285


>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. 

Page 286


Not good. 

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. 


>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 

Page 288


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 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 

Page 289


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 

Page 290


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. 

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. 

Page 291


However most of my experience with CP16's were 

from College owned and maintained cameras. 


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-pinregistered 

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 

Page 292


gate of a CP-16 probably gives one as much image 

stability as a pilot pin. 

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? 

Page 293


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... 

Regards, 



Page 294


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 

. 

Page 295


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. 

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 

Page 296


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 c an always 

have a couple of guys step onto the nose when its 

on the ground, but stepping on while the thing is 

flying? 


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 

Page 297


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 

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! 

Page 298


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. 

Page 299


Chris Plevin 

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. 

Page 300


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 301


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 

Page 302


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. 

Cheerfully, 


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. 

Page 303


(Optionally, he attaches a safety line.) Two other 

grips step off, and the balanced crane booms up to 

complete the shot. 

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 weeklong 

introductory Steadicam training class. To the 

best of my knowledge, they haven't lost a student 

yet. 

Bill Crow 


"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. 

Page 304


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 

"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 

Page 305


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 

Page 306


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. 

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. 

Page 307


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 


Page 308


Yep, always worth remembering that... many of 

these shots end up cut, or fragmented. 

But I think an A-Minima with the optional Helium - 

Zep (with GPS positioning and programmable 

keyframing) will do the trick! Of course, the 

35mm version, with an Aaton 35, is a bit larger... 

Jeff ""wish I knew where to rent this thing"" Kreines 

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 ! 

Page 309


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 ""posttensioning"" 

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 310


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. 

Page 311


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 

that’s actually what the director is wanting - I just 

don’t know how to expose for cross proc. 

Caleb 

Page 312


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 talked to a guy at duArt, but 

about all the information he could pass on was that 

they do handle crossprocessing which didn't help 

me much. am I correct in the assumption that you 

shoot reversal, and develop it as negative, 

therefore getting a negative? will this give you a 

thinner negative? will it become some sort of issue 

when they have to conform the negative? what 

about exposure? are there any recommendations? 

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? 

Page 313


and finally, does anyone how the eclipse flashback 

scenes in Dolores Clayborne (excellent 

cinematography and an underappreciated film in 

my opinion) were done? 

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 

Page 314


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 315


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. 

Page 316


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. 

Kv Anand asked how to overcome the problem 

that cross processed negative may have a limited 

storage life. Probably the safes t 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. 

Page 317


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 

Page 318


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. 

regards 

Simon Wicks 


We are thinking of trying cross processing for a 

film and want to get hold of all possible references. 

Motion Pictures, Commercials, Music Videos, etc. 

Any place I can go for a list or can anyone name off 

what comes to mind? 

Eric Swenson 

Page 319


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 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. 

Page 320


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 m ember of 

this group should have their own copy by now ... 

 

... Mako 

Page 321


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 

Page 322


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. 

I now yield to my more learned colleagues. 

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP 

I would submit the following equation as a partial 

answer: depth = budget. 

Eric Swenson 

Page 323


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 

Page 324


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! 

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). 

Page 325


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" 


Page 326


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 

Page 327


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 m ost 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) 

Page 328


Joe "What shall it be, The Eyes or the Nose in 

focus?" Di Gennaro 

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 

Page 329


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 

Page 330


studios at Elstree couldn't supply enough power for 

all the lights, so several 1000amp gennies had to 

be brought in. 

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. 

Page 331


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. 

Page 332


Mark Doering-Powell 

Page 333


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. 

Page 334


During the winter months the sun drops at the 

greatest horizontal angle. 

Cliff Hancuff 

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): 

Page 335


--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 

Not if you're good at cheating . 

Page 336


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 

Page 337


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. 


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... 

Page 338


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 339


Ahh yes, but it's been said, you need to know the 

rules before you can break them. Picasso comes to 

mind... 

Eric 

Page 340


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 

Page 341


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! 


Cameraman 

Page 342


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. 

Page 343


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. 

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 

Page 344


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 

Page 345


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. 

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 

Page 346


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 

Page 347


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. 

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. 

Page 348


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. 

Page 349


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... 

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 

Page 350


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. 

Page 351



Cameraman 

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 

Page 352


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. 



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. 

Page 354


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? 

Page 355


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 

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 

Page 356


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 m ore 

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 

Page 357


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. 

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 

Page 358


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? 

• 

Page 359


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... 

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 handson 

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... 

Page 360


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 

Page 361


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 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 

Page 362


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. 

Page 363


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 

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 

Page 364


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 

Page 365


Geoff 

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 

Page 366


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! :-) 


Cameraman 

Page 367


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! :-) 

Page 368


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 369


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 

Page 370


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. 

Page 371


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. 

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! 


Cameraman 

Page 372


> 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. 

Page 373


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. 

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. 

Page 374


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 375


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 

Page 376


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. 

And yes we should not forget the power of Telecine 

to "Enhance" the Enhancer. 

Luc Nicknair 

Page 377


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. 

Page 378


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. 


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 

Page 379


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 380


I have attached to this document, a copy of an 

article of Photo Life Magazine about Didymium 

filters (enhancers). With this article you will 

understand a lot of things about the didymium. 

Document not included so as not to breach 

copyright 

A part from what everybody says from the 

enhancers, I always have one when I shoot with 

HMI's not to put on the camera but they are very 

good to use by hand to calibrate your HMI's. 

I had a shot of an Olympic skating girl that had to 

be lit with 4 HMI followspots. I was able to calibrate 

all of my followspots to the same color just by 

looking thru the enhancer. My enhancer worked 

better than my colormeter, since the colormeter 

wasn't able to see the difference between the HMI's 

(I own a Minolta colormeter IIIF), the enhancer did. 

Surprising but true, I had my gaffer put on some 

half-green, minus-green, CTO and CTB until all of 

the followspots where identical thru my enhancer 

(holding it in my hands). 

Serge Desrosiers 

Page 381


Page 382


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 

Page 383


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 emotionally. I 

had a shot where a girl is hiding from her mother 

Page 384


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 

Page 385


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 

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 

Page 386


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 

Page 387


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 

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. 

Page 388


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 

Check out Philippe Rousselot's work for subtle 

eyelighting in low key conditions - I think one of 

Page 389


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 

Page 390


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 

Eyelights are interesting, indeed. 

Page 391


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 392


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. 

Page 393


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 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 

Page 394


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? 

Page 395


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. 

We will be satisfied just to get the beginning of the 

explosions 

Page 396


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. 

Page 397


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. 

Page 398


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 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 

Page 399


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 400


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. 


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 ar e 1/2500th 

sec for the 500fps wide shot and 2500th sec for 

the close up. 

Page 401


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? 

Thanks 

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 402


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. 


Page 403


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. 

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 

Page 404


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 

Page 405


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 406


> 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 

Page 407


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 

Mike, Et al. 

I'm gratified to hear of your success with flickerfree 

HMI lights and 

Page 408


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 

Page 409


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? 


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! 

Page 410


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 411


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 

Page 412


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 413


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. 


Page 414


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 415


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... 

Page 416


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 

> 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 

Page 417


>And also to see if the 

explosion shockwave will "blow out" the flare, but I 

doubt it would.< 

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? 

Page 418


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 

> 

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 

Page 419


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. 

Page 420


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 

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. 

Page 421


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 

Page 422


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.... 

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 

Page 423


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 

Page 424


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 425


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? 

Page 426


Thanks in advance for your help, 

Chris "OK, so I'm still new at this" Freilich 

I will be shooting on location this weekend using 

uncorrected fluores cent'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. 

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 

Page 427


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. 


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 

Page 428


Molescent or other home-made fluoro fixtures as 

a key or fill source. You know they'll match even 

without a color meter! 

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. 

Page 429


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 c an 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 

Page 430


shot or contribute an original idea to save their 

lives. 

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 o r 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 

Page 431


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 

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 

Page 432


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 433


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 

My experience with the commercial ballast’s is that 

you can shoot any speed without flicker. I've shot 

many different non-window fps with no flicker. 

Page 434


However, I've never ramped with them but I would 

think you could do it. Of course, do a test with 

them. I have heard that the potential for flicker 

exists with the commercial ballast’s when they are 

dimmed. Best of luck and I hope this is helpful. 

Regards, 

Jim Sofranko 

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 

Page 435


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 

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... 

Page 436


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 437


Page 438


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). 

Page 439


* 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 o ut 

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 refer ences 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 440


* 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. 

Page 441


* 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 critic al 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 

Page 442


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 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 

Page 443


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 

Page 444


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 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 

Page 445


. 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) 


A few minor additions to Mako's Detailed list 

Page 446


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 

Page 447


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 

Page 448


asked if any one else thought they could do my job 

any better. 

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 

Page 449


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. 

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 

Page 450


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. 

Page 451


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 char ts 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, 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). 

Page 452


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. 

Page 453


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. 


Page 454


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 ... 

Page 455


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 

Page 456


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!" 

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. 

Page 457


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 .... :-) 

Page 458


... 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. 

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 

Page 459


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 exter ior 

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. 

Page 460


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. 

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" 

Page 461


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. 

Page 462


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. 

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 

Page 463


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 464


Page 465


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... 

Page 466


(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 

>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 

Page 467


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 

Page 468


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. 

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 

Page 469


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 470


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 471


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 

Page 472


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 such. 

Of course if the camera you use is not up to specs, 

then good registration is highly unlikely. 

I hope this helps. 


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 

Page 473


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 

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 

Page 474


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 

Page 475


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. 

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 

Page 476


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). 

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 

Page 477


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 478


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. 

Page 479


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 

$$$. 

I'd appreciate your input about this matter. 


Page 480


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. 

Page 481


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 

Page 482


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." 

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. 


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 

Page 483


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 

Page 484


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. 

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). 

Page 485


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 486


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_ 

Page 487


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 

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 

Page 488


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 

Page 489


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, 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 

Page 490


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 

Page 491


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. 


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) 

- An excerpt from the KODAK "Basic Scientific 

Photography" book, pages 27-30 (N-9) 

Page 492


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 

Page 493


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 

Page 494


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 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. " 

Page 495


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, 

Page 496


Jeremy "F3" Benning 

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 

Page 497


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 

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 

Page 498


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 499


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. 

Page 500


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 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 

Page 501


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. 


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 

Page 502


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. 

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! 

Page 503


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 

Page 504


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. 

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. 

Page 505


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 

Page 506


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. 

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 m e, 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 507


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, 

Page 508


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. 

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 

Page 509


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 

Page 510


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 

A good move is to ask the production 

accountant/manager up front, what are their 

terms regarding contractors invoic es. 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. 

Page 511


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 

Page 512


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 

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 

Page 513


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 

Page 514


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 

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 

Page 515


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 

hones t 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. 

Page 516


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. 

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. 

Page 517



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 

Page 518


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 

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 

Page 519


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 520


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 

Page 521


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. 

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. 

Page 522


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 

Page 523


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 

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 

Page 524


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 

Page 525


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. 

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 

Page 526


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 

Page 527


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 

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. 

Page 528



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 

Page 529


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 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. 

Page 530


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 531


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: 

Page 532


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 

Page 533


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 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 534


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. 

Page 535


James Neihouse 

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 

Page 536


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. 

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 

Page 537


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 

There was chatter about the Krasnogorsk-3 camera 

on this mailing list recently. 

NCS Products maintains a web page with 

information about this camera. 

You can find it 

at................http://members.aol.com/k3camer 

a/index.htm 

Page 538


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 

Page 539


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. 

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. 

Page 540


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. 

Page 541


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 

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 

Page 542


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 


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? 

Page 543


Serge Marcotte. 

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 

extrem ely low level of CTB ( Accidentally, I meant 

for a higher flash). The shoot was tungsten 

Page 544


balanced. Gave the film a really nice snap though. 

Much nicer than unflashed, and certainly better 

than the heavier flashes. 


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 

Gentlemen, 

have been following this thread. Thanks for 

dredging this one up Jeff K. and thanks for 

Page 545


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 


Page 546


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 547


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 

Page 548


>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?) 

Page 549


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. 

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?? 

Page 550


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 


Page 551


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 

Page 552


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 553


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 

Page 554


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 

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. 


Page 555


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 556


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. 

Page 557


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 

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. 

Page 558


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 559


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 

Page 560


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 561


I couldn't keep away: of course you know that you 

can adjust black level and gamma in telecine, if 

you're going to video only (no print). 

Mark 

Page 562


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) 

Page 563


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 564


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 

Page 565


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 566


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 

Page 567


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 

Page 568


gargle a mouth full of water as you read your 

meter, then so be it!!! 

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... 

Page 569


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. 


Page 570


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 

Page 571


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." 

Page 572


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 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 meter ing 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 

Page 573


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 ! 

Page 574


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 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. 

Page 575



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 

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, 

Page 576


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 

Page 577


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. 

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 

Page 578


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 

Page 579


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 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 

Page 580


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 

Page 581


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 

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.) 

Page 582


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 

Page 583


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 

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...). 

Page 584


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 585


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 

Page 586


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 2 nd 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] 

> 

Page 587


>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...[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 ! 

Page 588


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 cam era, 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 589


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! :-) 

Page 590


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. 


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 

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 

Page 591


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 

Page 592


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 cir cumstances 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 ☺ 


Geoff Boyle wrote: 

> The blue readings are inconsistent in the same 

way that Minolta spot 

> readings are. 

Page 593


> 

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 

Page 594


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 

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 

Page 595


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 

Page 596


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. 

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". 

Page 597


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 

Page 598


here, arm a Tweenie over the top, etc.)? My gaffers 

complain when I do that, so I was wondering. 

David Mullen 

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 :) 


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 

Page 599


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 

Page 600


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. 

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 ! 


Page 601


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:- 

Vision 200 

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 

Page 602


3 4.3 9 

6** Nd6 

Vision 200 

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 

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 

Page 603


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 

Page 604


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 raises an interesting point: Does a stop up 

or down around 10 FC seem to human perception 

Page 605


subjectively as big as a stop up or down around 

200 FC? The human visual system isn't quite 

exactly logarithm ic, 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. 

Page 606


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 607


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 nonlogarithmic. 

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 

Page 608


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 609


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. 


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 

Page 610


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 611


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 

Page 612


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 

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. 

Page 613



Page 614


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. 

Page 615


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 

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 : 

Page 616


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 

Page 617


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. 

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... 


Page 618


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 619


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 

Page 620


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 

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. 

Page 621


--Scott 

Page 622


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. 

Page 623


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 

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 

Page 624


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 

Page 625


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 

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 

Page 626


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 

Page 627


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 pres ent 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 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 

Page 628


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 

Page 629


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 

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 

Page 630


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 

Page 631


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 632


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 633


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 

Page 634


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. 

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 

Page 635


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. 

Page 636


Dominic Case 


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 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. 

Page 637


-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 

Page 638


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 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 

Page 639


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- 

Page 640


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 

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 

Page 641


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 

Page 642


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 

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 

Page 643


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 

Page 644


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. 

++++Imagine, say, Citizen Kane as shot by, oh, I 

won't name anyone, but think 70's sitcom style. 

Would it lose something? +++++ 

Page 645


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 

Page 646


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. 

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 

Page 647


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: 

Page 648 

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 

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 

Page 649


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 


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. 

Page 650


BTW - - Feli - you should 

revise your rates. One fiftieth of a cent?? ;-) 

Dominic Case 


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 

Page 651


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. 

The actress who plays ""old Rose"" in Titanic has 

made a career of producing fine-art printed books 

Page 652


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 

 

Page 653 

c) the cinematography 

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.



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. 

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 

Page 654


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, 

Page 655


that that is all there is. Conversely they think 

mediocre films or worse have no photographic 

merit. 

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 

Page 656


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 

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 selfproduced, 

self-promoted CD of lounge music that 

even the friends of the artist don't listen to. (Got 

Page 657


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 remar ks 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 

Page 658


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"". 

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 

Page 659


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! :-) 


Cameraman 

Page 660


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 

Page 661


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 

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. 

Page 662


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 

Page 663


I've seen very bad (as in reshoot) flicker when 

shooting high speed (200-300 fps) with neon. 

Mako Koiwai 

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 

Page 664


*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 665


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 m aterial 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 

Page 666


(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 and lit if shown too bright. Look at 

"Interview with a Vampire" (the last scene where 

Louis finds Lestat in the abandoned mansion) or 

Page 667


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 

Page 668


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 

"Jackie Brown" had some of the most amazing 

night-for-night photography I've seen in a long 

Page 669


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. 

Page 670


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. 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 

Page 671


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 

Page 672


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. 

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 @ 

Page 673


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 674


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 

Page 675


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 

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 

Page 676


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 

Page 677


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. 

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 

Page 678


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 679


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. 

Page 680


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 

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 

Page 681


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. 


Page 682


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. 

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 

Page 683


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." 

Page 684


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. 


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 

Page 685


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 overwh elms whatever 

you're covering. 

Page 686


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. 

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 

Page 687


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 

Page 688


out with an ND 9 on the lens!) 

Jim Furrer 

Page 689


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 

Page 690


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. 

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? 

Page 691


As for the photography, don't worry too much 

about it. If you can see it, you can film it. 


Jesus M. Medina 

How about a glass shot? I remember a shoot I 

worked on a few years ago when the m ain 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 

How about this for a Bizarre idea. 

FILTERS. 

Page 692


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). 

Page 693


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 

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 

Page 694


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! 

Page 695


Kevin "there will be gold at the end of the rainbow 

if I can do this" 

Andersen 

 

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. 


Page 696


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 697


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. ;-) 

for Steven 

Page 698


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 

>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 

Page 699


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 

Page 700


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). 

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 

Page 701


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 

Saw this for a second time a couple of weeks ago 

on a boat off the island of Maui. Hard to shape a 

shot of it as you are looking at the sun. A dot on 

glass would have been nice. 

Page 702


Got a nice shot of my hand in the way though. 

Page 703


Scanning film negs for stills 

I'm new to this list and hoping this subject has not 

been answered time and time again. 

I am about to shoot a commercial from which I 

would like to pull some frames out to use for print. 

I have done this with a previous project shot on 

7248. In that instance the lab cut frames from the 

negative ( after transfer of course ) and I had a 

local company scan the frames. The results as you 

will expect were marginal. 

The upcoming shoot will be in S35 on 5248 and 

5293, so we are much further ahead than last time 

format-wise. 

My questions then concerning how to best scan the 

negative to create this material for print. 

Any insight is appreciated 

Stephen 

Page 704


Have you considered (far larger negative, posed, 

possible vertical composition, etc....) hiring a still 

photographer? ;


direct from negative that I have seen. Not well 

enough versed technically to tell you why. 

2) Since the negative stock is tungsten balanced, 

you will get accurate color rendition. Trying to take 

stills with uncorrected daylight balanced 35mm 

still film causes color shifts which are nearly 

impossible to correct without artifacts (color casts 

in shadows, etc.) 

The ad agency I used to work for had a "wall of 

fame" which consisted of frames printed from 

negative cut from outtakes of their 25mm shoots, 

blown up to 11x17. They looked pretty good, 

especially when originated on 5248. 

A few 16mm frame blowups are also posted on the 

wall of fame, and the results, as you already have 

experienced, are marginal. 

Hope this helps! 



Jerry, 

Page 706


Were it possible , I would hire a still guy, shoot on 

medium format and have no worries . I am being 

asked to pursue this route, for budget, and time 

issues. 

The photos would be of small size in a magazine. 

Having said that, what is the best way to scan for 

this and what is the best results I can hope for. 

Stephen 

Hi Stephen, 

The best results I've ever seen were type "C" prints 

made directly from the original negative by an 

experienced printer. However, those people that 

were printing before automation and the "good 

enough" level work ethic are retiring and the new 

replacements are not as good. As in our industry, 

the still labs are now run by bean counters, not 

people that are in love with the captured image. 

Consider bringing along your own still camera and 

after you get what you want in the "cine" mode, 

knock off a few frames with your medium format 

or 35mm still camera. The only budget 

Page 707


consideration would be one roll of film and 

processing. Then have a print struck from each so 

you'll have a future reference. 

Good luck with it, 

Jerry Wolfe 

WOW!!! Jerry, that's quite a blanket statement. I 

personally know and frequently work with a fair 

number of VERY professional photo lab printers, 

here in Orlando, in Chicago and in New York as 

well. 

Moreover, none of the pro-labs I work with use 

automated printers for professional-level prints. 

Jeff... I'm not personally familiar with Imagers in 

Atlanta so I wouldn't venture an opinion regarding 

the quality of their work. I'll trust yours. But we 

recently did comparison scans for use on VHS box 

cover art for an independent project. The source 

image was a 2 1/4 (120mm) transparency and the 

difference between the output from ALL the various 

flatbed scanners we tried and the output from a 

drum scanner was huge! We've always had the 

Page 708


same experience from 35mm, 4x5 and 8x10 

images as well. Flatbed scanners seem to perform 

reasonably well with reflective art, but have never 

done nearly as well with transparent art... chromes 

or negatives. The resolution and contrast range 

just are not there. 

One final point. By having a 4x5 transparency 

struck directly fr om the original neg., you can 

always go back later and scan again at any size and 

resolution for any application you want. And rest 

assured that nothing will protect every bit of your 

image as well as a 4x5 chrome... except an 8x10 

transparency that is. 


If you're willing to physically extract the individual 

frames, and it's for print (as in magazine or other 

press-type reproduction) you have two options that 

spring to mind. First, you could send the frames to 

a professional photo lab for duping to a 4x5 

positive chrome. This would protect the image and 

would add no perceptible grain. Then you could 

Page 709


use the resulting 4x5 image for hi-rez digital drum 

scanning at your convenience. Or as an alternative, 

simply have the extracted frames scanned directly 

on a high rez drum scanner from the get-go and 

make multiple copies of the file for future use. 

Professional photographers shooting print work for 

magazines and advertising rarely use anything but 

chrome transparency (slide/reversal) stock. As a 

result, high-end drum scanners are optimized for 

chrome. 

If it's for photographic printing (as in "Gee... that 

would look really cool on my wall") then have a pro 

photo lab strike a regular enlarged print directly 

from the negative. 


If I'm not mistaken, the Spirit FX can output a high 

res. data file from color neg. 

Another option: find someone with a Nikon 

scanner. Photoshop tweak as necessary. 

Another option: mount the neg. in an appropriate 

2X2 slide mount, send 'em out to have a PhotoCD 

Page 710


made ... much cheaper than drum scans an 

virtually identical quality, especially if they're done 

by a quality house, like Imagers in Atlanta ... again, 

back to Photoshop ... 

Jeff Lynch 

Stephen, 

You might also try your stocks rolled into 35mm 

still canisters -- shot the same stop from the 

camera position. I do this all the time. (also, your 

second AC could do it with their camera or yours... 

pretty easy, doesn't require an additional person...) 

A lab here in LA develops the 35mm ECN-6. 

The scanning service I used to use is gone now - 

so I can't help you there, 

sorry... 

Jay Holben 

Page 711


How are you supplying the images? On disk or as 

trannies? 

If you supply to the magazine on disk you will need 

a four colour file. 

If you want to get a transparency made you will 

want a three colour file. 

The best result would be to clip frames from your 

original neg. and have them scanned. 

The best scan (but unfortunately the most 

expensive) is a professional drum scan. The drum 

scan will give you the most dynamic range of any 

device and will give you a four colour (CMYK) 

image. For many other reasons it will also just look 

better. The poorer the image to be scanned, the 

better the scan needs to be. Any other device (i.e. 

all the others mentioned) will give you a three 

colour (RGB) image. I strongly advise against doing 

the colour seps in Photoshop unless you know 

what you are doing. 

The scan from the neg. will be very unsuitable for 

printing (motion blur, dot gain etc..) However, all 

that is required is a little computer retouching, 

either in Photoshop or on a Scitex. In this day of 

cheap, poor quality, photo libraries any good 

retoucher has had endless experience of turning 

unsuitable images into perfectly good ones. 

Page 712


Mike Vlack 

Page 713


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 

Page 714


I've been wondering why Super35 features don't 

shoot in 3-perf. The extra cost of the optical blowup 

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-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 

Page 715


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. 

Page 716


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. 

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). 

Page 717


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 camer as. A very specialized 

market. 

Cheers, 


Arriflex Corporation; 1646 N. Oakley Ave, Suite #2, 

Chicago, IL 60647-5319, USA 

Page 718


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 

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, 

Page 719


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. 

Page 720


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 

PS: Those not familiar with 3Perf could have a look 

at 

 

A- Academy and Academy-4Perf cropped 1:1.78 

(273.5mm2) 

1.27mm off-centered; standard dia 27.2mm 

lenses. 

B- Super35-Goskino proposition (337.8mm2) 

centered; 'super35' dia 28.4mm lenses. 

C- Super35-3Perf 1:1.78 (316.5mm2) 

centered; standard dia 27.2mm lenses. 

'C' offers 16% bigger image area than 1:1.78 

cropped Academy, 

and an 8% wider angle of view from a standard 

lens. 

Page 721


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 

Page 722


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 723


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, 

Page 724


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. 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 

Page 725


studio, only one of which m eans 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 

Page 726


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 727


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 

Page 728


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 

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. 

Page 729


Contact Jim Iacona at the I-Ring Company at: 

(415) 647-4845 

Tim Glass 

OK, Pardun my ignorance on this but what is an Iring? 

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 

Page 730


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 731


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 

Page 732


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. 

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 

Page 733


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 inbetween 

frame rates *and exposure times* which 

are not safe....just like if you spun the speed 

control at random. Naturally you get flicker. 

The Arri RCU or LCC in conjunction with the 

internal shutter control on the 535A and the 435ES 

Page 734


(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 

Page 735


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. 

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 

Page 736


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, 




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; 

Page 737


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 

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. 

Page 738


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 739


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 

Page 740


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. 

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 

Page 741


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 

Page 742


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. 

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 

Page 743


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) r eversal 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 

Page 744


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 

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. 

Page 745



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). 


Page 746


FYI, we can thank William Fraker, ASC for 

suggesting this simple feature to Panavision for 

solving such a common problem. 

Layne Uyeno 

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? 


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 

Page 747


scene ( including the water, sun, and sky), 

converted the exposure for the Bolex. it was 

Perfect. 


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 

Page 748


shooting on a very hazy day (in which case it 

becomes easier to spot meter it...) 

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. 

Page 749


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 

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 

Page 750


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 751


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. 

Page 752


--Scott 

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 

Page 753


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 

Page 754


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. 

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 

Page 755


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- 

Page 756


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 depthof-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 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. 

Page 757


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 cir cle 

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. 

Page 758


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 

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 

Page 759


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 

Page 760


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 761


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 

Page 762


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... 

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. 

Page 763


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 764


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 

Page 765


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 766


Don, 

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 

Page 767


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 768


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 

Page 769


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-awaymotor 

problems ruined the scripted rise and fall of 

the sun. We tested and tried EVERYTHING including 

units from two different suppliers and more workarounds, 

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 

Page 770


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 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. 

Page 771


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 

Page 772


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 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) 


Page 773


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 

Page 774


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 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 

Page 775


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 Friesize. 

Still trying to decide between the cheaper 

pellicle version (uses cheap Nikon mount lenses, or 

Page 776


other still lenses) or the spinning mirror version. 

Anyone? 

Jeff "cap this shutter" Kreines 

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 

Page 777


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 

Page 778


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. 

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 

Page 779


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 

Page 780


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 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. 

Page 781


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 

Page 782


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 y ielded 

tremendous detail in the buildings. 

Page 783


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 resiliconed 

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 

Well chaps, 

Page 784


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. 

Happy Days. 

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. 

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 

Page 785


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. 


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 

Page 786


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. 

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 

Page 787


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 

Page 788


gets gummy if left in place too long, say a year or 

more. Also smells more like an aftershave. 

-- J.S. 

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 

Page 789


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 

Page 790


they hang up on some conveyor belt in Nepal, 

spilling you precious cargo to the winds. 

Good luck 

Mark Weingarter 

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 791


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 

Page 792


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. 

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: 

Page 793


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. 

Page 794


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. 

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! 

Page 795


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 796


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 

Page 797


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 

Page 798


monitor king while shooting the first season of 

Seaquest. 

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. 

Page 799



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 

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 

Page 800


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 

meter ing 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. 

Page 801


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 

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 

Page 802


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 & brightnes s 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. 

Page 803


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 804


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 


While this is just a guess, I would think that 10k 

and 20k lamps are very unlikely to show any 

Page 805


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. 


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 ?) 

Page 806


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. 

Page 807


Jim Furrer 

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! 


Regards, 

Jim Sofranko 

Definitely can be seen with small filament lamps at 

high fps over 2500. 

Regards, 

Page 808


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 

Page 809


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 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 

Page 810


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 similar 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 811


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 

Page 812


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 

Page 813


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. 

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 

Page 814


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. 

Page 815



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 

Page 816


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! 

Page 817



(a long way from focusing par cans in Central Park 

with a Texas license plate) 

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 

Page 818


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 819


Varicon 

I'm using a VariCon filter that I got from Clairmont 

for the first tim e. 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, 




Page 820


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. 

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 

Page 821


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... 

Page 822


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. 

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 

Page 823


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 regularly 

>turned off to cool down. 

Page 824


> 

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. 

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 s witch 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 

Page 825


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 826


...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 

Page 827


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 

Page 828


you shoot against practicals, bright windows, etc. 

So if you're shooting in a situation where 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 829


Page 830


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 overexposing 

the talent? I'm thinking FLAT BLACK 

SHOES for the talent and lots'a flags. 

Any and all pointers will be GREATLY appreciated. 

Page 831


Rick Gibbs 

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 

Page 832


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 833


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 

Page 834


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 835


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. 

Page 836


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 837


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 

Page 838


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 closeup. 

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! 

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 

Page 839


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 840


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, 

Page 841


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 842


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 . 

Page 843


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. 

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. 

Page 844


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 

Page 845


Aurasoft on a goalpost over camera. 

Hey! I make commercials, women ALWAYS look 

good :-) 

Cheers 

Geoff Boyle 

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. 

Page 846


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 847


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 

Page 848


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 849


X-Rays 

Some months back Kodak issued a warning 

regarding new X ray scanners being installed at 

airports. Has anyone suffered a mishap or heard of 

one ? 

Les Parrott 

On my homepage I have mirrored the Kodak 

warning. There you can also see an example of 

how a neg. looks like after having been through 

one of these x-ray machines. 

Cheers, Mart. 

Yes - a roll of Fuji 8671 (500 ASA color neg.) that I 

forgot about in a bag came back from the lab with 

about a 50% grey base fog and grain so big it 

looked like dancing Be afraid. Be very afraid. 

Of course, if you can, mail your film with a "DO 

NOT X-RAY" sticker rather than take it through the 

Page 850


airport. And of course, if you have to take it 

through the airport, avoid the X-ray by showing 

the cans to security and explaining. 

Ben Syverson 

Oh No Ben!! Look what you have done! Now 

everyone that shoots music videos just got the 

latest effect. Expect to see many PA's lurking 

around airport security stations with duffel bags 

full of exposed film asking if they could put it 

through just one more time. 

Walter NY 

I had a project in Helsinki last February and was 

worried about the same thing. The advice I 

received back then from Kodak (UK), was to take 

the film stock as hand luggage. Most, if not all of 

the newer hand luggage X-ray machines use really 

weak x-ray radiation and I was assured that these 

would not effect the film. Whereas the checked in 

Page 851


luggage goes through a stronger x-ray machine 

and that would cause some fogging on the film. 

Even after these comforting words I was still quite 

nervous, while watching my stock roll through the 

machine. Fortunately it was not effected, which was 

confirmed by a speedy "clip" & stock test. However 

I made sure that the rushes got developed in 

Helsinki to avoid them going through the machine 

again, as I was warned about multiple passes! It is 

best to ask the airport staff to put your stock 

through the most technologically up-to-date 

machine and also to tell them what you are putting 

through. To the best of my knowledge though, it 

still remains quite a risk take. Maybe more could 

be done between the film manufacturers and the 

airport authorities ??? 

Cheers, 

Balazs Bolygo 

Focus Puller bodo@badi.freeserve.co.uk 

This is not true - the roll I wrote about that got 

messed up was run through the "hand luggage" 

security X-ray, NOT the baggage check X-ray. 

Apparently the old machines didn't do much 

Page 852


damage, but the new higher -security ones are 

much stronger. And to hear Kodak tell it, the 

machines outside the US have always done 

damage. 

The hand luggage machines WILL fog your film 

SEVERELY. And I can't imagine that anyone would 

check a bag with their film in it, unless they had no 

regard for their footage. Not only is there the bag 

check X-ray to worry about, there's the potential 

temperature and moisture damage. 

Ben Syverson 

From my personal experience ( I am sure others 

out there have more). I have taken film all around 

the States, Being insistent that the film be Hand 

examined (bring a changing bag, and a roll of slug 

film to show them what they will be feeling), and 

leaving extra time, has allowed me NEVER to need 

to have hand carried film x-rayed. 

I have taken film into and out of Ireland, and 

England ( again with no problems). In fact leaving 

Ireland I was brought to a special room, where I 

lined up the cans. Opened up the untapped one 

Page 853


with the slug/test film and then the Security man 

just touched the outside each and every can of 

film. Without asking to examine it further. What I 

find usually happens is that, once you get to the 

hand inspection station, either they have the Bomb 

particle sniffer, or after two cans of film being 

checked in the bag, the line becomes so long 

behind me, that they just say, "go on through". 

It has only been on the Eurostar, and visiting 

England's Parliament where I had to have my film 

x-rayed ( the guards all thought my Bolex was 

rather cute, and they actually knew what it was). By 

the way, U.S. Monuments and the like will also X- 

ray. To enter The Statue of Liberty, we had to have 

the Panavision camera x-rayed ( they thought it 

was a lawn mower). Never had still film fogged yet, 

and I always forget about that and send it through. 

What about Using Fed-ex, or something of the like? 

Would that avoid the X-ray problem? 


Up-to-date doesn't necessarily equal weaker, or 

safer. The problem with the newer machines 

Page 854


(apparently also coming into use for hand 

luggage?) is their _variable_ strength. But I've 

noticed some airports now have notices advising 

you to submit film for hand inspection - previously 

it was "no exceptions" and "don't worry, this won't 

do any harm to your film". A glimmer of hope and 

enlightenment. 

The cumulative effect of multiple security checks is 

an important point, especially on faster film stocks. 

It's all a pain in the proverbial, (even for the 

humble holiday stills that I choose to bring home 

rather than process at some local 1 hour lab in the 

mall or street market). But in a tussle between 

fogged film and hijacked aircraft, film is going to 

come second most of the time. 

Dominic Case 

Page 855

Introduction - Cinematography Mailing List

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?